# Technical Support Document
for the Development of the 2007
Emission Inventory for Regional Air Quality Modeling
in the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region

Version 3.3

Prepared for:

Mid

- Atlantic Regional Air Management Association (MARAMA)

8600 LaSalle Road, Suite 636 Towson, MD 21286 (443) 901

- 1882

January 23, 2012 MARAMA Contract Agreement FY2011

- 004

Submitted by

AMEC Environment & Infrastructure SRA International, Inc. 4021 Stirrup Creek Drive 652 Peter Jefferson Parkway Suite 100 Sui te 300 Durham, NC 27703 Charlottesville, VA 22911 919 381

- 9900 571 499

- 0833

### Acknowledgements

This work was supported by funds provided to MARAMA by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under assistance agreement XA 973 51101

– Regional Cooperation and Assistance for Clean Air Act Implementation and by MARAMA’s Memorandum of Agreement with the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) , which is funded by USEPA grant agreement XA973181

– Regional Haze Planning in the Northeast and Mid

- Atlantic States (CFDA 66.034).

About MARAMA

The Mid

- Atlantic Regional Air Management Association, Inc. is a voluntary, non

- profit association of ten state and local air pollutio n control agencies. MARAMA's mission is to strengthen the skills and capabilities of member agencies and to help them work together to prevent and reduce air pollution in the Mid

- Atlantic Region. MARAMA provides cost

- effective approaches to regional colla boration by pooling resources to develop and analyze data, share ideas, and train staff to implement common requirements.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page i



## Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 1

1.1 INVENTORY PURPOSE

................................ ................................ ................................ 1
1.2 POLL UTANTS

................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 2
1.3 SOURCE CATEGORIES

................................ ................................ ................................ 2
1.4 DATA FORMATS

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 3
1.5 SUMMARY OF INVENTORY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

................................ ............ 4
1.6 REPORT ORGANIZATION

................................ ................................ ............................. 4

2.0 ANNUAL 2007 INVENTOR Y FOR POINT SOURCES

................................ ......................... 6

2.1 INITIAL DATA SOURCES AND QA REVIEW

................................ ................................ .. 6
2.1.1 Initial State NIF Submittals

................................ ................................ ...................... 6
2.1.2 EPA CAMD Hourly Emissions Data

................................ ................................ ........ 7
2.2 PM AUGMENTATION

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 9
2.2.1 EGU PM Augmentation

................................ ................................ .......................... 12
2.2.1.1 EGU Condensable Emission Factors

................................ ................................ . 12
2.2.1.2 EGU Heat Input

................................ ................................ ................................ . 14
2.2.1.3 EGU PM Emission Calculations

................................ ................................ ......... 14
2.2.2 NONEGU PM Augmentation

................................ ................................ .................. 17
2.2.2.1 Initial QA and Remediation of PM Pollutants

................................ ...................... 17
2.2.2.2 Updating of PM Factor Ratios

................................ ................................ ............ 17
2.2.2.3 NonEGU PM Emission Calculations

................................ ................................ ... 18
2.3 EMISSION RELEASE POINT QA CHECKS

................................ ................................ ... 20
2.3.1 QA Checks and Gap

- Filling for Location Coordinates

................................ ............ 20
2.3.2 QA Checks and Gap

- Filling for Emission Release Parameters

.............................. 21
2.4 IDENTIFICATION OF EGU S 

### AND NONEGU S



### ................................ ............................... 26
2.5 VERSION 2

- STAKEHOLDER COMMENT AND RESPONSE

................................ ....... 26
2.5.1 Connecticut Response to Stakeholder Comments

................................ ................. 26
2.5.2 Maryland Response to Stakeholder Comme nts

................................ ..................... 27
2.5.3 Massachusetts Response to Stakeholder Comments

................................ ............ 28
2.5.4 New Jersey Response to Stakeholder Comments

................................ ................. 28
2.5.5 New York Response to Stakeholder Comments

................................ .................... 30
2.5.6 Pennsylvania Response to Stakeholder Comme nts

................................ ............... 30
2.5.7 Virginia Response to Stakeholder Comments

................................ ........................ 31
2.6 VERSION 2

- ADDITIONAL STATE

- SPECIFIC UPDATES

................................ ............ 32
2.6.1 Connecticut

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 32
2.6.2 Delaware

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 33
2.6.3 District of Columbia

................................ ................................ ................................ 33
2.6.4 Maine

................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 33
2.6.5 Maryland

................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 33Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page ii



### 2.6.6 Massachusetts

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 33
2.6.7 Maine

................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 34
2.6.8 New Hampshire

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 34
2.6.9 New Jersey

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 34
2.6.10 Pennsylvania

– Allegheny County

................................ ................................ ...... 34
2.6.11 Pennsylvania

- Philadelphia

................................ ................................ ............... 35
2.6.12 Rhode Island

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 35
2.6.13 Vermont

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 35
2.6.14 Virginia

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 35
2.7 VERSION 3 REVISIONS

................................ ................................ ............................... 36
2.7.1 Emission Offsets

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 36
2.8 ANNUAL 2007 POINT SOURCE EMISSION SUMMARY

................................ ............... 36

3.0 HOURLY 2007 INVE NTORY FOR LARGE POIN T SOURCES

................................ .......... 44

3.1 DATA SOURCES FOR HOURLY EMISSIONS

................................ .............................. 44
3.1.1 2007 Annual Emission Inventory

................................ ................................ ............ 44
3.1.2 EPA CAMD Hourly Database

................................ ................................ ................. 44
3.1.3 Virginia Hourly Data for Distributed Generation Units

................................ ............ 45
3.1.4 Maryland Hourly Data for Six M onth Reporters

................................ ...................... 45
3.2 METHODOLOGY FOR DEVELOPING HOURLY SMOKE FILES

................................ .. 46
3.2.1 Conversion of Annual NIF Inventory to SMOKE ORL Format for PTINV

................ 46
3.2.2 PTHOUR Methodology for 12 Month Reporters

................................ ..................... 49
3.2.3 PTHOUR Methodology for 6 Month Reporters

................................ ....................... 50
3.2.4 PTHOUR Methodology for Maryland 6 Month Re porters

................................ ....... 51
3.2.5 PTHOUR Methodology for Virginia Distributed Generation Units

........................... 52
3.2.6 QA of PTINV and PTHOUR Files

................................ ................................ ........... 52
3.3 DEVELOPMENT OF HOURLY PROFILES FOR 6

- MONTH REPORTING UNITS

.......... 53
3.3.1 Annual Profile Preparation

................................ ................................ ..................... 53
3.3.2 Non

-

Annual Profile Development

................................ ................................ ........... 55
3.3.3 Issue for Consideration

................................ ................................ .......................... 56
3.4 VERSION 2

- STATE AND STAKEHOLDER REVIEW

................................ ................... 56
3.4.1 Massachusetts

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 56
3.4.2 New York

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 56
3.4.3 Pennsylvania

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 57
3.4.4 Virginia

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 57
3.5 VERSION 3 REVISIONS

................................ ................................ ............................... 58
3.5.1 Massachusetts Stony Brook Energy Center NH3 Emissions

................................ .. 58

4.0 ANNUAL 2007 INVE NTORY FOR AREA SOURC ES

................................ ........................ 59

4.1 AREA SOURCE CATEGORIES

................................ ................................ ..................... 59
4.2 USEPA AREA SOURCE DATA

................................ ................................ ..................... 64Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page iii



### 4.2.1 USEPA 2008 National Emission Inventory

................................ ............................. 65
4.2.2 EPA Residential Wood Combustion (RWC) Tool

................................ ................... 65
4.2.3 EPA CMU Agricultural Ammonia Model

................................ ................................ . 66
4.2.4 EPA SMARTFIRE Emissions Database

................................ ................................ . 66
4.3 STATE

- SPECIFIC DATA

................................ ................................ ............................... 67
4.4 VERSION 2: STATE AND STAKEHOLDER REVIEW AND COMMENT

......................... 72
4.4.1 National Park Service Comments

................................ ................................ .......... 72
4.4.2 Checks for Missing Categories, Double Counting, Outliers, and Differences
between 2002 and 2007 Inventories

................................ ................................ .................. 72
4.5 VERSION 3 REVISIONS

................................ ................................ ............................... 73
4.5.1 Use of New USEPA Road Dust Equation

................................ ............................... 73
4.5.2 Use of MOVES Model to Estimate Stage II Emissions

................................ ........... 74
4.5.3 Connecticut Changes for Fuel Combustion

................................ ............................ 75
4.5.4 Connecticut Revisions for AIM Coatings and Auto Refinishing

............................... 76
4.5.5 District of Columbia Residential Wood Combustion

................................ ............... 77
4.5.6 Maryland Degreasing VOC Emisions

................................ ................................ ..... 77
4.5.7 Massachusetts NH3 Emisions

................................ ................................ ............... 77
4.5.8 New Jersey Bakeries and Auto Refinishing VOC Emisions

................................ .... 77
4.5.9 New York VOC Emisions from Residential Wood Combustion

............................... 77
4.5.10 Pennsylvania Industrial Coal Combustion

................................ .......................... 77
4.5.11 Pennsylvania Residential Distillate Oil Combustion

................................ ............ 77
4.5.12 Virginia Industrial Coal Combustion

................................ ................................ ... 77
4.5.13 Multiple States Open Burning and Commercial Cooking

................................ .... 78
4.6 ANNUAL 2007 AREA SOURCE EMISSION SUMMARY

................................ ................ 78

5.0 ANNUAL 2007 INVE NTORY FOR NONROAD SO URCES INCLUDED IN TH E NONROAD
MODEL

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 8 7

5.1 NONROAD MODEL CA TEGORIES

................................ ................................ ............... 87
5.2 VERSION 2 INVENTORY DEVELOPMENT

................................ ................................ .. 87
5.2.1 State Review of NMIM Meteorology Data and Fuel Characteristics

....................... 87
5.2.2 Update of NMIM Allocation Files for Population and Housing

................................ 88
5.2.3 State

- Specific Data Incorporated in NMIM

................................ ............................. 89
5.2.3.1 Connecticut

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 89
5.2.3.2 Delaware

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 89
5.2.3.3 Mary land

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 90
5.2.3.4 New Hampshire

................................ ................................ ................................ . 90
5.2.4 New Jersey

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 90
5.2.4.1 New York

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 90
5.2.4.2 Pennsylvania

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 91
5.2.5 NMIM Run Specification

................................ ................................ ........................ 91
5.2.6 State and Stakeholder Review of Version 2

................................ ........................... 92Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page iv



### 5.2.6.1 Connecticut

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 92
5.2.6.2 New Jersey

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 92
5.2.7 Removal of Airport Ground Support Equipment Emissions

................................ .... 92
5.3 CHANGES MADE FOR VERSION 3

................................ ................................ .............. 92
5.4 SUMMARY OF NMIM MODELING RESULTS FOR 2007

................................ .............. 92

6.0 ANNUAL 2007 INVE NTORY FOR NONROAD SO URCES

– MARINE VESSELS, AIRPORTS, AND RAIL

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 102

6.1 COMMERCI AL MARINE VESSELS

................................ ................................ ............. 102
6.2 AIRPORTS (AIRCRAFT AND GROUND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT)

............................. 104
6.3 RAILROAD LOCOMOTIVES AND RAILYARDS

................................ .......................... 106
6.4 STAKEHOLDER REVIEW AND COMMENT

................................ ................................ 107
6.5 VERSION 3 REVISIONS

................................ ................................ ............................. 107
6.5.1 New Jersey MAR Revisions

................................ ................................ ................. 107
6.5.2 Adjustment of Rail VOC Emissions

................................ ................................ ...... 108
6.6 SUMMARY OF MAR INVENTORY FOR 2007

................................ ............................. 108

7.0 ANNUAL 2007 INVE NTORY FOR ONROAD SOU RCES

................................ ................. 116

7.1 OVERALL PROCESS TO DEVELOP THE ONROAD INVENTORY

............................. 116
7.2 MOVES MODEL RUN SPECIFICATIONS AND DOCUMENTATION

........................... 116
7.3 SUMMARY OF ONROAD INVENTORY

................................ ................................ ....... 116

8.0 PREPARATION OF S MOKE MODEL FILES

................................ ................................ ... 124

8.1 PREPARATION OF SMOKE EMISSION FILES

................................ ........................... 124
8.1.1 Point Source SMOKE Emission Files

................................ ................................ ... 124
8.1.2 Area Source SMOKE Emission Files

................................ ................................ ... 125
8.1.3 Nonroad NMIM SMOKE Emission Files

................................ ............................... 127
8.1.4 Nonroad MAR SMOKE Emission Files

................................ ................................ 127
8.1.5 Onroad SMOKE Emission Files

................................ ................................ ........... 127
8.1.1 Biogenic SMOKE Emission Files

................................ ................................ ......... 127
8.1.1 SMOKE Emission Files for Areas Outside of the MANE

- VU+VA Region

............. 127
8.2 REVIEW OF SMOKE AUXILIARY FILES

................................ ................................ ..... 127
8.2.1 SMOKE Speciation Files

................................ ................................ ...................... 128
8.2.2 SMOKE Spatial Allocation Files

................................ ................................ ........... 128
8.2.3 SMOKE Temporal Allocation Files

................................ ................................ ....... 129

9.0 FINAL DELIVERABL ES

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 131

10.0 REFERENCES

................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 136Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page v



## List of Appendices

Appendix A CAMD to NIF Crosswalk Aug12_2010.xls Appendix B Technical Memorandum

- EFs for CPM from EGUs.doc Appendix C SCC_Control_Device_PM_Ratios.xls Appendix D Stack_SCC_Defaults.xls Appendix E VDEQ Conceptual Description for DG draft March 15, 2010.doc Appendix F NESCAUM 2007 2020 MOVES modeling 20111209 PM.doc Appendix G Stage_II_Controls.xlsx Appendix H MANEVU_VA SMOKE QA Memo 17Dec2010.doc



## List of Exhibits

Exhibit 2. 1

– PM Compound Descriptions

Exhibit 2. 2

– PM Compounds Reported in State Initial Submittals

Exhibit 2. 3

- Emission Factors Used to Estimate EGU Condensable PM Emissions

Exhibit 2. 4

– Cases and Steps Required to Augment EGU PM Emissions

Exhibi t 2. 5

– Cases and Steps Required to Augment nonEGU PM Emissions

Exhibit 2. 6

- Stack Parameter Data Replacement Matrix

Exhibit 2. 7

– 2002 and 2007 Point Source CO Emissions by State

Exhibit 2. 8

– EGU and nonEGU 2007 Point Source CO Emissions by State

Exhibit 2. 9

– 2002 and 2007 Point Source NH3 Emissions by State

Exhibit 2. 10

– EGU and nonEGU 2007 Point Source NH3 Emissions by State

Exhibit 2. 11

– 2002 and 2007 Point Source NOx Emissions by State

Exhibit 2. 12

– EGU and nonEGU 2007 Point Source NOx Em issions by State

Exhibit 2. 13

– 2002 and 2007 Point Source PM10

- PRI Emissions by State

Exhibit 2. 14

– EGU and nonEGU 2007 Point Source PM10

- PRI Emissions by State

Exhibit 2. 15

– 2002 and 2007 Point Source PM25

- PRI Emissions by State

Exhibit 2. 16

– EGU an d nonEGU 2007 Point Source PM25

- PRI Emissions by State

Exhibit 2. 17

– 2002 and 2007 Point Source SO2 Emissions by State

Exhibit 2. 18

– EGU and nonEGU 2007 Point Source SO2 Emissions by State

Exhibit 2. 19

– 2002 and 2007 Point Source VOC Emissions by StateTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page vi



### Exhibit 2. 20

– EGU and nonEGU 2007 Point Source VOC Emissions by State

Exhibit 3.1

– SMOKE ORL Format for PTINV

Exhibit 3.2

– SMOKE EMS

- 95 Traditional Foramt for Individual Hour

- Specific Files

Exhibit 3.3

– Example Application of Calculated Ratios for A ctual 2007 by Month

Exhibit 3.4

- Example SMOKE Profile for Monthly Distribution of New York Annual Emissions Using Heat Input

Exhibit 3.5

- Example SMOKE profile for Adjusted Monthly Distribution of New York Seasonal Emissions Using Heat Input

Exhibit 4. 1

– Area Source Category Definitions

Exhibit 4.2

– Values Contained in the DATA_SOURCE Field of the EM Table

Exhibit 4.3

– Data Sources Generally Used by Each State for Each Area Source Category

Exhibit 4.4

– Comparison of 2007 Paved Road Dust PM10 and PM2.5 Emission Estimates

Exhibit 4.5

– Comparison of 2007 Vehicle Refueling Emissions using NMIM and MOVES

Exhibit 4. 6

– 2002 and 2007 Area Source CO Emissions by State

Exhibit 4. 7

– 2007 Area Source CO Emissions by Category and State

Exhibit 4. 8

– 2002 and 2007 Area Source NH3 Emissions by State

Exhibit 4. 9

– 2007 Area Source NH3 Emissions by Category and State

Exhibit 4. 10

– 2002 and 2007 Area Source NOx Emissions by State

Exhibit 4. 11

– 2007 Area Source NOx Emissions by Category and State

Exhib it 4.1 2

– 2002 and 2007 Area Source PM10

- PRI Emissions by State

Exhibit 4.1 3

– 2007 Area Source PM10

- PRI Emissions by Category and State

Exhibit 4.1 4

– 2002 and 2007 Area Source PM25

- PRI Emissions by State

Exhibit 4.1 5

– 2007 Area Source PM25

- PRI Emissions by Category and State

Exhibit 4.1 6

– 2002 and 2007 Area Source SO2 Emissions by State

Exhibit 4.1 7

– 2007 Area Source SO2 Emissions by Category and State

Exhibit 4.1 8

– 2002 and 2007 Area Source VOC Emissions by State

Exhibit 4.1 9

– 2007 Area Source VOC E missions by Category and State

Exhibit 5.1

– Gasoline Fuel Record Types Add to MySQL NCD Database

Exhibit 5.2

– Sources of Population and Housing Data

Exhibit 5. 3

– 2002 and 2007 NMIM/NONROAD CO Emissions by State

Exhibit 5.4

– 2007 NMIM Source CO Emissions by Category and State

Exhibit 5. 5

– 2002 and 2007 NMIM/NONROAD NH3 Emissions by StateTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page vii



### Exhibit 5.6

– 2007 NMIM Source NH3 Emissions by Category and State

Exhibit 5. 7

– 2002 and 2007 NMIM/NONROAD NOx Emissions by State

Exhibit 5.8

– 2007 NMIM Source NOx Emissions by Category and State

Exhibit 5. 9

– 2002 and 2007 NMIM/NONROAD PM10

- PRI Emissions by State

Exhibit 5.10

– 2007 NMIM Source PM10

- PRI Emissions by Category and State

Exhibit 5. 11

– 2002 and 2007 NMIM/NONROAD PM25

- PRI Emissions by St ate

Exhibit 5.12

– 2007 NMIM Source PM25

- PRI Emissions by Category and State

Exhibit 5. 13

– 2002 and 2007 NMIM/NONROAD SO2 Emissions by State

Exhibit 5.14

– 2007 NMIM Source SO2 Emissions by Category and State

Exhibit 5. 15

– 2002 and 2007 NMIM/NONROAD VOC Emissions by State

Exhibit 5.16

– 2007 NMIM Source VOC Emissions by Category and State

Exhibit 6.1

– Data Sources for Commercial Marine Vessel Inventory

Exhibit 6.2

– Data Sources for Airport Inventory

Exhibit 6.3

– Data Sources for Railroad Locomotive and Railyard Inventory

Exhibit 6.4

– 2002 and 2007 MAR CO Emissions by State

Exhibit 6.5

– 2002 and 2007 MAR NH3 Emissions by State

Exhibit 6.6

– 2002 and 2007 MAR NOx Emissions by State

Exhibit 6.7

– 200 2 and 2007 MAR PM10

- PRI Emissions by State

Exhibit 6.8

– 2002 and 2007 MAR PM25

- PRI Emissions by State

Exhibit 6.9

– 2002 and 2007 MAR SO2 Emissions by State

Exhibit 6.10

– 2002 and 2007 MAR VOC Emissions by State

Exhibit 7.1

– MOVES Modeling Approach by State

Exhibit 7.2

– 2002 and 2007 Onroad CO Emissions by State

Exhibit 7.3

– 2002 and 2007 Onroad NH3 Emissions by State

Exhibit 7.4

– 2002 and 2007 Onroad NOx Emissions by State

Exhibit 7.5

– 2002 and 2007 Onroad PM10

- PRI Emissions by State

Exhibit 7.6

– 2002 and 2007 Onroad PM25

- PRI Emissions by State

Exhibit 7.7

– 2002 and 2007 Onroad SO2 Emissions by State

Exhibit 7.8

– 2002 and 2007 Onroad VOC Emissions by State

Exhibit 8.1

– Comparison of 2007 Area Source Emissions With and Without the Application of the Fugitive Dust Transport FactorTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page viii



### Exhibit 9.1

– NIF Data and Emission Summary Files for the 2007 MANE

- VU+VA Emission Inventory

Exhibit 9. 2

– SMOKE Files for the 2007 MANE

- VU+VA Emission InventoryTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page ix



## A cronyms and Abbreviations

Acronym Description

CAMD Clean Air Markets Division ( US EPA)
CAP Criteria Air Pollutant
CEM Continuous Emission Monitoring
CMV Commercial Marine Vessel
CO Carbon Monoxide
EGU Electric Generating Unit
ERTAC Eastern Regional Technical Advisory Co mmittee
FIPS Federal Information Processing Standard
GSE Ground Support Equipment

MANE

- VU Mid

- Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union

MANE

- VU+VA MANE

- VU States plus Virginia

MAR Marine, Airport, Rail

MARAMA Mid

- Atlantic Regional Air Management Association
MOBILE6 USEPA model
MOVES Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator
NAICS North American Industry Classification System code
NCD National County Database

NEI National Emission Inventory
NESCAUM Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management

NH3 Ammonia
NIF3.0 National Emission Inventory Input Format Version 3.0

NMIM National Mobile Input Model

N O F3.0 National Emission Inventory Output Format Version 3.0
NONROAD USEPA model
NOx Oxides of nitrogen
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (USEPA)
ORL One

- record

- per

- line (SMOKE Format)
OTAQ Office of Transportation and Air Quality ( US EPA)
PFC Portable Fuel Container

PM

- CON Primary PM, Condensable portion only (all < 1 micron)

PM

- FIL Primary PM, Filterable portion only

PM

- PRI Primary PM, includes filterables and condensable s

PM

- PRI= PM

- FIL + PM

- CON

PM10

- FIL Primary PM10, Filterable portion only

PM10

- PRI Primary PM10, includes filterables and condensable s ,

PM10

- PRI = PM0

- FIL + PM

- CONTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page x

Acronym Description

PM25

- FIL Primary PM2.5, Filterable portion only

PM25

- PRI Primary PM2.5, includes filterables and condens a bles

PM25

- PRI= PM25

- FIL + PM

- CON
RWC Residential Wood Combustion
SEMAP Southeast Modeling, Analysis and Planning
SIC Standard Industrial Classification code
SIP State Implementation Plan
SCC Source Classification Code
S/L State/local
SMOKE Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions
SO2 Sulfur Dioxide
USEPA U.S Environmental Protection Agency
VISTAS Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the Southeast

VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
VOC Volatile O rganic C ompoundsTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 1



## 1.0 INTRODUCTION

This technical support document (TSD) explains the data sources, methods, and results for preparing the 2007 criteria air pollutant (CAP) and ammonia (NH3) emission inventory for
the Northeast and Mid

- Atlantic/Northeast region. The region includes the Mid

- Atlantic / Northeast Visibility Union (MANE

- VU) area plus Virginia. In this document, this region
will be referred to as the MANE

- VU+VA region. The MANE

- VU+VA region includes Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Massa chusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Virginia. Local air planning agencies include Philadelphia and Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.

1.1 INVENTORY PURPOSE

The MANE

- VU+VA regional inventory will be used to co ncurrently address national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) requirements for the new ozone and fine particle
ambient standards and to evaluate progress towards long

- term regional haze goals. S imilar pollutant emissions and atmospheric processes contr ol chemical formation and transport of ozone, fine particles, and regional haze . Therefore , similar technical analyses are necessary to evaluate air quality benefits of emissions controls. The emissions inventory will support a single integrated, one

- atm osphere air quality modeling platform to support
S tate air quality attainment demonstrations

. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has provided guidance on developing emission inventories to be used with models and other analyses for
demonstrat ing attainment of air quality goals for ozone, fine particles, and regional haze ( US EPA 2007 a ). According to the USEPA guidance, there are potentially two different base year emissions inventories. One is the base case inventory which represents the actua l emissions for the meteorological period that is being modeled. Th is inventory is generally
used for model performance evaluations. The second potential base year inventory is
called the baseline inventory

, which i s generally used as the basis for proje cting emissions
to the future. The base case inventory may include day specific information (e.g. hourly continuous emission monitoring data for point sources ) that USEPA considers
in appropriate for using in future year projections. Therefore

, the baseli ne inventory may need to replace the day specific emissions with average or “typical” emissions (for certain types of sources) . For the 2007 MANE

- VU+VA inventory, the base case and baseline
inventor ies are one in the same

.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 2



### 1.2 POLLUTANTS

The inventory inclu des annual emissions for carbon monoxide (CO), ammonia (NH3), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), particulate matter (PM), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and volatile organic compounds (VOC). The PM species in the inventory are categorized as: filterable
and condensable particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 and 2.5 micrometers (i.e., PM10

- PRI and PM25

- PRI); filterable particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 and 2.5 micrometers (i.e., PM10

- FIL and PM25

- F IL); and condensable particles (PM

- CON). Note that PM10

- PRI equals
the sum of PM10

- FIL and PM

- CON, and PM25

- PRI equals the sum of PM25

- FIL and
PM

- CON.

1.3 SOURCE CATEGORIES

Emission inventory data from five general categories are needed to support air quality modeling: stationary point

- source s , stationary area

- source s , on

- road mobile sources,
nonroad mobile sources (including aircraft, railroad, and marine vessels), and biogenic/geogenic emissions. These sectors are described as follows:

Point Source s are i ndividual facilities and are further subdivided by stack, emission unit (“ point” ), and emission process ( “segment” ). The point source data
include source

- specific information on the location of sources (e.g., latitude/longitude coordinates); stack paramet ers (stack diameter and height, exit gas temperature and velocity); type of emission process ( S ource C lassification
C ode {SCC}); and annual emissions

. Point sources were classified as electric generating units (EGUs) and non

- electric generating units (non EGUs). Most point source emissions data is certified by the facility and reported to the State agency or
USEPA.

Stationary Area Source s include sources that in and of themselves are small , but in aggregate may comprise significant emissions. Examples inc lude emissions
from small industrial/commercial facilities, residential heating furnaces , VOCs volatizing from house painting or consumer products , gasoline service stations, and agricultural fertilizer/pesticide application

. Emissions were calculated usi ng emission factors and activity data on a county and source category basis

.

On

- r oad Mobile Source emissions include sources of air pollution from internal combustion engines used to propel cars, trucks, buses, and other vehicles on public roadways. Emissions were calculated by the Northeast States for Coordinated AirTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 3



### Use Management (NESCAUM) using the USEPA Motor Vehic le Emission Simulator (MOVES) model in concert with vehicle miles traveled (VMT) data

.

N on - r oad M obile S ources include i nternal combustion engines used to prop e l marine vessels, airplanes, and locomotives, or to operate equipment such as forklifts, lawn and garden equipment, portable generators, etc. For activities other
than marine vessels, airplanes, and locomotives

, the inventory was developed using
the most current version of US EPA’s NONROAD model as embedded in the National Mobile Inventory Model (N MIM)

. Since the NONROAD model does not
include emissions from marine vessels, airplanes, and locomotives , these emissions

were estimated using the latest USEPA guidance or by groups such as the Eastern Regional Technical Advisory Committee ( ERTAC )

. Biog enic emissions are emitted by natural sources, such as plants, trees, and soils. The sharp scent of pine needles, for instance, is caused by monoterpenes, which are
VOCs. The USEPA developed estimate s of biogenic emissions fr om vegetation for natural areas, crops, and urban vegetation. The USEPA estimates t ake into account the geographic variations in vegetation land cover and species composition, as well
as seasonal variations in leaf cover.

For all sectors, emissions data w ere compiled on a n annual basis to represent 2007 actual emissions and meteorology. For certain large EGUs and nonEGUs, actual hourly 2007
emissions data were adapted for use in the inventory . For sources with emissions estimated by NONROAD model, emissi ons were compiled as monthly total emissions. For sources included in the MOVES model, emissions w ill be compiled on a n hourly b asis.

1.4 DATA FORMATS

The annual mass emissions inventory files were prepared in the National Emissions Inventory (NEI) Output For mat Version 3.0 (NOF 3.0). The se annual emission inventories
will be converted (through the emissions modeling process ) from their original resolution (e.g., annual, county level ) to input files for air quality models. These input files generally require emissions to be specified by model grid cell, hour, and model chemical species.
The emission modelers in the MANE

- VU+VA region are using the Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions (SMOKE) modeling system and data formats. Ancillary files (holding spati al, temporal, and speciation profile data) were prepared in SMOKE compatible format. Various spreadsheets summarizing emissions by county, sector, SCC

, and pollutant were also prepared.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 4



### 1.5 SUMMARY OF INVENTORY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

Work on Version 1 of the 2 007 MANE

- VU+VA inventory began in April 2009. Preparation of the consolidated inventory for point, area, onroad, and nonroad sources started with the inventories submitted by State and local (S/L) as well as input files needed by the NONROAD and MOVES mod els. For certain area and nonroad source categories, the S/L submittals were supplemented 2008 N EI d ata . In addition, the Carnegie Mellon
Ammonia model was exercised to calculate agricultural ammonia emissions. Work products developed by ERTAC were used including the USEPA wood smoke tool and the Area Source emission factor harmonization project.

The USEPA’s format and content quality assurance (QA) programs (and other QA checks
not included in USEPA ’s QA software) were run to identify format and/or data content issues (EPA, 2004). The Contractor worked with the S/L agencies and the staff of the Mid

Atlantic Regional Air Management Association (MARAMA) to resolve QA issues and augment the inventories to fill data gaps in accordance with the Quality Assurance Project Plan prepared for this project.

Work on Version 2 began with a stakeholder review process. Version 1 inventor y and summary files were provided for stakeholder review between October 2009 and August 2010. Stakeholder comments were reviewed by the S/L agencies and revisions to the
inve ntory files were made to incorporate stakeholder comments as approved by each S/L agency. Other corrections, revisions, or updates were supplied by the S/L agencies, which resulted in the publication of Version 2 of the 2007 i nventor y in February 2011 (MA RAMA 2011)

. Further revisions to the 2007 inventory were made in late 2011 . The most significant changes were to use an improved emission estimation methodology for re

- entrained road dust from paved roads , incorporate vehicle refueling emissions as calculated by MOVES,
amd correct errors used in the NMIM modeling of nonroad emissions. Other revisions were made to correct minor errors or revisions to selected categories as identified by the S/L agencies. These revisons resulted in the publication of Version 3 of the 2007 inventory in December 2011.

1.6 REPORT ORGANIZATION

This report documents the development of Version 1 of the 2007 inventory, as well as the revisions made during the Version 2 and Version 3 update cycles. Sections 2 and 3 of this TSD present the general and State

- specific methods and data sources used to develop the
MAN E

- VU+VA 2007 annual inventory for point sources and hourly emissions for largeTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 5



### point sources, respectively. Sections 4 thr ough 7 present the methods and data used to develop the inventory for area sources, nonroad marine vessel/airport/locomotive sources, nonroad sources included in the NONROAD model, and onroad sources included in the
MOVES model. Section 8 documents the in ventory, temporal allocation, speciation, and spatial allocation modeling input files used for the MANE

- VU+VA 2007 inventory for all
sectors. Section 9 identifies the file names for all final deliverable products. References for the TSD are provided in S ection 1 0

.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 6



## 2.0 ANNUAL 2007 INVENTORY FOR POINT SOURCES

2.1 INITIAL DATA SOURCES AND QA REVIEW

T he 2007 annual point source inventory was developed using the 2007 inventories that S/L agencies submitted to MARAMA and data from the USEPA ’s Clean Air Markets Divis ion (CAMD) hourly emissions database

.

2.1.1 Initial State NIF Submittals
State and local (S/L) agencies prepared and submitted emission inventory files in the National Emissions Inventory (NEI) Input Format Version 3.0 (NIF 3.0). The NIF format includes eig ht tables: Transmittal (TR), Site (SI), Emission Unit (EU), Emission Release Point (ER), Emission Process (EP), Emission Period (PE), Emission (EM), and Control Equipment (CE). States were requested to submitted 2007 data for those major sources
that the y would normally submit to USEPA during the 3

- year requirements of the Consolidated Emission Reporting Rule. All 13 MANE

- VU+VA agencies submitted point source inventories to MARAMA. In addition, Allegheny and Philadelphia Counties in Pennsylvania each su bmitted their own point source inventories.

Upon receipt of the NIF submittals, the Contractor performed an initial review of the S/L
inventories with the following QA checks:

EPA’s Basic Format and Content Checker tool was used to verify f ormat and check
for referential integrity and duplicate record issues . Only very minor issues were
identified and were resolved by the Contractor without the need for S/L assistance.

Facility

- level comparisons were made between the MANE

- VU /VISTAS Best and
Fin al 2002 inventories and the S/L 2007 submittals to identify facilities included in the 2002 inventory but not in the 2007 inventory

. F or four S/L agencies (NY, PA, Allegheny and Philadelphia Counties), the number of facilities included in the 2007
were far less than the number of facilities reported in 2002 . T hese S/L agencies provided revised files with a lower facility emission cutoff level to ensure that all major sources were included in the 2007 inventory . S/L agencies were asked to
review this list and confirmed that facilities not in the 2007 inventory were either closed or included in the area source inventory.

Facility

- level comparisons were made between the MANE

- VU /VISTAS 2002 inventories and the S/L 2007 submittals to identify facilities include d in the 2007 inventory but not in the 2002 inventory. S/L agencies verified the r easonableness
of this list of sources.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 7



### Facility

- level comparisons were made between the MANE

- VU /VISTAS 2002 inventories and the S/L 2007 submittals to identify facilities th at were included in both the 2002 inventory and 2007 inventory. Facility

- level emission changes were calculated, large differences between 2002 and 2007 emissions were flagged, and S/L agencies review ed and confirmed the reasonableness of the emission cha nges between 2002 and 2007.

Facility

- level ammonia emissions were obtained from the USEPA 2007 Toxic Release Inventory (USEPA 2009a) and were compared to the ammonia emissions in the S/L agency submittal. S /L agencies review ed the TRI data to ensure tha t large (> 100 tons per year) ammonia sources we re included in the 2007 MANE

VU+VA inventory.

Following this initial QA review, t hese individual inventory files were consolidated into a single NIF data base . S/L responses and updates to the inventory fi les resulting from the
initial QA review are discussed later in this document.

2.1.2 EPA CAMD Hourly Emissions Data

The second source of data was the hourly emissions data reported to USEPA by facilities to comply with various provisions of the Clean Air Act

. MARAMA downloaded the 2007
CAMD annual inventory containing NOx and SO2 emissions, heat input data and other information from the CAMD web site in May 2009.

MARAMA prepared an initial crosswalk file to match facilities and units in the CAMD inventory to facilities and units in the 2002 MANE

- VU Version 3 inventory. In the CAMD inventory, the Office of Regulatory Information Systems (ORIS) identification (ID) code identifies unique facilities and the unit ID identifies unique boilers and internal combust ion engines (i.e., turbines and reciprocating engines). MARAMA sent an Excel Workbook to each S/L agencies that contained an initial crosswalk with the ORIS ID and unit ID in the
CAMD inventory matched to the state and county FIPS, state facility ID, and EU ID in the
2002 MANE

- VU Version 3 inventory. The crosswalk contained the annual 2007 NOx, SO2, and heat input (except for those units that are required to report for only 6 months,
wherein the data were for the 6 month period). The crosswalk also inclu ded other information from the 2002 MANVEU inventory, including stack and location coordinates.

Agencies reviewed and confirm ed /correct ed /supplement ed the information in the crosswalk, provide d annual 2007 emissions for the 6

- month CAMD reporting units, and provide d 2007 annual emissions for other CAPs and NH3

. The crosswalk was provided to the Contractor who updated the crosswalk as follows:Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 8



### In most of the S/L inventories, the state and county FIPS and state facility ID together identify unique facilit ies and the EU ID identifies unique boilers or internal combustion engines. However, in some of the S/L inventories, the emissions for multiple EUs were summed and reported under the same EU ID. To provide a better linkage between the CAMD data and the S /L inventories, the
Contractor worked with States to establish the crosswalk at the EU ID / EP ID / ER ID. This effort resulted in a much better linkage between the CAMD and S/L
inventories.

In several cases, the EU ID / EP ID / ER ID identifiers in the 2002 MANVU inventory were changed in the 2007 S/L agency submittals. The Contractor worked with the S/L agencies to correct these broken linkages by updating the EU ID / EP
ID /ER ID identifie s as necessary.

The Contractor downloaded the 200 7 C AMD hourly inventory containing hourly NOx and SO2 emissions and heat input data from the CAMD website (USEPA
2009 b ). The Contractor summed the hourly emissions to the annual level (or 6

- month level for 6

- month reporting units) by emission unit. The summed hourly data was compared to the annual summary data, which matched in virtually all cases. This check was made because MARAMA is considering using the actual 2007 hourly data rather than average t emporal profiles in the next round of regional air quality modeling.

As another QA check, the Contractor compiled a list of sources with EGU SCCs of
1

- 01

- xxx

- xx and 2

- 01

- xxx

- xx in the State NIF tables that could not be linked to the
CAMD table. States r eview ed this list and verif ied that there are no large EGUs
miss ing from the CAMD to NIF crosswalk

.

The Contractor prepared a CAMD

- to

- NIF crosswalk spreadsheet for each State.
A agencies were asked to review this list and verify that (1) the linkages are c orrect, (2)
there are no large sources miss ing from the CAMD

- to

- NIF crosswalk, and (3) there are not discrepancies between the emissions reported to CAMD and the emissions reported in the
SEMAP database.

There are three types of possible linkages:

CAMD facility has no match in NIF SI facility table. The emissions from these facilities reported to CAMD are small, and initially accounted for about 0.5%
of the NOx and 0.07% of the SO2 emissions in the CAMD database.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 9



### CAMD unit could not be matched in NIF . The emissions from these facilities reported to CAMD were small, accounting for about 0.9% of the NOx and
0.007% of the SO2 emissions in the CAMD database. Most of the units that could not be matched at the unit level are either peaking units or indust rial sources such as paper mills or chemical plants. In addition, there were several instances where multiple CAMD units match to a single NIF record (i.e., units are grouped in the NIF tables but reported individually in the CAMD database).

CAMD unit mat ches with a single NIF record or CAMD unit matches with multiple NIF records (in many cases, the NIF tables include multiple records for different fuel types). The emissions from these units reported to CAMD
account for about 98.6% of the NOx and 99.9% of the SO2 emissions in the CAMD database. In most cases the sum of the emissions from the matching NIF records are generally very close to the CAMD unit level emissions; and S/L agencies verified that linkages were correct.

As another QA check, the Contrac tor compiled a list of sources with EGU SCCs of 1

- 01

-

xxx

- xx and 2

- 01

- xxx

- xx in the S/L agency NIF tables that could not be linked to the CAMD CEM table to help resolve some of the linkage issues noted above. S/L agencies
made significant efforts to improv e the crosswalk between the CAMD identifiers and the S/L agency identifiers. Appendix A contains the current version of the crosswalk.

2.2 PM AUGMENTATION

PM compounds may be reported in several forms, as identified in Exhibit 2. 1. Exhibit 2. 2 provides a count of the n umber of a nnual NIF EM table r ecords in each a gency’s NIF
Submittal by type of PM compound. The PM augmentations process was necessary to

gap

- fill missing PM pollutant complements. For example, if a S/L agency provided only
PM10

- PRI emissions , the PM augmentation process filled in the PM25

- PRI emissions

.

A second aspect of the PM augmentation process wa s to utilize improve d condensable
emission factors for EGUs. C ondensable emissions were not calculated uniformly across
all states in the MANE

- VU region in the 2002 emissions inventory. Because of the need to model the effect of condensable emissions on regional haze and fine particles, MARAMA
instructed the Contractor to use recently updated emission factors for condensable
emissio ns from EGUs.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 10



### Exhibit 2. 1

– PM Compound Description s

Pollutant Code Pollutant Pollutant Description

PM

- CON Primary PM

Condensable portion only (all < 1 micron) Material that is vapor phase at stack conditions, but which condenses and/or reacts upon cooling and dilution in the ambient air to form solid or liquid PM immediately after discharge from the stack.

PM

- FIL Primary PM, Filterable

portion only Particles that are directly emitted by a source as a solid or liquid at stack or release conditions and captured on the filter of a stack test train.

PM

- PRI Primary PM, includes

filterables and condensable s PM

- PRI= PM

- FIL + PM

- CON Particles that enter the atmosphere as a direct emission from a stack or an open source. It is comprised of two components: Filterable PM and Condensable PM.

PM10

- FIL Primary PM10,

Filterable portion only Particles with an aerodynamic diameter equal to or less than 10 micrometers that are directly emitted by a source as a solid or liquid at stack or release conditions and captured on the filter of a stack test train.

PM10

- PRI Primary PM10,

includes filterables and condensable s, PM10

- PRI = PM0

- FIL + PM

- CON Particles with an aerodynamic diameter equal to or less than 10 micrometers that enter the atmosphere as a direct emission from a stack or an open source. It is comprised of two components: Filterable PM and Condensable PM. (As specified in § 51.15 (a)(2), These two PM components are the components measured by a stack sampling train such as USEPA Method 5.)

PM25

- FIL Primary PM2.5,

Filterable portion only Particles with an aerodynamic diameter equal to or less than 2.5 micrometers that are directly emitted by a source as a solid or liquid at stack or release conditions and captured on the filter of a stack test train.

PM25

- PRI Primary PM2.5,

includes filterables and condensable s PM25

- PRI= PM25

- FIL + PM

- CON Particles with an aerodynamic diameter equal to or less than 2.5 micrometers that enter the atmosphere as a direct emission from a stack or an open source. It is comprised of two components: Filterable PM and Condensable PM. (As specified in § 51.15 (a)(2) , These two PM components are the components measured by a stack sampling train such as USEPA Method 5.)Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 11



### Exhibit 2. 2

– PM Compounds Reported in State Initial Submittals

Number of Annual EM Records in Agency’s Initial NIF Submittal

Agency PM

- CON PM

- FIL PM

- PRI PM10

- FIL PM10

- PRI PM25

- FIL PM25

- PRI

CT 1

--- --- --- 122 1,300

--- 5

DE 449

--- --- 886 756 734 699

DC 70

--- --- 70 70 70 70

ME

--- 9

--- 1,150

--- 1,053

---

MD 1,265

--- --- 3,543 3,750 3,040 2,477

MA

--- --- 6 6,614

--- 5,930

---

NH

--- 463

--- 464

--- 461

---

NJ

--- --- 5,966

--- 5,848

--- ---

NY

--- --- 1,220

--- 1,201

--- ---

PA

--- --- --- --- 5,738

--- 3,949

Allegheny 2 434 881

--- 881

--- 836

---
Philadelphia

--- --- --- 1,178 27 351 21

RI 12 12 105 12 46 12 48

VT

--- 64

--- --- --- --- ---

VA 3

--- --- --- 5,204

--- 3,302

---

After reviewing the initial draft inventory that was posted in October, 2009, three agencies provided the following changes to their initial submittals. These changes are reflected in the record counts in the above
table . The PM augmentation routine was re

- executed to account for these changes.

1) Connecticut indicated that the PM records in their original submittal for oil and coal

- fired boilers
should have been submitted as PM10

- FIL and not PM10

- P RI. All natural gas

- fired units and oil

- fired turbines were correctly reported as PM10

- PRI. 2) Allegheny County provided information on 31 additional facilities that were not included in their original submittal. 3) Virginia indicated that all of the PM records in their original submittal used incorrect pollutant codes. Records in the original submittal designated as PM10

- PRI should have been submitted as PM10

- FIL,
and PM25

- PRI should have been PM25

- FIL.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 12



### The PM augmentation process was divided into two compon ents

– the first applying to EGUs and the second to all other point sources. EGUs were identified as those units that supplied hourly data to USEPA’s CAMD database. Because of the differences in the augmentation process for EGUs and nonEGUs, each process is discussed separately in the following sections. The EGU process uses the updated condensable emission factors, while the nonEGU process is essentially the same process used in developing the 2002
MANE

- VU Version 3 inventory.

2.2.1 EGU PM A ugmentation

The EGU PM augmentation process utilized the recently updated condensable emission factors for EGUs developed for MARAMA in 2008. Appendix B contains the technical memorandum describing how the emission factors were developed. The general process is

to use the emission factors and heat input to calculate the PM

- CON emissions, and then to perform the gap filling for compounds missing from the S/L submittal.

2.2.1.1 

### EGU Condensable Emission Factors
As described in Appendix B, two sets of emission factors were developed by 6

- digit SCC corresponding to equipment type (boiler or IC engine) and fuel type. The first set is based

on all available source tests, while the second set includes only source tests where nitrogen purging occurred. As described in more detail in Appendix B, i n measuring condensable
PM from combustion of fuels containing sulfur, it has been shown by USEPA that SO2 collected in the impingers can be oxidized to sulfate and produce a variable sulfate artifact
that results i n overestimation of condensable emissions. In this example, if impingers are not purged with nitrogen, errors associated with the sulfate artifact may be inflated resulting in an overestimation of condensable PM emissions

.

Exhibit 2. 3 shows the e mission f actors considered for use in e stimat ing EGU c ondensable

PM e missions . It shows the new emission factors developed using all available test data as well as the emission factors based only on those tests that utilized a nitrogen purge. In
addition , emission factors are available from USEPA ’s AP

- 42 emission factor document. The emission factors actually used in the augmentation process are highlighted in bold in
Exhibit 2. 3. Emission factors based on purged test were used where available; otherwis e the emission factors based on all tests were used. Since Appendix B did not provide a condensable PM emission factors for residual oil, we used the AP

- 42 condensable PM
emission factor for residual oil.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 13



### Exhibit 2. 3

- Emission Factors Used to Estimate EGU Condensable PM Emissions

Emission Factor (lbs/mmBtu)

SCC (6

- digit) SCC (6

- digit) Description MARAMA 1 All Tests MARAMA 1

Purged Tests Only AP

- 42 2

1

- 01

- 001 1

- 02

- 001 Boiler / EGU / Anthracite Coal

Boiler / Industrial / Anthracite Coal 0.0084

--- ---

1

- 01

- 002 1

- 02

- 002 1

- 03

- 002 Boiler / EGU / Bituminous/ Sub

- butuminous Coal

Boiler / Industrial / Bituminous/Subbit. Coal Boiler / Commercial / Bituminous/Subbit. Coal 0.022 0.013 0.04 to 0.37 3 depending on sulfur content

1

- 01

- 003 1

- 02

- 003 Boiler / EGU / Lignite

Boiler / Industrial / Lignite 0.039

--- 0.014

1

- 01

- 004 1

- 02

- 004 Boiler / EGU / #6 Fuel Oil

Boiler / Industrial / #6 Fuel Oil --- --- 0.01

1

- 01

- 005 1

- 02

- 005 1

- 03

- 005 Boiler / Industrial / #2 Fuel Oil

Boiler / Commercial / #2 Fuel Oil Boiler / EGU / #2 Fuel Oil 0.014

--- 0.00928

1

- 01

- 006 1

- 02

- 006 1

- 03

- 006 Boiler / EGU / Natural Gas

Boiler / Industrial / Natural Gas Boiler / Commercial / Natural Gas 0.00249

--- 0.00559

1

- 01

- 008 Boiler / EGU / Petroleum Coke 0.05

--- ---
2

- 01

- 001 2

- 01

- 009 2

- 02

- 009 IC Engine / EGU/ Fuel Oil

IC Engine / EGU/ Kerosene IC Engine / Industrial / Kerosene 0.013 0.01 0.0072

2

- 01

- 002 2

- 02

- 002 2

- 03

- 002 IC Engine / EGU / Natural Gas

IC Engine / Industrial/ Natural Gas IC Engine / Commercial / Natural Gas 0.005 0.0015 0.0047

1) Source: Emissions Factors for Condensable Particulate Matter Emissions from Electric Generating Units ; memo dated August 20, 2008, from Ar thur Werner (MACTEC) to Julie McDill (MARAMA). In accordance with USEPA guidance, CPM emissions determined from Method 202 tests that apply nitrogen purging are more reliable than results from tests where purging was not used. 2) Source: AP 42, Fifth Edition, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources

. 3) Based on typical bituminous sulfur content range of 0.7 to 4.0 % by weight. 4) Based on typical lignite sulfur content of 0.4 % by weight. 5) Bolded numbers are the emission factors actually used to calculated condensable emissions.

SCC s associated with CAMD units for which condensable emission factors were not available in the MARAMA report: 1

- 01

- 009 Boiler / EGU / Wood or Bark Waste 1

- 01

- 010 Boiler / EGU / LPG 1

- 01

- 012 Boiler / EGU / Solid Waste 1

- 01

- 013 Boiler / EGU / Liquid Waste 1

- 02

- 009 Boiler / Industrial / Wood or Bark Waste 1

- 02

- 010 Boiler / Industrial / LPG 1

- 02

- 014 Boiler / CO Boiler / Natural or Process Gas 3

- 05

- 007 Cement Manufacturing / Kilns 3

- 06

- 002 Petroleum Refining / Catalytic Cracking Units 3

- 06

- 012 Petroleum Refinin g / Fluid Coking Units 3

- 90

- 001 In

- process Fuel / Anthracite Coal 3

- 90

- 012 In

- process Fuel / Solid Waste 3

- 99

- 999 Misc. Industrial ProcessesTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 14



### While Appendix B only provide s emission factors for electric generation SCCs (e.g., 1

- 01

-

xxx

- xx or 2

- 01

- xxx

- xx), a review of the S/L agency NIF submittals showed that several other SCCs were used by EGUs. These additional SCCs are highlighted in italics in
Exhibit 3. Since these SCCs were associated with EGUs, it was assumed that emission factors would apply to these SCCs also.

Note also that there were several other SCCs associated with EGUs for which condensable
PM emission factors were not available. These SCCs are listed at the bottom of Exhibit 2.3. No special effort was made to evaluate condensable emissions for these SCC s; rather,
the State

- supplied PM condensable emissions were used where available.

2.2.1.2 

### EGU Heat Input

In addition to the emission factors, t he annual heat input in mm Btu/year by unit and fuel type is also needed to calculate condensable PM emissions. Heat in put was available from
two sources. The CAMD hourly database provides heat input, but there are two limitations for each use in this analysis. First, the heat input is reported at the unit level and does not provide a breakout of heat input for units usi ng multiple fuels. Second, only a 6

- month heat input value is provided for those units only required to report for six months.

As an alternative to the CAMD heat input, the S/L NIF tables usually provide a fuel process annual throughput which can be use d to calculate the heat input using the heating value of the fuel. By calculating the heat input using the NIF annual throughput , the annual heat input is available by fuel type for both 6

- month and 12

- month reporting units.
Where NIF annual throughput w as available, it was used to calculate the annual heat input
which was then used to calculate condensable PM emissions. In cases where the S/L NIF tables do not provide an annual throughput , the CAMD heat input was assigned to the primary fuel type and us ed in the condensable PM emission calculations.

2.2.1.3 

### EGU PM Emission Calculations
In addition to calculating the condensable PM emissions, the EGU PM augmentation also

gap

- fills missing PM compounds. The gap

- filling requires that the data be analyzed and

sepa rated into cases. The cases determine which math steps and ratios of PM terms will be applied. Exhibit 2. 4 shows the various cases and the augmentation method that was applied.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 15



### Exhibit 2. 4

– Cases and Required Steps to Augment EGU PM Emissions

Case PM Reported Augmentation Methodology

1

--- None required; all PM compounds = 0

2 PM25

- PRI PM

- CON = HEAT_USED * EMIS_FACT PM25

- PRI = PM

- CON (only if PM

- CON > PM25

- PRI) PM25

- FIL = PM25

- PRI

- PM

- CON PM10

- FIL = PM25

- FIL * F10_F25 ratio PM10

- PRI = PM

- CON + PM10

- FIL

3 PM10

- PRI PM

- CON = HEAT_USED * EMIS_FACT PM10

- PRI = PM

- CON (only if PM

- CON > PM10

- PRI) PM10

- FIL = PM10

- PRI

- PM

- CON PM25

- FIL = PM10

- FIL / F10_F25 ratio PM25

- PRI = PM

- CON + PM25

- FIL

4 PM25

- PRI

PM10

- PRI PM

- CON = HEAT_USED * EMIS_FACT

PM10

- PRI = PM

- CON (only if PM

- CON > PM10

- PRI) PM25

- PRI = PM

- CON (only if PM

- CON > PM25

- PRI) PM10

- FIL = PM10

- PRI

- PM

- CON PM25

- FIL = PM25

- PRI

- PM

- CON

5 PM10

- FIL PM

- CON = HEAT_USED * EMIS_FACT PM10

- PRI = PM

- CON + PM10

- FIL PM25

- FIL = PM10

- FIL / F10_F25 ratio PM25

- PRI = PM

- CON + PM25

- FIL

6 PM10

- FIL

PM25

- FIL PM

- CON = HEAT_USED * EMIS_FACT

PM10

- PRI = PM

- CON + PM10

- FIL PM25

- PRI = PM

- CON + PM25

- FIL

7 PM10

- FIL

PM10

- PRI PM25

- FIL PM25

- PRI PM

- CON = HEAT_USED * EMIS_FACT

8 PM

- PRI PM

- CON = HEAT_USED * EMIS_FACT PM

- PRI = PM

- CON (only if PM

- CON > PM

- PRI) PM

- FIL = PM

- PRI

- PM

- CON PM10

- FIL = PM

- FIL * F10_FIL ratio PM10

- PRI = PM

- CON + PM10

- FIL PM25

- FIL = PM10

- FIL / F10_F25 ratio PM25

- PRI = PM

- CON + PM25

- FIL

9 PM

- PRI

PM10

- PRI PM

- CON = HEAT_USED * EMIS_FACT

PM10

- PRI = PM

- CON (only if PM

- CON > PM10

- PRI) PM10

- FIL = PM10

- PRI

- PM

- CON PM25

- FIL = PM10

- FIL / F10_F25 ratio PM25

- PRI = PM

- CON + PM25

- FIL

10 PM

- PRI

PM10

- FIL PM

- CON = HEAT_USED * EMIS_FACT

PM10

- PRI = PM

- CON + PM10

- FIL PM25

- FIL = PM10

- FIL / F10_F25 ratio PM25

- PRI = PM

- CON + PM25

- FILTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 16

Case PM Reported Augmentation Methodology

11 PM

- FIL PM

- CON = HEAT_USED * EMIS_FACT PM10

- FIL = PM

- FIL * F10_FIL ratio PM10

- PRI = PM

- CON + PM10

- FIL PM25

- FIL = PM10

- FIL / F10_F25 ratio PM25

- PRI = PM

- CON + PM25

- FIL

12 PM

- FIL

PM10

- FIL PM25

- FIL PM

- CON = HEAT_USED * EMIS_FACT

PM10

- PRI = PM

- CON + PM10

- FIL PM25

- PRI = PM

- CON + PM25

- FIL

13 PM

- CON

PM10

- FIL PM25

- FIL PM10

- PRI = PM10

- FIL + PM

- CON

PM25

- PRI = PM25

- FIL + PM

- CON

14 PM

- CON

PM10

- FIL PM10

- PRI PM25

- FIL = PM10

- FIL / F10_F25 ratio

PM25

- PRI = PMCON + PM25

- FIL

15 PM

- CON

PM10

- FIL PM10

- PRI PM25

- FIL PM25

- PRI None required; all PM compounds present

16 PM

- CON

PM

- PRI None required; only one occurrence and emissions were trivial

17 PM

- CON

PM

- PRI PM10

- FIL PM10

- PRI PM25

- FIL PM25

- PRI None required; all PM compounds present

18 PM

- CON

PM

- FIL PM

- PRI PM10

- FIL PM10

- PRI PM25

- FIL PM25

- PRI None required; all PM compounds presentTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 17



### 2.2.2 NONEGU PM A ugmentation
The nonEGU PM augmentation process utilized the methodology developed for
MARAMA for the 2002 MANE

- VU Version 3 inventory. The steps in the PM augmentation process were as follows:

Step 1: Initial QA and remediation of S/L provided PM pollutants;

Step 2: Updating of PM factor ratios previously developed for MARAMA based on factors from the Factor Information and Retrieval (F IRE) Data System and the USEPA PM Calculator (Appendix C provides the PM ratio table by SCC and control device) ;
Step 3: Implementation of the ratios developed in step 2.; and
Step 4: Presentation of PM augmentation results to S/L agencies for review and
comment.

2.2.2.1 

### Initial QA and Remediation of PM Pollutants

Before we ran the nonEGU PM augmentation process , we review ed the da ta for
inconsistencies. Inconsistent values w ere be replaced. The consistency checks and replacement actions were as follows:

1. If PM10

- PRI >0 and PM25

- PRI > PM10

- PRI (and PM10

- FIL, PM25

- FIL and PM

CON are null or 0), then set PM25

- PRI = PM10

- PRI.

2. If PM10

- FIL > 0 and PM25

- FIL > PM10

- FIL (and PM10

- PRI, PM25

- PRI and PM

CON are null or 0), then set PM25

- FIL = PM10

- FIL.

3. If PM10

- PRI >0 and PM10

- FIL > PM10

- PRI (and PM25

- PRI, PM25

- FIL and PM

CON are null or 0), then set PM10

- FIL = PM10

- PRI.

4. If PM25

- PRI > 0 an d PM25

- FIL > PM25

- PRI (and PM10

- PRI, PM10

- FIL and PM

CON are null or 0), then set PM25

- FIL = PM25

- PRI.

The consistency checks revealed very few occurrences of inconsistencies, and when inconsistencies did occur, the emission values were very small. As a r esult, S/L agencies were not asked to review this information and provide corrections because the inconsistencies did not involve significant emission sources . T he replacement actions above were appropriate for an inventory used for regional air quality m odeling.

2.2.2.2 

### Updating of PM Factor Ratios
The augmentation steps require the use of ratios developed from available emissions and particle size distribution data. These ratios are needed when only one PM term is available,Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 18



### and two or more terms need to be aug mented. Examples of how we used the PM ratios are
shown below:

PM

- FIL × RatioCON/FIL = PM

- CON

PM

- PRI × RatioCON/PRI = PM

- CON

PM

- CON × RatioFIL/CON = PM

- FIL

PM

- CON × RatioPRI/CON = PM

- PRI

For the MANE

- VU 2002 inventory, a table of PM compound ratios was de veloped. The development of this table is documented in the TSD for the 2002 MANE

- VU SIP Modeling Inventories, Version 3 . The primary deliverable of this step of the process was the development of a table keyed by SCC, primary control device, and seconda ry control device. This table is called the SCC Control Device Ratios table ( Reference Tables
MANE

- VU _PMAugmentation.mdb ). We updated this table to include SCC, primary control device, and secondary control device codes found in the 2007 inventory that w ere not contained in the 2002 MANE

- VU inventory. Appendix C provides the PM ratio table by SCC and control device.

2.2.2.3 

### N onEGU PM Emission Calculations
The gap

- filling requires that the data be analyzed and separated into cases. The cases
determine which ma th steps and ratios of PM terms will be applied. Exhibit 2. 5 shows the various cases and the augmentation method that was applied.

After completing the calculations, the data was QA checked to ensure that the calculations resulted in consistent values for the PM complement. On a few occasions, the mix of ratio value and the pollutants and values provided by the S/L agency resulted in negative values
when FIL was back

- calculated. In this case the negative FIL value was set to zero and the PRI value was readjusted. In a few cases the appropriate combination of ratios, SCC, and
control efficiencies were not available to calculate the P M10

- PRI and PM25

- PRI values. In these cases, PM10

- PRI and PM25

- PRI were set equal.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 19



### Exhibit 2. 5

– Cases and Required Steps to Augment nonEGU PM Emissions

Case PM Reported Augmentation Methodology

1 PM25

- PRI PM

- CON = PM25

- PRI * CON_P25 ratio PM25

- FIL = PM25

- PRI

- PM

- CON PM10

- FIL = PM25

- FIL * F10_F25 ratio PM10

- PRI = PM

- CON + PM10

- FIL

2 PM10

- PRI PM

- CON = PM10

- PRI * CON_P10 ratio PM10

- FIL = PM10

- PRI

- PM

- CON PM25

- FIL = PM10

- FIL / F10_F25 ratio PM25

- PRI = PM

- CON + PM25

- FIL

3 PM25

- PRI

PM10

- PRI PM

- CON = PM10

- PRI * CON_P10 ratio

PM10

- FIL = PM10

- PRI

- PM

- CON PM25

- FIL = PM25

- PRI

- PM

- CON

4 PM10

- FIL PM

- CON = PM

- CON * CON_F10 ratio PM10

- PRI = PM

- CON + PM10

- FIL PM25

- FIL = PM10

- FIL / F10_F25 ratio PM25

- PRI = PM

- CON + PM25

- FIL

5 PM10

- FIL

PM25

- FIL PM

- CON = PM10

- FIL * CON_F10 ratio

PM10

- PRI = PM

- CON + PM10

- FIL PM25

- PRI = PM

- CON + PM25

- FIL

6 PM10

- FIL

PM10

- PRI PM

- CON = PM10

- PRI

- PM10

- FIL

PM25

- FIL = PM10

- FIL * F25_F10 ratio PM25

- PRI = PM

- CON + PM25

- FIL

7 PM25

- FIL PM

- CON = PM25

- FIL * CON_F25 ratio PM10

- FIL = PM25

- FIL * F10

- F25 ratio PM10

- PRI = PM

- CON + PM10

- FIL PM25

- PRI = PM

- CON + PM25

- FIL

8 PM10

- FIL

PM10

- PRI PM25

- FIL PM25

- PRI PM

- CON = PM25

- PRI

- PM25

- FIL

9 PM

- PRI PM

- CON = PM

- PRI * CON_PRI ratio PM

- FIL = PM

- PRI

- PM

- CON PM10

- FIL = PM

- FIL * F10_FIL ratio PM10

- PRI = PM

- CON + PM10

- FIL PM25

- FIL = PM10

- FIL / F10_F25 ratio PM25

- PRI = PM

- CON + PM25

- FIL

10 PM25

- FIL

PM25

- PRI PMCON = PM25

- PRI

- PM25

- FIL

PM10

- FIL = PM25

- FIL * F10_F25 ratio PM10

- PRI = PM

- CON + PM10

- FIL

11 PM

- CON

PM10

- FIL PM25

- FIL PM10

- PRI = PM

- CON + PM10

- FIL

PM25

- PRI = PM

- CON + PM25

- FILTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 2 0

Case PM Reported Augmentation Methodology

12 PM

- CON PM10

- FIL = PM

- CON * F10_CON ratio PM25

- FIL = PM10

- FIL * F25_F10 ratio PM10

- PRI = PM

- CON + PM10

- FIL PM25

- PRI = PM

- CON + PM25

- FIL

13 PM

- CON

PM10

- FIL PM10

- PRI PM25

- FIL = PM10

- FIL / F10_F25 ratio

PM25

- PRI = PMCON + PM25

- FIL

14 PM

- CON

PM10

- FIL PM10

- PRI PM25

- FIL PM25

- PRI None required; all PM compounds present

15 PM

- CON

PM

- FIL PM10

- FIL = PM

- CON / CON_F10 ratio

PM25

- FIL = PM10

- FIL / F10_F25 ratio PM10

- PRI = PM

- CON + PM10

- FIL PM25

- PRI = PM

- CON + PM25

- FIL

16 PM

- CON

PM10

- PRI PM25

- PRI PM10

- FIL = PM10

- PRI

- PM

- CON

PM25

- FIL = PM25

- PRI

- PM

- CON

17 PM

- FIL PM10

- FIL = PM

- FIL * F10_FIL ratio PM_CON = PM10

- FIL * CON_F10 ratio PM25

- FIL = PM10

- FIL / F10_F25 ratio PM10

- PRI = PM

- CON + PM10

- FIL PM25

- PRI = PM

- CON + PM25

- FIL



### 2.3 EMISSION RELEASE POINT QA CHECKS

Stack parameters are an important component of an emission inventory used for regional air quality modeling. Careful QA is required to ensure that the point source emissions are properly located both horizontally and vertically on the modeling grid. This section describes the procedures used to quality assure, augment, and where necessary, revise, stack parameters using standardized procedures to identify and correct stack data errors. These procedures were implemented within the NIF file itself, and are based on the QA procedures built into SMOKE that are designed to catch missing or out

- of

- range stack
parameters.

2.3.1 QA Checks and Gap

- Filling for Location Coordinates
Because air quality modeling strives to replicate the actual physical and chemical processes that occur in an inventory domain, it is important that the physical location of emissions be determined as accurately as possible. The emission release (ER) point record is used to report the location and relevant physical attributes of the emission release point. LocationTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 21



### coordinates must be reported to identify where emissions are released to the ambient air,
via a stack or non

- stack (e.g., fugitive release). Fo r a non

- stack, or fugitive release, coordinates may represent the general location where emissions are released.

In the ER record, location data may be reported as x and y coordinates (X

– Y) from either of two coordinate systems

- Latitude / Longitude (LA TLON), or Universal TransMercator (UTM). X

- Y coordinates reported as Latitude and Longitude must be reported in the decimal degree format. X

- Y coordinates reported as UTM Easting and UTM Northing, must be reported in kilometers.

UTM data received f

rom MARAMA was processed by the Contractor Team and converted to Latitude Measure and Longitude Measure in decimal degrees, as is required by the SMOKE emissions processing system. All conversions of UTM to LATLON were made using a spreadsheet 1 

### developed by Professor Steven Dutch, School of Natural and Applied Sciences, University of Wisconsin

- Green Bay . This spreadsheet tool allowed for batch conversion of UTM data to decimal degree format and was configured for WGS 84 DATUM. While errors using this s preadsheet are typically a few meters, rarely 10 or more, the accuracy of the conversion is limited to the accuracy of the initial UTM data.

Once conversions were made to LATLON decimal degrees, reasonableness checks were conducted on each release point relative to county centroids and min/max coordinates associated with the FIPS codes assigned to each stack. If a stack was located outside the

western

- , eastern

- , northern

- or southern

- most boundary of the county (based on SMOKE’s county lat/lon file), th e point was flagged for additional review. Flagged sources were then mapped with GIS software to determine their placement relative to the FIPS County associated with the stack. If a source was found to be outside of the county boundaries, it
was identif

ied for further review.

2.3.2 QA Checks and Gap

- Filling for Emission Release Parameters
In preparing emissions for grid modeling, valid parameters for the physical characteristics of each release point (stack height, diameter, temperature, velocity, and flow) ar e necessary to correctly place facility release points and associated emissions into vertical layers for proper air quality modeling. The USEPA ’s QA guidance for diag nosing stack parameter
i ssues was generally applied to identify QA issues in the S/L poin t source inventories. The QA guidance involved diagnosing the correct assignment of the ERP type (i.e., stack or

1 http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/FieldMethods/UTMSystem.htmTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 22



### fugitive), parameters with zero values, parameters not within the range of values specified
in the USEPA ’s QA procedures, and consistency chec ks (i.e., comparing calculated values against the values reported in the inventory). In many cases errors were caused by missing
or zero values

. The first step of our quality assurance (QA) involves review of the Emission Release Point Type. Using this type code, we used a routine to assess the validity of the stack parameters, to replace values if necessary, and to fill

- in missing data points. We employed a routine that compared each emission release point parameter to a minimum and maximum range of v alues and when that parameter was missing or was found to exist outside of that range, we augmented the parameter. We also checked non

- fugitive stack parameters for internal consistency between:

stack height and diameter, and
stack diameter, exit gas velocity, and exit gas flow rate.
When internal consistency was not met, we provided replacement values for the
parameters.

The following steps summarize the process of finding and replacing missing, out

- of

- range, or internally inconsistent stack parameter s.
Step 1: For fugitive emission release points, replace stack parameters

For fugitive emission release points (ERPTYPE=01), we first compared the existing fugitive emission height against the following range thought to be representative of the
minimum and maximum values allowable for most fugitive emission release points.

Fugitive Release Height: 0.1 to 100 ft

In all but one case, the fugitive release height was valid. For that one case, we set the fugitive release height to 100 feet. For all other case s, we kept the fugitive release height and replaced all other stack parameters with the defaulted values listed below. In some cases, the fugitive release height was blank but the S/L agency provided a stack height and we retained the S/L supplied stack height. In other cases, the S/L agency provided a temperature for the fugitive emissions and we retained the S/L supplied temperature. The following summarizes the procedure for filling in stack parameters for fugitive emission release points:Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 23



### Stack Heig ht : use fugitive release height, if valid; if fugitive release height not present and stack height provided, use the stack height; if neither fugitive release height or stack height not present, use 10 feet as the default.

Stack Temperature : use temperatur e provided by S/L agency, if valid; otherwise
used 72 o 

### F.

Stack Diameter : use 0.003 feet for fugitive sources

Stack Velocity : 0.0003 feet per second for fugitive sources

Stack Flow : use 0.0 cubic feet per second for fugitive sources

Step 2: For non

- fugit ive emission release points, find and replace out

- of

- range or missing stack heights and temperatures

For non

- fugitive emission release points, we compared existing stack parameters against a set of the following ranges thought to be representative of the m inimum and maximum values allowable for most emission release points.

Stack Height : 0.1 to 1000 feet

Stack Temperature : 50 to 1,800 o 

### F

Stack Diameter : 0.1 to 50 f ee t

Missing or out

- of range parameters were identified and evaluated. If not realistic, missing

or out

- of range parameters were replaced using the procedures described below.

Stack Height : All stack heights were less than the maximum value of 1000 feet. Numerous stack heights were zero or missing, in which case the stack height was
filled in using national default sets of physical parameter data based on the SCC. The stack parameter national default database is included as Appendix D.

Stack Temperature : There were 30 records where the stack temperature exceeded 1,800 o 

### F. We reviewed the s tack description table for these records, which
indicated that most of these stacks were for flares or furnaces. We deemed the S/L supplied temperature data as plausible and retained the S/L provided value. There were 100 records where the stack temperat ure was less than 50 o 

### F and not equal to
0 o 

### F or missing. We reviewed the stack description table for these records. Many of these stacks were for refrigerated tanks or other sources where the S/L supplied
temperature data was deemed plausible. For exam ple

, a nylon manufacturing facility in Virginia emits thousands of tons of NOx in 2007

. Most of the NO x isTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 24



### emitted from a handful of fairly cold stacks

, with exit gas temperatures generally

rang ing from 40

- 60 degrees. Rather than replace these S/L suppli ed values that seemed plausible with national defaults, we retained the S/L supplied data. Where the stack temperature was reported as 0 o 

### F or missing, we replaced the stack temperature with the national default based on the SCC.

Step 3 : For non

- fugitive emission release points, find and replace out

- of

- range or missing stack diameters, velocities, and flow rates

First, we evaluated the stack diameter to determine if it was within the valid range of 0.1 to
50 f ee t

. There were 200 records where the stack di ameter exceeded 50 f ee t . We reviewed the stack description table for these records. Most of these were large storage tanks, cooling towers, wastewater treatment ponds or area

- type sources such as process equipment leaks. Based on this review, we deemed the S/L supplied diameter data as plausible and retained the S/L provided value.

There were 66 records with missing stack diameters where both the velocity and flow rate were provided. For these records, the stack diameter was calculated using the followi ng equation:

Stack Diameter [ft] = SQRT ( 4 * Stack Flow [cu ft/sec] / ( Stack Velocity [ft/sec] * π [Pi] ))



### For the remaining cases where the stack diameter was reported as zero or missing, we replaced the stack diameter with the national default based on the SCC.

Next, the velocity and flow rate were evaluated. If the diameter, velocity and flow rate
were all non

- zero, we assessed internal consistency between diameter, velocity and flow rate using the following equation:

Stack Flow [cu ft/sec] = ( π [Pi] * (Stack Diameter [ft] / 2) ^ 2) * Stack Velocity [ft/sec]



### If the calculated and reported flow rates are within 10 % of one another, then internal consistency was assumed and no additional steps were taken. If the internal consistency
was not met for veloc ity and flow rate, Exhibit 2.6 below provides details on the approach taken to correct missing, out

- of

- range values, or internally inconsistent values for velocity and flow rate based on different scenarios. Velocity and flow rate were augmented either by calculation or the use of national defaults by SCC when necessary.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 25



### Exhibit 2.6

- Stack Parameter Data Replacement Matrix

(X = Data value present)

Diameter Velocity Flow Rate Action

- X X 1. Calculate diameter using velocity and flow rate. 2. Check that calculated diameter is within range.

- - - 1. Replace diameter, velocity, and flow rate with national SCC default values.

- - X 1. Replace diameter, velocity, and flow rate with national SCC default values.

- X

- 1. Replace diameter, velocity, and flow rate with national SCC default values.

X

- - 1. Default velocity using national default sets. 2. Calculate flow rate using internal consistency formula.

X

- X 1. Calculate velocity using internal consistency formula. 2. Check that calculated velocity is within range (less than 150 ft/sec). A. If calculated velocity is not within range, then default all 3 parameters using national default sets.

X X

- 1. Check that velocity is within range (less than 150 ft/sec). A. If velocity is within range, then: > Calculate flow rate using internal consistency formula. B. If velocity is not within range, then: > Default all 3 parameters using national default sets.

X X X 1. Check that velocity is within range (less than 150 ft/sec).
A. If velocity is within range and flow rate does not meet internal consistency for diameter, velocity and flow rate, then: > Calculate flow rate using internal consistency formula. B. If velocity is not within range, then: > Calculate velocity using internal consistency formula. > C heck that calculated velocity is within range. If so, then default to calculated velocity. > If calculated velocity is not within range, then default all 5 parameters using national default set.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 26



### 2.4 IDENTIFICATION OF EGUs AND NONEGUs

In the past, point sources have been categorized as either EGUs or nonEGUs using a variety of schemes. The SCC, standard industrial classification code (SIC), and North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code have been used to classify sources
as either EGU or nonEGU. Another scheme that has been used is to classify as EGU sources that is required to report emissions to USEPA’s CAMD hourly emission database. For consistency in both reporting and projecting emissions to the future, the MANE

VU+VA inventory usin g the following scheme for classifying point sources:

CAMD EGU

– these are units that report emissions to the USEPA CAMD hourly emission database and have been classified by States as EGUs;

CAMD nonEGU

- these are units that report emissions to the USEPA C AMD hourly emission database and have been classified by States as non EGUs; and

OTHER

– all other nonEGU point sources and small EGU point sources not included in the above categories.

Data elements were add to the NIF EP table to include the above classification scheme. This classification scheme was reviewed and approved by ERTAC.

2.5 VERSION 2

- STAKEHOLDER COMMENT AND RESPONSE

On October 6, 2009, MARAMA provided a notice to stakeholders of the opportunity to review the initial draft of the 2007 poi nt source inventory data and documentation.
Stakeholders were invited to review and comment on the draft 2007 inventory of air emissions from point sources to be used for regional air quality modeling. On October 20,
MARAMA hosted a conference call that provided an opportunity for stakeholders to ask questions about the draft 2007 point source modeling inventory. Written comments were reviewed by the State i nventory staff and MARAMA, and result ed in several changes to
the draft document ation and inventor y data

. The changes requested by stakeholders and approved by the States are summarized in the following subsections.

2.5.1 Connecticut Response to Stakeholder Comments
Sikorsky Aircraft p rovided comments on roughly ten sources regarding the SO 2 , PM, and
VOC em issions. The requested changes were very small (under a ton per year). Connecticut accepted Sikorsky Aircraft’s comments.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 27



### Covanta Energy commented that the annual NOx emissions for the Covanta Bristol Unit
#1 (Facility ID 09003

- 0902, emission unit P0026) were abnormally low because of a
tempor ar y pilot test of a NOx emission control technology. Covanta requested that 2005
emissions should be used since the 2007 actual emissions are not representative of previous or subsequent years. Since the 2007 invent ory is being used for air quality modeling that will be tied to actual air quality data, Connecticut decided to use actual 2007 emission values rather than 2005 values as requested by Covanta. Connecticut will consider this comment again during the develo pment of the future year inventories to ensure that reasonable future year emissions are estimated.

Hamilton Sundstrand commented that three emission units at its facility (Facility ID
09003

- 8602, emission units P0038, P0079, and R0097) were permanently sh ut down in 2008. Since the 2007 inventory is being used for air quality modeling that will be tied to actual air quality data, Connecticut decided to use actual 2007 emission values

. Connecticut will consider this comment again during the development of the future year inventories to ensure that reasonable future year emissions are estimated.

NRG Energy provided very minor revisions to the SO2, NOx, CO, VOC, PM and NH3 emissions data for the Montville (Facility ID 09011

- 1505) and Norwalk (Facility ID
0900 1

- 4214) facilities. Connecticut accepted these changes.

2.5.2 Maryland Response to Stakeholder Comments
NRG Energy requested a change to the VOC emissions for the Vienna Power Generating Station (Facility ID 019

- 0013, emission unit 4

- 0065). Maryland agreed to make the change, revising the VOC emissions from 0.9455 to 0.9641 tons per year.

T r anscontinental Gas Pipe Line Company commented that the inventory for its facility in Howard County (Facility ID 027

- 0223) has 12 internal combustion engines represented by one grouped emission unit, which gives the impression that there is one large source when there are actually 12 small er units. Maryland did not change the inventory based on this comment since the 12 engines are nearly identical and identifying each en gine individually
is not needed for the 2007 modeling inventory.

Covanta Energy requested changes to the stack parameters for the three units at the Montgomery County Resource Recovery Facility (Facility ID 031

- 1718). Maryland agreed to make those revisio ns.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 28



### 2.5.3 Massachusetts Response to Stakeholder Comments
Saint Gobain Containers requested minor changes to the annual emissions and stack parameters for its facility in Milford (Facility ID 25027

- 1200856). Massachusetts accepted the changes and the 2007 inventory was updated to reflect the stakeholder

comments.

Verallia formerly (Saint Gobain Containers) also provided comments on the 2007 PM2.5
emissions for all sources and stated that they may not contain appropriate condensable emissions. The company did not provide revised estimates or suggestions for improving the estimates of condensable emissions. For facilities that did not report PM2.5 or
condensabl e emissions, the PM2.5 or condensable emissions were calculated using the methodogy described in Section 2.2.2. MARAMA acknowledges that there is some uncertainty regarding the methodology, but lacking source

- specific data the methodology
is the best avai lable technique at this time for filling in the missing PM2.5 or condensable
emissions.

Verallia formerly (Saint Gobain Containers) also indicated that stack flow rate data was missing for their plants in Massachusetts. The facilities facilities did have stack velocity data. This data gap was filled by calculating the flow rate using the stack diameter and the stack exit velocity.

2.5.4 New Jers e y Response to Stakeholder Comments
RRI Energy provided updated emissions and stack data for several of its facil ities, mostly minor changes to PM emission values and revisions to stack parameters. New Jersey agreed to make the revisions provided by RRI Energy.

BASF identified that its plant in East Newark (Facility ID 34017

- 10419) was permanently
shut down and di d not operate in 2007. New Jersey agree d and the 2007 emissions were

set to zero.

Merck & Co., Inc indicated that its facility in Rahway, NJ (Facility ID 34039

- 41712) emitted 3.42 tons/yr of ammonia emissions from their boilers in 2007. New Jersey agreed and the ammonia emissions were added to the inventory.

Georgia Pacific Gypsum LLC submitted updates for its Camden facility (Facility ID
34007

- 51611) to correct the 2007 emissions based upon recent stack test data for board dryer U7 and process emissions factors from kettles U3, U4 and U5. Total PM2.5 emissions were also updated using current AP

- 42 factors for the Gypsum industry. InTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 29



### addition, the ammonia emissions were missing from the inventory. New Jersey agreed to make the requested changes.

E.R. Sq uibb & Sons, LLC, requested changes to the ammonia and PM2.5 emissions for its facilities in Lawrenceville, NJ ( Facility ID 34021

- 61052), New Brunswick, NJ ( Facility ID
34023

- 17739), and Hopewell ( Facility ID 34021

- 61053). New Jersey agreed to make the

re quested changes.

Schering Corporation supplied corrections to the ammonia emissions from its Kenilworth facility (Facility ID 34039

- 41806). New Jersey agreed to make the requested changes.

ConocoPhillips Company provided revisions to ammonia and VOC emis sions for the Bayway Refinery (Facility ID 34039

- 41805). They also provided revisions to selected SCCs for certain heaters, sulfur recovery units, truck loading activities, marine vessel loading activities, and emergency flares. ConocoPhillips also reque sted that certain parts of the refinery be modeled as area sources rather than point sources, and provided rectangular grid coordinates to define the area sources. While this change would be appropriate for a fence line modeling study, it cannot not be ac commodated in a multi

State regional air quality model since the SMOKE emission modeling system is not capable of handling area sources that are smaller than the air quality model grid cell. Therefore, this change was not made.

Covanta Energy requested mi nor revisions to the ammonia and PM emissions at the Union County Resource Recovery Facility (Facility ID 34039

- 41814) and Warren Energy Resource Facility (Facility ID 34041

- 85455). New Jersey agreed to make those revisions.

Air Engineering submitted comm ents on behalf of EF Kenilworth LLC (Facility ID 34029

- 41741), requesting minor changes to PM emissions and revisions to stack parameters. New Jersey agreed to make the requested changes.

Air Engineering submitted comments on behalf of Rowan University (Facility ID 34015

- 55779), requesting adding ammonia emissions for its sources. New Jersey agreed to make the requested changes.

Air Engineering submitted comments on behalf of The College of New Jersey (Facility ID
34021

- 61008), requesting adding ammon ia emissions for its sources and revisions to stack parameters. New Jersey agreed to make the requested changes.

Actavis requested the addition of 0.13 tons per year of ammonia for their facility (Facility
ID 34039

- 40295). New Jersey agreed to make the addition.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 30



### PSEG Power LLC requested changes to SCCs and stack parameters, as well as numerous minor changes to emission estimates, for its facilities in New Jersey. New Jersey agreed to make the revisions. PSEG also requested the units classified as “in significant units” be excluded from the modeling inventory. New Jersey elected to keep the emissions from insignificant units in the inventory because the purpose of the inventory is to model all of the emissions actually emitted in 2007.

MRPC/OEC

- LES r equested changes SCCs, ammonia and PM emissions, and stack parameters for its facility (Facility ID 34029

- 78901). New Jersey agreed to make the
revisions.

2.5.5 New York Response to Stakeholder Comments
Covanta Energy provided updated PM emissions and stack dat a for several of its facilities, mostly minor changes to PM emission values and revisions to stack parameters. New York agreed to make the revisions provided by Covanta Energy.

NRG Energy provided updated PM emissions and stack data for its facilities. NRG Energy also provided updated data for the individual turbine units at the Astoria Gas Turbine Power Plant (ORISID=55243). New York agreed to make the revisions provided by NRG Energy. NRG Energy also noted that baghouses are being installed at the D unkirk and Huntley coal

- fired plants. These changes were noted and will be accounted for in the future year inventories.

2.5.6 Pennsylvania Response to Stakeholder Comments
Covanta Energy requested changes to stack parameters at the Delaware Valley (Facility ID 420450059) , Lancaster County (Facility ID 420710145), Plymouth (420910295) and Harrisburg (Facility ID 420430017) facilities

. Covanta also requested minor changes to the emission estimates at the Plymouth facility. Pennsylvania agreed to make those
revi sions.

RRI Energy provided updated emissions and stack data for several of its facilities. The most notable change was a significant increase in PM emissions at several coal

- fired units. Pennsylvania agreed to make the revisions provided by RRI Energy.

Saint Gobain Containers requested minor changes to the annual emissions and stack parameters for its facility in Port Allegheny (Facility ID 420830006). Pennsylvania accepted the changes and the 2007 inventory was updated to reflect the stakeholder

comme nts.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 31



### Verallia formerly (Saint Gobain Containers) also provided comments on the 2007 PM2.5 emissions for all sources and stated that they may not contain appropriate condensable emissions. The company did not provide revised estimates or suggestions for im proving the estimates of condensable emissions. For facilities that did not report PM2.5 or condensable emissions, the PM2.5 or condensable emissions were calculated using the methodogy described in Section 2.2.2. MARAMA acknowledges that there is some

u ncertainty regarding the methodology, but lacking source

- specific data the methodology is the best available technique at this time for filling in the missing PM2.5 and condensable
emissions.

The National Lime Association requested changes to the PM emis sions for four of their member facilities: Mercer Lime & Stone (Facility ID 420190021), Graymont/Pleasant Gap (Facility ID 420270003), Carmeuse Lime/Millard Lime (Facility ID 420750016), and OWB Refractories (Facility ID 421330007). Pennsylvania accepted the changes and the 2007 inventory was updated to reflect the stakeholder comments.

Magnesita Refractories (formerly LWB Refractories) provided minor revisions to stack
data and PM emission estimates for the facility . Pennsylvania determined that no changes to the 2007 inventory were needed since the PM2.5 emissions were small (about 20 tons per year) and that PM2.5 emissions of this magnitude should not adversely impact the results of regional air quality modeling a nalyses using these inventories.

Carmeuse Lime provided minor revisions to stack data and PM emission estimates for the facility. Pennsylvania determined that no changes to the 2007 inventory were needed since the PM2.5 emissions were small (about 10 t ons per year) and that PM2.5 emissions of this magnitude should not adversely impact the results of regional air quality modeling analyses using these inventories.

2.5.7 Virginia Response to Stakeholder Comments
Virginia received comments from Covanta Energy and Transco requesting very minor changes to the emissions for their facilities (generally less than 0.1 ton change in emissions). Virginia decided not to make those changes because of the insignificant impact on the regional modeling inventory.

BASF iden tified that its plant in Virginia is permanently shut down. Since it did operate in 2007, the actual 2007 emissions will be used for the 2007 modeling. Emissions from the plant will be set to zero for future year inventories.

Michigan Cogen Systems reque sted minor changes to s tack parameters for their facility

. Virginia approved the requested changes.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 32



### Virginia received revised stack parameters for about 20 units at the Chemical Lime Company’s Kimbalton Plant. Due to the location of this facility and the size of the emissions in 2007, Virginia determined that the recommended changes should not affect air quality modeling results for 2007.

Virginia received comments from Carmeuse Nat ur al Chem i cals regarding the PM2.5
emissions at two of its facilities in Virginia. Since the company did not provide PM2.5 emissions to Virginia, the PM2.5 emissions were calculated using the methodogy described in Section 2.2.2. Virginia acknowledged that there is some uncertainty regarding the methodology, but lacking sour ce

- specific data the methodology is the best available technique at this time for filling in the missing PM2.5 emissions. Virginia determined that no changes to the 2007 inventory were needed since the PM2.5 emissions from these two kilns were small (less than 20 tons per year) and that PM2.5 emissions of this magnitude should not adversely impact the results of regional air quality modeling analyses using
these inventories.

2.6 VERSION 2

- ADDITIONAL STATE

- SPECIFIC UPDATES

Several States and local agencies provided revisions and updates following their review of the initial draft of the point source inventory posted in October, 2009. These changes are summarized in the following subsections.

2.6.1 Connecticut
During the review of the initial draft 2007 inventor y, Connecticut identified several emission units with unexpectedly high emission values. Connecticut determined that its original submittal had emissions adjusted for rule effectiveness. Since the 2007 inventory is being used for air quality modeling tha t will be tied to actual air quality data,
Connecticut decided to use actual 2007 emission values rather than values that had been artificially adjusted to account for rule effectiveness. The Contractor calculated the actual
emissions for all units with a non

- zero rule effectiveness value by backing out the rule effectiveness value. These actual emission values were supplied to Connecticut for review and approval. Connecticut recommended that the actual emissions calculated by the
Contractor be used inst ead of the values originally supplied by Connecticut which included
rule effectiveness.

Connecticut indicated that some of the PM records in their original submittal used incorrect pollutant codes. Connecticut indicated that the PM records in their origi nal
submittal for oil and coal

- fired boilers should have been submitted as PM10

- FIL and not
PM10

- PRI. All natural gas

- fired units and oil

- fired turbines were correctly reported asTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 33



### PM10

- PRI. The PM augmentation routine described in Section 1.3 was re

- exec uted for the
coal

- and oil

- fired units.

2.6.2 Delaware
No revisions to the initial inventory were requested or made.

2.6.3 District of Columbia
The District of Columbia made revisions to the emission inventory for Benning Road (Facility ID 11001

- 0001). There are four emission units at the facility designated as Units 1, 2, 15, and 16. Units 15 and 16 report emissions to USEPA ’s CAMD CEM database, while units 1 and 2 do not. Units 1 and 2 were not included in the initial point source inventory. These two un its were added to the inventory and increased facility

- wide SO2 emissions by about 100 tons per year and NOx emissions by 50 tons per year. Smaller increases were added for the other pollutants.

2.6.4 Maine
Maine provided a small correction to the SO2 emission s for the Maine Independence Station (Facility ID 2301900115).

Maine provided small corrections to the SO2 and NOx emissions for Westbrook Energy Center (Facility ID 2300500193). Also there was an error in the cross

- reference between
the USEPA CAMD data base and the State’s NIF database, which was corrected.

2.6.5 Maryland
No additional revisions beyond those requested by stakeholder were requested or made.

2.6.6 Massachusetts

An error in the PM augmentation routine was detected that incorrectly replaced State

reported PM25

- FIL values . The Contractor reviewed the PM augmentation routine and
identified the error that affected “Case 5” nonEGU PM25

- FIL and PM25

- PRI values. This
error also affected numerous small sources in Massachusetts. The error was corre cted and
the State

- reported PM25

- FIL values were retained during the PM augmentation process
and that the PM25

- PRI values were correctly calculated using the State

- reported PM25

- FIL value.

Massachusetts identified errors in the ammonia emissions for 2007 for the Stony Brook Energy Center (25013

- 0420001) and New Bedfor d Energy (25005

- 1200634)

. Massachusetts provided corrected ammonia emission estimates for these two facilities. This change reduced ammonia emissions in Massachusetts by about 2,300 tons.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 34



### 2.6.7 Maine
Maine identified on error in the PM augmentation routine that incorrectly replaced State

reported PM25

- FIL values . The Contractor reviewed the PM augmentation routine and
identified the error that affect ed “Case 5” nonEGU PM25

- FIL and PM25

- PRI val ues. The
error was corrected and the State

- reported PM25

- FIL values were retained during the PM augmentation process and that the PM25

- PRI values were correctly calculated using the
State

- reported PM25

- FIL value.

2.6.8 New Hampshire
An error in the PM augme ntation routine was detected that incorrectly replaced State

reported PM25

- FIL values . The Contractor reviewed the PM augmentation routine and
identified the error that affected “Case 5” nonEGU PM25

- FIL and PM25

- PRI values. This
error also affected numer ous small sources in New Hampshire. The error was corrected
and the State

- reported PM25

- FIL values were retained during the PM augmentation process and that the PM25

- PRI values were correctly calculated using the State

- reported
PM25

- FIL value.

2.6.9 New Jersey
New Jersey identified numerous emission units that were inadvertently missing from their initial submittal. Most of these units were flagged as “insignificant units” or “ non

- source fugitive” sources in New Jersey’s data system and were excluded during the initial conversion to NIF tables. New Jersey subsequently identified these “unmatched” units and submitted pertinent data for inclusion in the 2007 modeling inventory . The Contractor
added these units and emissions to the NIF database. The emissions added to the inventory
from these units were about: 60 tpy of CO, 50 tpy of NOx, 672 tpy of PM10

- PRI, 257 tpy
of PM25

- PRI, 5 tpy of SO2, and 1,477 tpy of VOC.

Ammonia emissions were missing from New Jersey’s initial submittal. New Jersey supplied the m issing ammonia emissions, which added about 845 tpy of NH3 to the point source inventory.

2.6.10 Pennsylvania

– Allegheny County
Allegheny County’s initial 2007 submittal included only the five “very large” sources that
were submitted to USEPA for the 2007 NEI. After the release of the initial version of the point source inventory in October, 2009, the agency provided a second submittal with an addition 31 facilities. The second submittal was subjected to the QA and PM augmentation procedures described previou sly in Sections 1.2 and 1.3 of this report.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 35



### 2.6.11 Pennsylvania

- Philadelphia
Philadelphia provided the following revisions to the initial draft inventory:

Boiler #3 at Sunoco Chemical Frankford Plant (Facility ID 4210101551 and emission point 052) was linked to CAMD ORIS ID 880007 and boilerID 52.

VOC emissions at Cardone Industries (Facility ID 4210103887) were increased from 75.96 to 143.98 tons per year

.

2.6.12 Rhode Island
Rhode Island revised the emissions for Providence Metallizing Co. (Facility ID 44007AIR1230 and emission point 2). All emissions for this emission point were changed
to zero for 2007.

2.6.13 Vermont
No revisions to the initial inventory poste d in October 2009 were requested or made

.

2.6.14 Virginia
After the release of the initial version of the point source inventory in October, 2009, the agency provided a second submittal with a number of addition al distributed generation
units. The second subm ittal was subjected to the QA and PM augmentation procedures described previously in Sections 1.2 and 1.3 of this report. A flag was added to the EP table to identify the distributed generation units for both the units in Virginia’s original
submittal as well as the new units.

Virginia indicated that all of the PM records in their original submittal used incorrect pollutant codes. Records in the original submittal designated as PM10

- PRI should have
been submitted as PM10

- FIL, and PM25

- PRI should have be en PM25

- FIL. The PM augmentation routine described in Section 1.3 was re

- executed after changing all PM10

- PRI to PM10

- FIL and all PM25

- PRI to PM25

- FIL.

Virginia revised the PM data for t he Mirant Potomac River Generating Station (SiteID:
51

- 510

- 000 0 3 ) using 2007 condensable test data using the test method with the nitrogen

purge to replace the emission factors previously applied by the Contractor

. Virginia requested that the plantID for the Dominion Leesburg Compressor Station be changed from 51

- 1 07

- 71978 to 51

- 107

- 01016.

Virginia requested that the plantID for the Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Station 175 be changed from 51

- 065

- 40789 to 51

- 065

- 00016.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 36



### Virginia’s r eview of stack test data Greif Packaging LLC (51

- 009

- 00022) showed an
incorrect emiss ions factor applied in 2007. The 2007 emissions factor for CO was 54 lbs CO/ton processed. The test factor was 5.6 lbs CO/ton processed. The 2007 data was corrected using the lower emissions factor.

2.7 VERSION 3 REVISIONS

2.7.1 Emission Offsets
Mulitple states ( CT, MA, MD, NH and NJ) added county level records account for account emission reduction credits (ERCs) issued to stationary sources pursuant to state regulation

. States provided ERCs on a county

- by

- county basis. Fictitious facilities with an identifier
of “OFFSET99999” were created for each county using SCC 23

- 99

- 000

- 000 (miscellaneous industrial processes: not elsewhere classified) Stack data were developed
that assumed that emissions were released at the county centroid with an assumed release height of 1 0 feet. For the 2007, ERC emissions were set to zero since the banked emissions were not actually emitted in 2007. The ERCs will be included in the future year inventories and air quality modeling analysis.

2.8 ANNUAL 2007 POINT SOURCE EMISSION SUMMARY

E xhibits 2

. 7 to 2

. 20 present S tate

- level summaries of 2002 and 2007 annual point source emissions by pollutant and compare 2007 annual emissions from CAMD EGUs, CAMD nonEGUs, and OTHER point sources

. The 2002 emissions are those that were developed previously for Version 3 of the MANE

- VU and the VISTAS best

- and

- final inventory for Virginia

. For most States and pollutants, point source emissions have decreased from 2002 to 2007.
N otable exception s are substantial incre ase s in PM 10

- PRI and PM25

- PRI emissions in Maryland , Pennsylvania, and Virginia. These increases are primarily due to a better representation of condensable emissions in the 2007 inventory, especially for coal

- fired power plants. New data provided by the se States confirm that c ondensable emissions were underreported in the 2002 inventory

.
In 2007, CAMD EGUs accounted for about 88% of SO2 emissions, 62% of NOx, 51% of
PM10

- PRI, and 54% of PM25

- PRI emissions. Non

- CAMD reporting sources accounted
for 94% o f VOC and 82% of CO emissions in 2007.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 37



### Exhibit 2. 7

– 2002 and 2007 Point Source CO Emissions by State (tons/year)

STATE 2002 2007 Change

Connecticut 4,053 3,679

- 9%

Delaware 9,766 7,753

- 21%

District of Columbia 248 311 25%

Maine 17,005 14,483

- 15%
Maryland 99,032 81,770

- 17%

Massachusetts 21,641 10,108

- 53%
New Hampshire 2,725 3,164 16%
New Jersey 12,300 10,548

- 14%

New York 66,427 66,357 0%
Pennsylvania 121,524 101,440

- 17%

Rhode Island 2,234 1,653

- 26%

Vermont 1,078 2,146 99%
Virginia 70,688 70,353 0%
428,721 373,765

- 13%



### Exhibit 2. 8

– EGU and nonEGU 2007 Point Source CO Emissions by StateTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 38



### Exhibit 2. 9

– 2002 and 2007 Point Source NH3 Emissions by State (tons/year)

STATE 2002 2007 Change

Connecticut 0 0

Delaware 196 94

- 52%

District of Columbia 4 0

- 100%

Maine 845 665

- 21%
Maryland 305 137

- 55%

Massachusetts 1,578 6 47

- 59%
New Hampshire 74 128 73%
New Jersey 0 918

New York 1,861 2,417 30%
Pennsylvania 1,388 2,379 71%

Rhode Island 58 74 28%

Vermont 0 0
Virginia 3,230 1,830

- 43%
9,539 9,2 89

- 3%



### Exhibit 2. 10

– EGU and nonEGU 2007 Point Source NH3 Emissions by StateTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 39



### Exhibit 2. 11

– 2002 and 2007 Point Source NOx Emissions by State (tons/year)

STATE 2002 2007 Change

Connecticut 12,923 10,061

- 22%

Delaware 16,345 15,628

- 4%

District of Columbia 780 789 1%

Maine 19,939 17,746

- 11%
Maryland 95,369 74,890

- 21%

Massachusetts 48,607 23,628

- 51%
New Hampshire 9,759 7,441

- 24%
New Jersey 51,593 30,088

- 42%

New York 118,978 83,033

- 30%
Pennsylvania 297,379 258,379

- 13%

Rhode Island 2,764 1,444

- 48%

Vermont 787 811 3%
Virginia 147,300 112,938

- 23%
822,523 636,876

- 23%



### Exhibit 2. 1 2

– EGU and nonEGU 2007 Point Source NOx Emissions by StateTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 40



### Exhibit 2. 13

– 2002 and 2007 Point Source PM10

- PRI Emissions by State (tons/year)

STATE 2002 2007 Change

Connecticut 1,617 1,350

- 17%

Delaware 4,217 3,465

- 18%

District of Columbia 161 59

- 63%

Maine 7,289 4,896

- 33%
Maryland 9,046 19,322 114%

Massachusetts 5,852 5,604

- 4%
New Hampshire 3,332 1,925

- 42%
New Jersey 6,072 7,642 26%

New York 10,392 9,507

- 9%
Pennsylvania 40,587 49,745 23%

Rhode Island 300 189

- 37%

Vermont 304 146

- 52%
Virginia 17,211 19,203 12%
106,380 123,053 16%



### Exhibit 2. 14

– EGU and nonEGU2007 Point Source PM10

- PRI Emissions by StateTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 41



### Exhibit 2. 15

– 2002 and 2007 Point Source PM25

- PRI Emissions by State (tons/year)

STATE 2002 2007 Change

Connecticut 1,283 1,242

- 3%

Delaware 3,666 3,107

- 15%

District of Columbia 132 53

- 60%

Maine 5,787 3,852

- 33%
Maryland 5,054 15,682 210%

Massachusetts 4,161 4,864 17%
New Hampshire 2,938 1,663

- 43%
New Jersey 4,779 6,821 43%

New York 7,080 5,999

- 15%
Pennsylvania 20,116 32,460 61%

Rhode Island 183 140

- 23%

Vermont 267 114

- 57%
Virginia 12,771 14,888 17%
68,217 90,885 33%



### Exhibit 2. 16

– EGU and nonEGU 2007 Point Source PM25

- PRI Emissions by StateTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 42



### Exhibit 2. 17

– 2002 and 2007 Point Source SO2 Emissions by State (tons/year)

STATE 2002 2007 Change

Connecticut 15,988 7,971

- 50%

D elaware 73,744 43,088

- 42%

District of Columbia 963 612

- 36%

Maine 23,711 17,248

- 27%
Maryland 290,929 305,383 5%

Massachusetts 106,960 63,229

- 41%
New Hampshire 46,560 45,258

- 3%
New Jersey 61,217 40,703

- 34%

New York 294,729 152,751

- 48%
Pennsylvania 995,175 1,028,056 3%

Rhode Island 2,666 1,516

- 43%

Vermont 905 322

- 64%
Virginia 305,106 243,048

- 20%
2,218,653 1,949,185

- 12%



### Exhibit 2. 18

– EGU and nonEGU 2007 Point Source SO2 Emissions by StateTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 43



### Exhibit 2. 1 9

– 2002 and 2007 Point Source VOC Emissions by State (tons/year)

STATE 2002 2007 Change

Connecticut 4,907 1,590

- 68%

Delaware 4,755 3,489

- 27%

District of Columbia 69 59

- 14%

Maine 5,319 5,022

- 6%
Maryland 6,187 4,986

- 19%

Massachusetts 8,350 4,557

- 45%
New Hampshire 1,599 916

- 43%
New Jersey 16,547 10,526

- 36%

New York 11,456 10,891

- 5%
Pennsylvania 37,323 28,965

- 22%

Rhode Island 1,928 970

- 50%

Vermont 1,097 395

- 64%
Virginia 43,906 35,618

- 19%
143,443 107,984

- 25%



### Exhibit 2. 2 0

– EGU and nonEGU 2007 Point Source VOC Emissions by StateTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 44



## 3.0 HOURLY 2007 INVENTORY FOR LARGE POINT SOURCES

The sources included in the hourly inventory include those that report hourly emissions to
USEPA ’s CAMD database as required by market

- based regulatory programs including the
USEPA Acid Rain and NOx Budget Trading Programs

. In Virginia, t he hourly inventory also includes distributed generation (DG) units. These Virginia units are mainly internal combustion engines that participate in a demand

- response program. The hourly SO2, NOx, and heat input data were used to prepare SMOKE files for modeling that used actual 2007 hourly emissions data.

3.1 DATA SOURCES FOR HOURLY EMISSIONS

The 2007 hourly point source inventory was developed using the 2007 annual emissions inventory developed as discussed in Section 2 of this report , data from the USEPA ’s CAMD hourly emissions database, hourly emissions data provided by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ), and hourly emissions data for 6

- month reporting units provided by the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE).

3.1.1 2007 Annual Emission Inventory

As described in Section 2 of this TSD, S/L agencies prepared and submitted emission inventory files in the NIF format

. A crosswalk was developed to match facilities and units
in the USEPA CAMD hourly database to units in the 200 7 Version 1 annual inventory. This process is necessary because the data submitted by the S/L agencies and data submitted by companies t o CAMD do not use the same facility or boiler/unit identifiers to identify a particular unit. The crosswalk matched a unit in the NIF annual inventory (using
the State, County, PlantID, Poin tID, StackID and SegmentID) with its counterpart in the
USEPA CAM D hourly database (using the ORISID and BoilerID ). As previously discussed in Section 2, t he final version of the crosswalk is included as Appendix A in this
TSD

. Complete documentation of the development of the annual inventory and crosswalk
table can b e found in Section 2 of this report.

3.1.2 EPA CAMD Hourly Database

The second source of data was the hourly emissions data reported to USEPA by facilities to comply with various provisions of the Clean Air Act. Affected facilities are required to report hourly emissions of NOx and SO2, as well as other operational parameters such as hourly emission rate, gross load and heat input. Some units are required to submit hourly emissions data for both NOx and SO2 for the entire 12 month reporting period. Other
units are required to submit hourly emissions data only for NOx for the entire 12 month reporting period. Still other units are required to submit hourly emissions data only forTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 45



### NOx for the 6 month ozone season. Finally, there are a very small number of units that
report ed hourly emissions for a 9

- month period. The USEPA CAMD hourly database is subjected to extensive QA/QC by both USEPA and the reporting facilities.

For this analysis, we used the “Part 75 Prepackaged Data Sets

- hourly emissions data formatted for use with the Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions (SMOKE) modeling system”. The 2007 hourly data was obtained from the USEPA Clean Air Markets web site ( USEPA 2009c ).

3.1.3 Virginia Hourly Data for Distributed Generation Units

The third set o f data came from VDEQ. Distributed generation units are mainly internal combustion engines that participate in a demand

- response program. These are small units, each usually no more than two or three megawatts in capacity, and they generally run on
disti llate fuel oil. The se units are not required to report hourly emissions to USEPA ’s CAMD. Most are permitted for well below 100 tons of NOx emissions annually and do not run frequently. Annual emissions of NOx are usually not very large from these units. However, ozone season daily emissions estimates from previous ozone SIPs show that facilities that have one or more of these types of units can be quite significant NOx emitters when examined on an ozone season daily basis.

In past modeling efforts, th ese units were either not included in the emission inventory, or if they were included, were modeled using the SMOKE default temporal profile for the given SCC. To improve the hourly temporal allocation for these units, VADEQ undertook
a substantial effor t to develop hourly emission profiles using 2007 operations data obtained from utilities for their demand response programs as well as other facility

- specific data. These data were used to create a 2007 profile for when these units generally operated.
VD EQ used these generic profiles to prepare SMOKE PTHOUR files for each DG unit listed in the annual emissions inventory.

Complete documentation of the data sources and methods used by VDEQ is included as Appendix E

- VDEQ Conceptual Description for DG dra ft Feb 25, 2010.doc

.

3.1.4 Maryland Hourly Data for Six Month Reporters

The final set of data came from the Maryland Department of the Environment ( MDE )

. MDE filled in the non

- ozone season hourly emissions data for certain units that only reported ozone seaso n hourly emissions to USEPA CAMD. MDE identified facilities which reported only 6 months worth of data to CAMD and submitted requests to these facilities for the missing 6 months of data. MDE provided the values in a CAMD

formatted table similar to the P art 75 Prepackaged Data Set format.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 46



### 3.2 METHODOLOGY FOR DEVELOPING HOURLY SMOKE FILES

SMOKE requires two input files for processing hourly point source emissions:

PTINV File. Th is file contains annual emissions data, stack parameters, geographic coordinates, and other information. This file can be in Inventory Data Analyzer (IDA), Emission Modeling System

- 95 (EMS

- 95), or one

- line

- per record (ORL) format. The ORL format from SMOKE Version 2.6 was selected for this project and is shown in Exhibit 3

. 1.

PTHOUR File. Th is file contains the hour

- specific data. This file can be in either
EMS

- 95 format or Continuous Emissions Monitoring (CEM) format. The SMOKE
Version 2.6 EMS

- 95 traditional format was selected for this project and is shown in
Exhibit 3 .2

.

The fo llowing subsections describe how the PTINV ORL annual emissions file and the
PTHOUR EMS

- 95 hour

- specific emission files were created.

3.2.1 Conversion of Annual NIF Inventory to SMOKE ORL Format for PTINV
The 2007 annual inventory was developed in NIF format. Flags were added to the NIF EP table to indicate whether a unit was matched to a CAMD hourly unit or a Virginia DG unit. Matching units in the NIF file were converted to SMOKE PTINV ORL format. To facilitate QA of files and summarization of emissions, si x different ORL files were created for the following types of sources:

Annual emissions for units that reported hourly to USEPA CAMD for the entire 12 months of 2007;
Ozone season emissions for units that reported to USEPA CAMD for either 6 or 9 months of 2007 (except for 6 month reporting units in Maryland);

Non

- ozone season emissions for units that reported to USEPA CAMD for either 6 or 9 months of 2007 (except for 6 month reporting units in Maryland);
Units that reported hourly to USEPA CAMD for the eit her 6 or 9 months of 2007 in Maryland;
Units that are classified as distributed generation units by VDEQ; and
All other units (these are not associated with the hourly PTHOUR files); temporal allocation for these units will be accomplished using the standa rd SMOKE V2.6 temporal allocation profiles. The ORL files were quality assured to conform to the SMOKE PTINV ORL format and to prevent double counting of emissions.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 47



### Exhibit 3

. 1

– SMOKE ORL Format for PTINV

Position Name Type Description

A FIPS Int Five digit FIPS code for state and county (required)

B PLANTID Char Plant Identification Code (15 characters maximum) (required; this is the same as the State Facility Identifier in the NIF)

C POINTID Char Point Identification Code (15 characters maximum) (re quired; this is the same as the Emission Unit ID in the NIF)

D STACKID Char Stack Identification Code (15 characters maximum) (recommended; this is the same as the Emissions Release Point ID in the NIF)

E SEGMENT Char DOE Plant ID (15 characters maximum) (recommended; this is the same as the Process ID in the NIF)

F PLANT Char Plant Name (40 characters maximum) (recommended)

G SCC Char Ten character SCC (required)

H ERPTYPE Char Emissions release point type (2 characters maximum); indicates type of stack (not used by SMOKE) 01 = fugitive 02 = vertical stack 03 = horizontal stack 04 = goose neck 05 = vertical with rain cap 06 = downward

- facing vent

I SRCTYPE Char Source type (not used)

J STKHGT Real Stack Height (ft) (required)

K STKDIAM Real Stack Diameter (ft) (required)

L STKTEMP Real Stack Gas Exit Temperature (°F) (required)

M STKFLOW Real Stack Gas Flow Rate (ft 3 /sec) (optional; automatically calculated by Smkinven from velocity and diameter if not given in file)

N STKVEL Real Stack Gas Exit Velocity (ft/sec) (required)

O SIC Int Standard Industrial Classification Code (recommended)

P MACT Char Maximum Available Control Technology Code (6 characters maximum) (optional)

Q NAICS Char North American Industrial Classification System Code (6 characters maximum) (optional)Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 48

Position Name Type Description

R CTYPE Char Coordinate system type (1 character maximum) (required) L = Latitude/longitude

S XLOC Real X location (required) ; Longitude (decimal degrees)

T YLOC Real Y location (required) ; Latitude (decimal degrees)

U UTMZ Int UTM zone ( not used )

V CAS Char Pollutant CAS number or other code (16 characters maximum) (required; this is called the pollutant code in the NIF)

W ANN_EMIS Real Annual Emissions (tons/year) (required)

X AVD_EMIS Real Average

- day Emissions (tons/average day) ( not used )

Y CEFF Real Control Efficiency percentage (give value of 0

- 100) (recommended, if left blank, SMOKE default is 0)

Z REFF Real Rule Effectiveness percentage (give value of 0

- 100) (recommended, if left blank, SMOKE default is 100)

AA CPRI Int Primary Control Equipment Code (not used by SMOKE)

BB CSEC Int Secondary Control Equipment Code (not used by SMOKE)

CC NEI_UNIQUE_ID Char For units that report hourly emissions to CAMD, this field contains a code to indicate how frequently the unit operated in 2007 (i.e., <15%, 15

- 50%, or >50% of available hours) For Virginia DG units, this field contains the descriptor “VA DG”. For units that do not have an association in the PTHOUR file, this field contains the descriptor “NonHourly”.

DD ORIS_FACILITY_CODE Char DOE Plant ID (generally recommended, and required if matching to hour

- specific CEM data)

EE ORIS_BOILER_ID Char Boiler Identification Code (recommended)

Fields not currently used by SMOKE Version 2.6 after field position EE have been excluded from the ORL file to reduce file size.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 49



### Exhibit 3 .2

– SMOKE EMS

- 95 Traditional Format for Individual Hour

- Specific Files

Position Name Type Description

1

- 2 STID Int State FIPS Code (required)

3

- 5 CYID Int County FIPS Code (required)

6

- 20 FCID Char Facility ID (a.k.a. plant ID) (required )

21

- 32 SKID Char Point ID (required)

33

- 44 DVID Char Stack ID (required)

45

- 56 PRID Char Segment ID (required)

57

- 61 POLID Char Pollutant name (required)

62

- 69 DATE Char Date in MM/DD/YY format. Years less than 70 are treated as century 2000 (required)

70

- 72 TZONNAM Char Time zone name associated with emissions data. Valid entries are GMT, ADT, AST, EDT, EST, CDT, CST, MDT, MST, PDT, and PST. (required)

73

- 79 HRVAL1 Real Hourly emissions for hour 1 (short tons/hour) (required)

80

- 86 HRVAL2 Real Hourly emissions for hour 2 (short tons/hour) (required)

87

- 93 HRVAL3 Real Hourly emissions for hour 3 (short tons/hour) (required)

... 234

- 240 HRVAL24 Real Hourly emissions for hour 24 (short tons/hour) (required)

241

- 248 DAYTOT Real Daily emissions total (short tons/day)

249 Blank Blank Blank

250

- 259 SCC Char SCC (required).

261

- 276 DATNAM Char Blank



### 3.2.2 PTHOUR Methodology for 12 Month Reporters
For units that reported hourly data to USEPA CAMD for the entire 12 months of 2007, the annual emissions in the PTINV ORL files were allocated to specific hours using the actual NOx, SO2, and heat input

- based hour

- specific data in the USEPA CAMD datab a se. This
ensured that the annual emission value s provided by the S/L agencies were maintained and distributed to specific hours using actual 2007 hourly data.

The methodology for creating the PTHOUR files is as follows. First, hourly SO2 and NOx mass and heat input values in the USEPA CAMD database we re summed for each unit toTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 50



### create annual values. Next, annual emission records in the ORL file were matched to a corresponding hourly CAMD unit using the crosswalk file. The hourly values in the PTHOUR file were calculated using the following equations, depending on the pollutant:

Hourly NOx emissions

Hourly PTHOUR NOx emissions = annual ORL NOx emissions * hourly CAMD NOx emissions CAMD summed annual NOx emissions 

### Hourly SO2 emissions for units with non

- zero SO2 emissions in the CAMD database

Hourly PTHOUR SO2 emissions = annual ORL SO2 emissions * hourly CAMD SO2 emissions CAMD summed annual SO2 emissions 

### Hourly SO2 emissions for units with ze ro SO2 emissions in the CAMD database

Hourly PTHOUR SO2 emissions = annual ORL SO2 emissions * annual factor

Where a nnual factor = hourly CAMD heat input / annual summed CAMD heat input



### Hourly emissions for other pollutants (CO, NH3, PM10

- PRI, PM25

- PRI, VOC)

Hourly PTHOUR POLL emissions = annual ORL POLL emissions * annual factor

Where a nnual factor = hourly CAMD heat input / annual summed CAMD heat input



### I f CAMD heat input data are not available, th e steam load was used instead, if available,
fol lowed by gross load as a last resort

.

3.2.3 PTHOUR Methodology for 6 Month Reporters

About 1 5 percent of the units in the 2007 CAMD hourly database only reported data for
the ozone season, i.e., the second and third quarters

, as allowed by their reporting requirements. The se units are referred to as 6

- months units in this document. Two separate PTINV ORL files were created

– one for the 6

- month ozone season and one for
the 6

- month non

- ozone season. The CAMD h ourly d ata for these units were used to develop ozone season PTINV and PTHOUR files. For the non

- ozone season, a PTINV file
was created and was used with re

- adjusted SMOKE temporal profiles to develop hourly
emissions for the non

- ozone season.

The CAMD h ourly database for 6

- month units contains NOx emissions, heat input and other parameters for the 6 month period. The CAMD hourly data for April through September was used directly and was summed to calculate the ozone season NOx
emissions. To calculate t he non

- ozone season NOx emissions, total CAMD NOx
emissions for a 6

- month unit was subtracted from the annual NOx emissions of the corresponding unit in the S/L supplied NIF database

. In some cases, the 6

- month NOxTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 51



### emissions in the CAMD database were grea ter than the annual emissions in the S/L NIF database. For those cases, non

- ozone season emissions were set to zero

. Ozone season emissions of other pollutant are not available from the CAMD database.
These emissions were estimated based on a ratio of ozone season NOx emissions to annual NOx emissions. This ratio was applied to the annual emissions from the NIF database. To
calculate the non

- ozone season emissions for the other pollutants, the total ozone season emissions for the 6

- month unit was subt racted from the annual emissions reported for th at
unit in the S/L supplied NIF database

. The PTHOUR files for the ozone season were created as follows. First, hourly NOx mass and heat input values in the USEPA CAMD
database were summed for each unit to create ozone season values. Next, ozone season emission records in the ORL file were matched to the hourly CAMD unit using the crosswalk file. Hourly emissions were calculated using the following equations:

Hourly NOx emissions

Hourly PTHOUR NOx emission s = 6

- month ORL NOx emissions * hourly CAMD NOx emissions CAMD summed 6

- month NOx emissions 

### Hourly emissions for other pollutants (CO, NH3, PM10

- PRI, PM25

- PRI, SO2, VOC)

Hourly PTHOUR POLL emissions = annual ORL POLL emissions * annual factor

Where a nnual factor = hourly CAMD heat input / 6

- month summed CAMD heat input



### I f CAMD heat input data are not available, the steam load was used instead, if available,
fol lowed by gross load as a last resort

. Hourly data for the non

- ozone season was developed using the methodology discussed in
Section 3.4 of this TSD.

3.2.4 PTHOUR Methodology for Maryland 6 Month Reporters
MDE identified facilities that only reported 6 months of data to CAMD and requested data
from those facilities for the 6 months outside of the ozone season. MDE manually entered hourly values into a CAMD

- formatted table similar to the Part 75 Prepackaged Data Set format for the following units.

Plant Name ORIS UNIT S Constellation Perryman 1556 CT1

, CT2

, CT3

, CT4
Constellation Riverside 1559 CT6 Constellation Westport 1560 CT5
Mirant Chalk Point 1571 GT2

, SMECO Mirant Morgantown 1573 GT3

, GT4

, GT5

, GT6Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 52



### The PTHOUR files for the Maryland 6

- month reporters were created as described here. First, hourly SO2 and NOx mass and heat input in the MDE hourly database were summed for each unit to create annual totals. Next, annual emission records for all pollutants in the ORL file were matched to the hourly records using the crosswalk file. Hour ly emissions in the PTHOUR file were calculated using the following equations, depending on the pollutant:

Hourly NOx emissions

Hourly PTHOUR NOx emissions = annual ORL NOx emissions * hourly MDE NOx emissions MDE summed annual NOx emissions 

### Hourly SO2 emissions for units with SO2 emissions in the MDE database

Hourly PTHOUR SO2 emissions = annual ORL SO2 emissions * hourly MDE SO2 emissions MDE summed annual SO2 emissions



### Ho urly SO2 emissions for units with out SO2 emissions in the MDE database

Hourly PTHOUR SO2 emissions = annual ORL SO2 emissions * annual factor

Where a nnual factor = hourly MDE heat input / annual summed MDE heat input



### Hourly emissions for other pollutants (CO, NH3, PM10

- PRI, PM25

- PRI, VOC)

Hourly PTHOUR POLL emissions = annual ORL POLL emissions * annual factor

Where a nnual factor = hourly MDE heat input / annual summed MDE heat input



### I f MDE heat input data are not available, the s team load was used instead, if available, followed by gross load as a last resort

.

3.2.5 PTHOUR Methodology for Virginia Distributed Generation Units
Complete documentation of the data sources and methods used by VDEQ is included as Appendix E

- VDEQ Conceptual Description for DG draft Feb 25, 2010.doc

.

3.2.6 QA of PTINV and PTHOUR Files

A number of QA activities were undertaken to ensure that the PTINV and PTHOUR files were complete, consistent with the 2007 NIF annual inventory, and did not double count any emission source. Specific QA steps included:

The ORL annual emission files were quality assured to conform to the SMOKE
PTINV ORL format and match the values reported in the original NIF file.

The PTHOUR files were quality assured to conform to the SMOKE PTHOUR
EMS

- 95 traditional format, the sum of emissions in the PTHOUR file equals theTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 53



### ORL annual emissions

, the number of hour ly data records equal s 8760, the number of days equals 3 65, and that all pollutants were included in the PTHOUR file

. These QA checks ver ified that the original NIF annual values and the annual sum of the hourly values matched.

3.3 DEVELOPMENT OF HOURLY PROFILES FOR 6

- MONTH

REPORTING UNITS

Since some CAMD units only report data for the ozone season, there was a need for a set
of actual 2007 ho urly temporal profiles to be used in simulating hourly emissions for these
units in non

- ozone season months. The following subsections describe the steps taken by Alpine Geophysics in preparing this file.

3.3.1 Annual Profile Preparation
The 2007 hourly CEM data was obtained from CAMD’s “Data and Maps” website for
each State in the MANE

- VU+VA region. Using these data, we filtered the individual source list within each State to only those units reporting each hour of the year (i.e., 8,760 hours of data). Thi s ensured that the resulting profiles are not influenced by units which only report during summertime months for ozone season programs.

For this filtered source list, we summed three variables: total NOx and SO2 mass and heat input as reported in these hou rly files at both a State monthly and a State total basis. For each of the three variables, monthly distribution ratios were calculated by dividing each State’s monthly sum by their total annual sum as shown in Equation 1 below.

Equation 1. Monthly ratio c alculation.

Monthly Ratio State, Var 

### = Monthly Sum State, Var 

### / Annual Sum State, Var



### Where,

Var = CEM

- based variable of SO2, NOx or heat input

Exhibit 3.3 provides an example calculation for this step , both in tabular and graphical
format.

The resulti ng ratios were normalized for each variable to provide SMOKE with the monthly distribution factors necessary to process annual emissions into a monthly result. An example monthly profile using the data from Exhibit 3.3 is shown in Exhibit 3.4.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 54



### Exhibit 3.3

– Example Application of Calculated Ratios for Actual 2007 by Month

Actual Reported Value Sums [2007] Calculated Ratios

State Month SO2 Mass NOx Mass Heat Input SO2 NOx Heat Input

NY Jan 22,423,391 10,809,292 60,408,685 0.1046 0.0942 0.0809

NY Feb 29,299,033 12,448,052 67,590,104 0.1366 0.1084 0.0905

NY Mar 21,364,883 10,327,432 63,106,554 0.0996 0.0900 0.0845

NY Apr 16,454,881 9,221,500 55,568,488 0.0767 0.0803 0.0744

NY May 12,855,963 8,198,597 53,421,346 0.0600 0.0714 0.0715

NY Jun 14,525,239 9,282,277 65,577,304 0.0677 0.0809 0.0878

NY Jul 16,311,783 10,372,119 74,182,361 0.0761 0.0904 0.0993

NY Aug 17,757,143 11,156,733 82,322,615 0.0828 0.0972 0.1102

NY Sep 15,809,719 8,879,373 63,553,452 0.0737 0.0773 0.0851

NY Oct 15,055,032 7,390,952 55,149,951 0.0702 0.0644 0.0738

NY Nov 14,471,865 7,561,984 47,280,729 0.0675 0.0659 0.0633

NY Dec 18,092,057 9,155,587 58,804,999 0.0844 0.0798 0.0787

NY Total 214,420,988 114,803,899 746,966,587 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 55



### Exhibit 3.4

- Example SMOKE profile for monthly distribution of New York annual emissions using heat input.

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Monthly Ratio 0.0809 0.0905 0.0845 0.0744 0.0715 0.0878 0.0993 0.1102 0.0851 0.0738 0.0633 0.0787 1.0000 Monthly Profile 809 905 845 744 716 878 994 1103 851 739 633 788 10005



### The profile in the above table can then be associated to the profile cross

- reference lookup either by State, State

- SCC or some other combination allowing each non

- CEM (PTHOUR) reporting unit to have annual emissions allocated. Existing day of week and diur nal profiles from the EPA CHIEF website were used to allocate emissions to finer smaller time periods within each month.

3.3.2 Non

- Annual Profile Development
A number of units were identified which require monthly distribution for timeframes
outside of the ozone season (when these units are not required to report CEMs). The monthly profiles described in 3.3.1 were modified for use with these units. To account for emissions at these sources not included in prepared hourly (PTHOUR) SMOKE input files, the monthly profiles were zeroed out during the months when hourly CAMD emissions were reported. Concurrently, the TOTAL profile sum was adjusted to accurately reflect the ratio of month to total distribution. An example of this adjustment is shown with highlight in Exhibit 3.5.

Exhibit 3.5

- Example SMOKE profile for adjusted monthly distribution of New York seasonal emissions using heat input.

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Monthly Ratio 0.0809 0.0905 0.0845 0.0744 0.0715 0.0878 0.0993 0.1102 0.0851 0.0738 0.0633 0.0787 1.0000 Monthly Profile 809 905 845 744 716 878 994 1103 851 739 633 788 10005 Adjusted Profile 809 905 845 0 0 0 0 0 0 739 633 788 4719Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 56



### 3.3.3 Issue for Consideration
In the USEPA CAMD files only a few CAMD 6

- month units reported emissions in April 2007. As a result, the April hourly CAMD data was not used in MARAMA’s simulation. Instead, an adjusted profile for five month operation was prepared and used for these

sources.

3.4 VERSION 2

- STATE AND STAKEHOLDER REVIEW

On March 15, 2010, MARAMA invited States and stakeholders to review and comment on the draft 2007 hourly inventory of air emissions from point sources. States and stakeholders were provided a 4

- week comment period. Written comments w ere reviewed by the S tate i nventory staff and MARAMA, and result ed in several changes to the draft
document ation and inventory data

. The changes requested by stakeholders and approved by the States are summarized in the following subsections.

3.4.1 Massachusetts

Massachusetts comm ented that t he majority of the Massachusetts facilities reviewed the
CAMD

- to

- NIF crosswalk and indicated they found no major errors. Some facilities expressed concern that s everal dual fuel units appeared to have their total NOx emissions doubled, reporte d separately for both oil and gas . The Contractor reviewed the database and verified that no double counting of emissions occurs. F or multiple

- fuel units

, the Appendix A spreadsheet matches each CAMD record to ALL fuel records in the NIF database, making it appear that the CAMD emissions are counted more than once.
MARAMA will use the NIF emissions from State database in regional modeling and the hourly data from the matching CAMD unit to allocate NIF emissions to hourly data for modeling. Emissions wil l not be double counted for units using multiple fuels

.

3.4.2 New York
NRG Energy identified an issue with the hourly emissions for those units in the NIF
database when multiple units exhaust from a common stack. In NY’s database, multiple units are represente d by a single emission unit, whereas in the CAMD database each unit is represented individually. That is why there is a CAMD BLR6ID with no equivalent NIF labels in Appendix A . The Contractor discussed the issue with NRG and devised a
solution for the Hu ntley and Dunkirk Steam Generating Stations by adding emissions units
to the NIF tables in cases where there are combined stacks. A nnual emissions in the NIF database will be apportioned to each unit based on annual heat input from the USEPA
CAMD database . This will allow a proper match to the hourly data for each Unit andTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 57



### ensure that the proper CAMD hourly emissions were used in developing the PTHOUR
files for the units at these two facilities.

New York State also worked to improve the linkages between the NIF annual emissions and the CAMD hourly emissions. Not all cases could be resolved, and New York is continuing to review the data.

3.4.3 Pennsylvania

RRI Energy commented that they agree with th e approach for calculating hourly emissions
as described in S ection 3.3 of this report.

3.4.4 Virginia
Virginia reviewed the data in the hourly files and provided three updates needed for the VA cross reference between NIF and CAMD information. These updates do not affect large emission units, but they were made to make the cross reference as correct as possible,
as follows:

For ORIS CODE 55439, NIF ID 51

- 065

- 00021, facility name Tenaska Virginia Generating Station was added to CAMD Boiler ID CTGDB1 with the NIF identifier Stack 1, Point 1, Segment 2. This stack point segment was left out of the cross reference and represents the emissions from the duct burner on this turbine.

For ORIS CODE 55439, NIF ID 51

- 065

- 00021, facility name Tenaska Virginia
Genera ting Station was added to CAMD Boiler ID CTGDB3 with the NIF identifier Stack 3, Point 9, Segment 2. This stack point segment was left out of the cross reference and represents the emissions from the duct burner on this turbine.

For ORIS CODE 52089, NIF ID 51

- 071

- 00062, facility name Duke Energy Generation Services of Narrows was deleted for the NIF identifier Stack 1, Point 1, Segment 3 from CAMD Boiler ID BLR007. This stack point segment represents the emissions from the ash handling system for the boiler s, and the emissions would be better represented by generic profiles rather than CAMD profiles.

Virginia also commented that some facilities have empty date stamps (i.e., MM/DD/YY field is listed as “xx/xx/xxEST“ where x is blank space). For example, in 1 2 month units files, 51

- 033

- 00040 and 51

- 065

- 00021 combined have either 21 or 39 lines with empty date stamps. Similarly, in 6 month units files, 09

- 009

- 6614 (in New Haven, Connecticut) have 6 or 12 lines without date stamps . The Contractor identified er rors in the CAMD to NIF crosswalk that caused this situation to occur. Fixing the CAMD to NIF crosswalk resolved all occurrences of this problem.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 58



### 3.5 VERSION 3 REVISIONS

3.5.1 Massachusetts Stony Brook Energy Center NH3 Emissions

Massachusetts identified erro rs in the ammonia emissions for 2007 for the Stony Brook Energy Center (25013

- 0420001) and New Bedford Energy (25005

- 1200634). Massachusetts provided corrected ammonia emission estimates for these two facilities. This change reduced ammonia emissions in Massachusetts by about 2,300 tons.

New Bedford Energy does not report hourly emissions to CAMD, so no changes to the
PTHOUR files were needed for this source.

The Stony Brook Energy Center has three units that are 12

- month CAMD reporters and
two units that are 5

- month CAMD reporters. The PTHOUR monthly files for 5

- month and
12

- month reporters were revised to provide corrected NH3 emissions for the Stony Brook
units.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 59



## 4.0 ANNUAL 2007 INVENTORY FOR AREA SOURCES

4.1 AREA SOURCE CATEGORIES

Area s ources are relatively small sources of air pollutants that are diffused over a wide geographical area. They include sources that individually are insignificant, but in aggregate may comprise significant emissions. Examples are emissions from home heating systems , h ouse painting

, consumer products usage, and small industrial or commercial operations that are not permitted as point sources. There are 356 individual area source categories in the MANE

- VU+VA inventory, categorized by a 10

- digit SCC.
Ma jor grouping (cat egories at the 7

- digit SCC) included in the area source inventory are
shown in Exhibit 4.1.

The USEPA has develop s area source emission estimation methodologies and estimates for
the NEI on a three

- year cycle, and inventories are ava ilable for 2002, 2005 , and 2008 (USEPA 20 10a).

For many categories, unless specifically instructed otherwise by the States, the Contractor
used the most recent data from US EPA. These sources included ammonia emissions from
livestock and fertilizers which came from a recent application of the Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) ammonia model to produce 2007 emissions and output from a version of the Residential Wood Combustion (RWC) model developed by USEPA and run with updated 2007 data to produce emission estimates for that so urce category. In addition, a number of States requested that the Contractor include USEPA data on wildfire emissions developed as part of USEPA ’s SMARTFIRE system.

In the following sections, we describe the data that was available from USEPA and that

was used for categories where States did not submit data. Next we describe the State data
submittals that were used to override the USEPA data. We summarize the ultimate source of the area source data that each State decided to use for each source category. Finally, we present a State

- level summary of emissions by pollutant.

Exhibit 4.1

– Area Source Category Definition s

7

- Digit SCC 7

- Digit SCC Description

21

- 01

- 001 Stationary Fuel; Electric Utility; Anthracite Coal

21

- 01

- 002 Stationary Fuel; Electric Utility; Bituminous/ Sub

- butuminousSub

- butuminous Coal

21

- 01

- 004 Stationary Fuel; Electric Utility; Distillate Oil

21

- 01

- 005 Stationary Fuel; Electric Utility; Residual Oil

21

- 01

- 006 Stationary Fuel; Electric Utility; Natural Gas

21

- 02

- 001 Stationary Fuel; Industrial; Anthracite CoalTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 60

7

- Digit SCC 7

- Digit SCC Description

21

- 02

- 002 Stationary Fuel; Industrial; Bituminous/ Sub

- butuminous Coal

21

- 02

- 004 Stationary Fuel; Industrial; Distillate Oil

21

- 02

- 005 Stationary Fuel; Industrial; Residual Oil

21

- 02

- 006 Stationary Fuel; Industrial; Natural Gas

21

- 02

- 007 Stationary Fuel; Industrial; Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG)

21

- 02

- 008 Stationary Fuel; Industrial; Wood

21

- 02

- 011 Stationary Fuel; Industrial; Kerosene

21

- 03

- 001 Stationary Fuel; Commercial/Institutional; Anthracite Coal

21

- 03

- 002 Stationary Fuel; Commercial/Institutional; Bituminous/ Sub

- butuminous Coal

21

- 03

- 004 Stationary Fuel; Commercial/Institutional; Distillate Oil

21

- 03

- 005 Stationary Fuel; Commercial/Institutional; Residual Oil

21

- 03

- 006 Stationary Fuel; Commercial/Instit utional; Natural Gas

21

- 03

- 007 Stationary Fuel; Commercial/Institutional; Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG)

21

- 03

- 008 Stationary Fuel; Commercial/Institutional; Wood

21

- 03

- 011 Stationary Fuel; Commercial/Institutional; Kerosene

21

- 04

- 001 Stationary Fuel; Residential; Anthracite Coal

21

- 04

- 002 Stationary Fuel; Residential; Bituminous/ Sub

- butuminous Coal

21

- 04

- 004 Stationary Fuel; Residential; Distillate Oil

21

- 04

- 006 Stationary Fuel; Residential; Natural Gas

21

- 04

- 007 Stationary Fuel; Residential; Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG)

21

- 04

- 008 Stationary Fuel; Residential; Wood

21

- 04

- 009 Stationary Fuel; Residential; Firelog

21

- 04

- 011 Stationary Fuel; Residential; Kerosene

22

- 94

- 000 Mobile Sources; Paved Roads; All Paved Roads

22

- 96

- 000 Mobile Sources; Unpaved Roads; All Unpaved Roads

23

- 01

- 000 Industrial Processes; Chemical Manufacturing: SIC 28; All Processes

23

- 01

- 030 Industrial Processes; Chemical Manufacturing: SIC 28; Process Emissions from Pharmaceutical

23

- 02

- 002 Industrial Processes; Food and Kindred Products: SIC 20; Commercial Cooking

– Charbroiling

23

- 02

- 003 Industrial Processes; Food and Kindred Products: SIC 20; Commercial Cooking

– Frying

23

- 02

- 040 Industrial Processes; Food and Kindred Products: SIC 20; Grain Mill Products

23

- 02

- 050 Industrial Processes; Food and Kindred Products: SIC 20; Bakery Products

23

- 02

- 070 Industrial Processes; Food and Kindred Products: SIC 20; Fermentation/Beverages

23

- 02

- 080 Industrial Processes; Food and Kindred Products: SIC 20; Miscellaneous Food and Kindred Prods

23

- 07

- 030 Industrial Processes; Wood Products: SIC 24; Millwork, Plywood, and Structural Members

23

- 07

- 060 Industrial Processes; Wood Products: SIC 24; Miscellaneous Wood Products

23

- 08

- 000 Industrial Process es; Rubber/Plastics: SIC 30; All Processes

23

- 09

- 100 Industrial Processes; Fabricated Metals: SIC 34; Coating, Engraving, and Allied Services

23

- 11

- 010 Industrial Processes; Construction: SIC 15

- 17; Residential

23

- 11

- 020 Industrial Processes; Construction: SIC 15

- 17; Industrial/Commercial/Institutional

23

- 11

- 030 Industrial Processes; Construction: SIC 15

- 17; Road Construction

23

- 25

- 000 Industrial Processes; Mining and Quarrying: SIC 14; All Processes

23

- 25

- 020 Industrial Processes; Mining and Quarrying: SIC 14; Crushed and Broken StoneTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 61

7

- Digit SCC 7

- Digit SCC Description

23

- 25

- 030 Industrial Processes; Mining and Quarrying: SIC 14; Sand and Gravel

23

- 90

- 008 Industrial Processes; In

- process Fuel Use; Wood

23

- 99

- 000 Industrial Processes; Industrial Processes: NEC; Ind ustrial Processes: NEC

23

- 99

- 010 Industrial Processes; Industrial Refrigeration; Refrigerant Losses

24

- 01

- 001 Solvent Utilization; Surface Coating; Architectural Coatings

24

- 01

- 002 Solvent Utilization; Surface Coating; Architectural Coatings

- Solvent

- based

24

- 01

- 003 Solvent Utilization; Surface Coating; Architectural Coatings

- Water

- based

24

- 01

- 005 Solvent Utilization; Surface Coating; Auto Refinishing: SIC 7532

24

- 01

- 008 Solvent Utilization; Surface Coating; Traffic Markings

24

- 01

- 015 Solvent Utilization; Surface Coating; Factory Finished Wood: SIC 2426 thru 242

24

- 01

- 020 Solvent Utilization; Surface Coating; Wood Furniture: SIC 25

24

- 01

- 025 Solvent Utilization; Surface Coating; Metal Furniture: SIC 25

24

- 01

- 030 Solvent Utilization; Surface Coating; Paper: SIC 26

24

- 01

- 040 Solvent Utilization; Surface Coating; Metal Cans: SIC 341

24

- 01

- 045 Solvent Utilization; Surface Coating; Metal Coils: SIC 3498

24

- 01

- 050 Solvent Utilization; Surface Coating; Miscellaneous Finished Metals: SIC 3 4

- (341 + 3498)

24

- 01

- 055 Solvent Utilization; Surface Coating; Machinery and Equipment: SIC 35

24

- 01

- 060 Solvent Utilization; Surface Coating; Large Appliances: SIC 363

24

- 01

- 065 Solvent Utilization; Surface Coating; Electronic and Other Electrical: SIC 36

- 363

24

- 01

- 070 Solvent Utilization; Surface Coating; Motor Vehicles: SIC 371

24

- 01

- 075 Solvent Utilization; Surface Coating; Aircraft: SIC 372

24

- 01

- 080 Solvent Utilization; Surface Coating; Marine: SIC 373

24

- 01

- 085 Solvent Utilization; Surface Coating; Railroad: SIC 374

24

- 01

- 090 Solvent Utilization; Surface Coating; Miscellaneous Manufacturing

24

- 01

- 100 Solvent Utilization; Surface Coating; Industrial Maintenance Coatings

24

- 01

- 102 Solvent Utilization; Surface Coating; Industrial Maintenance Coatings

24

- 01

- 103 Solvent Utilization; Surface Coating; Industrial Maintenance Coatings

24

- 01

- 200 Solvent Utilization; Surface Coating; Other Special Purpose Coatings

24

- 01

- 990 Solvent Utilization; Surface Coating; All Surface Coating Categ ories

24

- 15

- 000 Solvent Utilization; Degreasing; All Processes/All Industries

24

- 15

- 005 Solvent Utilization; Degreasing; Furniture and Fixtures (SIC 25): All Processes

24

- 15

- 010 Solvent Utilization; Degreasing; Primary Metal Industries (SIC 33): All Processes

24

- 15

- 020 Solvent Utilization; Degreasing; Fabricated Metal Products (SIC 34): All Processes

24

- 15

- 025 Solvent Utilization; Degreasing; Industrial Machinery and Equipment (SIC 35): All Processes

24

- 15

- 030 Solvent Utilization; Degreasing; Electronic and Other Elec. (SIC 36): All Processes

24

- 15

- 035 Solvent Utilization; Degreasing; Transportation Equipment (SIC 37): All Processes

24

- 15

- 040 Solvent Utilization; Degreasing; Instruments and Related Products (SIC 38): All Processes

24

- 15

- 045 Solvent Utilization; Degreasing; Miscellaneous Manufacturing (SIC 39): All Processes

24

- 15

- 050 Solvent Utilization; Degreasing; Transportation Maintenance Facilities (SIC 40

- 45): All Processes

24

- 15

- 055 Solvent Utilization; Degreasing; Automotive Dealers (SIC 55): All Processes

24

- 15

- 060 Solvent Utilization; Degreasing; Miscellaneous Repair Services (SIC 76): All Processes

24

- 15

- 065 Solvent Utilization; Degreasing; Auto Repair Services (SIC 75): All ProcessesTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 62

7

- Digit SCC 7

- Digit SCC Description

24

- 15

- 100 Solvent Utilization; Degreasing; All Industries: Open Top Degreasing

24

- 15

- 130 Solvent Utilization; Degreasing; Electronic and Other Elec. (SIC 36): Open Top Degreasing

24

- 15

- 200 Solvent Utilization; Degreasing; All Industries: Conveyerized Degreasing

24

- 15

- 230 Solvent Utilization; Deg reasing; Electronic and Other Elec. (SIC 36): Conveyerized Degreasing

24

- 15

- 300 Solvent Utilization; Degreasing; All Industries: Cold Cleaning

24

- 15

- 360 Solvent Utilization; Degreasing; Auto Repair Services (SIC 75): Cold Cleaning

24

- 20

- 000 Solvent Utilization; Dry Cleaning; All Processes

24

- 20

- 010 Solvent Utilization; Dry Cleaning; Commercial/Industrial Cleaners

24

- 25

- 000 Solvent Utilization; Graphic Arts; All Processes

24

- 25

- 010 Solvent Utilization; Graphic Arts; Lithography

24

- 25

- 020 Solvent Utilization; Graphic Arts; Letterpress

24

- 25

- 030 Solvent Utilization; Graphic Arts; Rotogravure

24

- 25

- 040 Solvent Utilization; Graphic Arts; Flexography

24

- 30

- 000 Solvent Utilization; Rubber/Plastics; All Processes

24

- 40

- 000 Solvent Utilization; Misc. Industrial; All Processes

24

- 40

- 020 Solvent Utilization; Misc. Industrial; Adhesive (Industrial) Application

24

- 60

- 000 Solvent Utilization; Misc. Non

- industrial: Consumer and Commercial; All Processes

24

- 60

- 100 Solvent Utilization; Misc. Non

- industrial: Consumer and Commercial; All Personal Care Products

24

- 60

- 200 Solvent Utilization; Misc. Non

- industrial: Consumer and Commercial; All Household Products

24

- 60

- 400 Solvent Utilization; Misc. Non

- industrial: Consumer and Commercial; All Automotive Afterma rket

24

- 60

- 500 Solvent Utilization; Misc. Non

- industrial: Consumer and Commercial; All Coatings and Related

24

- 60

- 600 Solvent Utilization; Misc. Non

- industrial: Consumer and Commercial; All Adhesives and Sealants

24

- 60

- 800 Solvent Utilization; Misc. Non

- industrial: Consumer and Commercial; All FIFRA Related Products

24

- 60

- 900 Solvent Utilization; Misc. Non

- industrial: Consumer and Commercial; Miscellaneous Products

24

- 61

- 020 Solvent Utilization; Misc. Non

- industrial: Commercial; Asphalt Application: All Processes

24

- 61

- 021 Solvent Utilization; Misc. Non

- industrial: Commercial; Cutback Asphalt

24

- 61

- 022 Solvent Utilization; Misc. Non

- industrial: Commercial; Emulsified Asphalt

24

- 61

- 023 Solvent Utilization; Misc. Non

- industrial: Commercial; Asphalt Roofing

24

- 61

- 200 Solvent Utilization; Misc. Non

- industrial: Commercial; Adhesives and Sealants

24

- 61

- 800 Solvent Utilization; Misc. Non

- industrial: Commercial; Pesticide Application: All Processes

24

- 61

- 850 Solvent Utilization; Misc. Non

- industrial: Commercial; Pesticide Application: Agricultural

24

- 61

- 870 Solvent Utilization; Misc. Non

- industrial: Commercial; Pesticide Application: Non

- Agricultural

24

- 65

- 000 Solvent Utilization; Misc. Non

- industrial: Consumer; All Products/Processes

24

- 65

- 800 Solv ent Utilization; Misc. Non

- industrial: Consumer; Pesticide Application

25

- 01

- 011 Storage and Transport; Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage; Residential PFCs

25

- 01

- 012 Storage and Transport; Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage; Commercial PFCs

25

- 01

- 030 Storage and Transport; Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage;

25

- 01

- 050 Storage and Transport; Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage; Bulk Terminals

25

- 01

- 055 Storage and Transport; Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage; Bulk Plants

25

- 01

- 060 Storage and Transport; Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage; Gasoline Service Stations

25

- 01

- 080 Storage and Transport; Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage; Airports : Aviation Gasoline

25

- 01

- 090 Storage and Transport; Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage;Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 63

7

- Digit SCC 7

- Digit SCC Description

25

- 01

- 995 Storage and Transport; Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage; All Storage Types

25

- 05

- 020 Storage and Transport; Petroleum and Petroleum Product Transport; Marine Vessel

25

- 05

- 030 Storage and Transport; Petroleum and Petroleum Product Transport; Truck

25

- 05

- 040 Storage and Transport; Petroleum and Petroleum Product Transport; Pipeline

25

- 30

- 010 Storage and Transport; Bulk Materials Storage; Commercial/Industrial

26

- 01

- 000 Waste Disposal; On

- site Incineration; All Categories

26

- 01

- 010 Waste Disposal; On

- site Incineration; Industrial

26

- 01

- 020 Waste Disposal; On

- site Incineration; Commercial/Institutional

26

- 01

- 030 Waste Disposal; On

- site Incineration; Residential

26

- 10

- 000 Waste Disposal; Open Burning; All Categories

26

- 10

- 030 Waste Disposal; Open Burning; Residential

26

- 10

- 040 Waste Disposal; Open Burning; Municipal (collected from residences, parks,other for central burn)

26

- 20

- 000 Waste Disposal; Landfills; All Categories

26

- 20

- 030 Waste Disposal; Landfills; Municipal

26

- 30

- 010 Waste Disposal; Wastewater Treatment; Industrial

26

- 30

- 020 Waste Disposal; Wastewater Treatment; Public Owned

26

- 30

- 050 Waste Disposal; Wastewater Treatment; Public Owned

26

- 40

- 000 Waste Disposal; TSDFs; All TSDF Types

26

- 60

- 000 Waste Disposal; Leaking Underground Storage Tanks; Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

26

- 80

- 001 Waste Disposal; Composting; 100% Biosolids (e.g., sewage sludge, manure, mixtures )

26

- 80

- 002 Waste Disposal; Composting; Mixed Waste (e.g., a 50:50 mixture of biosolids and green wastes)

28

- 01

- 000 Misc. Area Sources; Agriculture Production

- Crops; Agriculture

– Crops

28

- 01

- 001 Misc. Area Sources; Agriculture Production

- Crops;

28

- 01

- 002 Misc. Area Sources; Agriculture Production

- Crops;

28

- 01

- 500 Misc. Area Sources; Agriculture Production

- Crops; Agricultural Field Burning

- whole field

28

- 01

- 700 Misc. Area Sources; Agriculture Production

- Crops; Fertilizer Application

28

- 05

- 001 M isc. Area Sources; Agriculture Production

- Livestock; Beef cattle

- finishing / dry

- lots

28

- 05

- 002 Misc. Area Sources; Agriculture Production

- Livestock; Beef cattle production composite

28

- 05

- 003 Misc. Area Sources; Agriculture Production

- Livestock; Beef cattle

- finishing / pasture/range

28

- 05

- 007 Misc. Area Sources; Agriculture Production

- Livestock; Poultry production

- layers with dry mgmt

28

- 05

- 008 Misc. Area Sources; Agriculture Production

- Livestock; Poultry production

- layers with wet mgmt

28

- 05

- 009 Misc. Area Sources; Agriculture Production

- Livestock; Poultry production

– broilers

28

- 05

- 010 Misc. Area Sources; Agriculture Production

- Livestock; Poultry production

– turkeys

28

- 05

- 018 Misc. Area Sources; Agriculture Production

- Livestock; Dairy cattle composite

28

- 05

- 019 Misc. Area Sources; Agriculture Production

- Livestock; Dairy cattle

- flush dairy

28

- 05

- 020 Misc. Area Sources; Agriculture Production

- Livestock; Cattle and Calves Waste Emissions

28

- 05

- 021 Misc. Area Sources; Agriculture Production

- Livestock; Dairy cattle

- scrape dairy

28

- 05

- 022 Misc. Area Sources; Agriculture Production

- Livestock; Dairy cattle

- deep pit dairy

28

- 05

- 023 Misc. Area Sources; Agriculture Production

- Livestock; Dairy cattle

- dry

- lot/pasture dairy

28

- 05

- 024 Misc. Area Sources; Agriculture Production

- Livestock;

28

- 05

- 025 Misc. Area Sources; Agriculture Production

- Livestock; Swine production composite

28

- 05

- 026 Misc. Area Sources; Agriculture Production

- Livestock;Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 64

7

- Digit SCC 7

- Digit SCC Description

28

- 05

- 027 Misc. Area Sources; Agriculture Production

- Livestock;

28

- 05

- 028 Misc. Area Sources; Agriculture Production

- Livestock;

28

- 05

- 030 Misc. Area Sources; Agriculture Production

- Livestock; Poultry Waste Emissions

28

- 05

- 035 Misc. Area Sources; Agriculture Production

- Livestock; Horses and Ponies Waste Emissions

28

- 05

- 039 Misc. Area Sources; Agriculture Production

- Livestock; Swine production

- op s with lagoons

28

- 05

- 040 Misc. Area Sources; Agriculture Production

- Livestock; Sheep and Lambs Waste Emissions

28

- 05

- 045 Misc. Area Sources; Agriculture Production

- Livestock; Goats Waste Emissions

28

- 05

- 047 Misc. Area Sources; Agriculture Production

- Livestock; Swine production

- deep

- pit house

28

- 05

- 053 Misc. Area Sources; Agriculture Production

- Livestock; Swine production

- outdoor

28

- 06

- 010 Misc. Area Sources; Domestic Animals Waste Emissions; Cats

28

- 06

- 015 Misc. Area Sources; Domestic Animals Waste Emissions; Dogs

28

- 07

- 020 Misc. Area Sources; Wild Animals Waste Emissions; Bears

28

- 07

- 025 Misc. Area Sources; Wild Animals Waste Emissions; Elk

28

- 07

- 030 Misc. Area Sources; Wild Animals Waste Emissions; Deer

28

- 07

- 040 Misc. Area Sources; Wild Animals Waste Emissions; Birds

28

- 10

- 001 Misc. Area Sources; Other Combustion; Forest Wildfires

28

- 10

- 003 Misc. Area Sources; Other Combustion; Cigarette Smoke

28

- 10

- 005 Misc. Area Sources; Other Combustion; Managed Burning, Slash (Logging Debris)

28

- 10

- 010 Misc. Area Sources; Other Combustion; Human Perspiration and Respiration

28

- 10

- 014 Misc. Area Sources; Other Combustion; Prescribed Burning

28

- 10

- 015 Misc. Area Sources; Other Combustion; Prescribed Forest Burning

28

- 10

- 020 Misc. Area Sources; Other Combustion; Prescribed Rangeland Burning

28

- 10

- 025 Misc. Area Sources; Other Combustion; Charcoal Grilling

- Residential

28

- 10

- 030 Misc. Area Sources; Other Combustion; Structure Fires

28

- 10

- 035 Misc. Area Sources; Other Combustion; Firefighting Training

28

- 10

- 050 Misc. Area Sources; Other Combustion; Motor Vehicle Fires

28

- 10

- 060 Misc. Area Sources; Other Combustion; Cremation

28

- 10

- 090 Misc. Area Sources; Other Combustion; Open Fire

28

- 30

- 000 Misc. Area Sources; Catastrophic/Accidental Releases; All Catastrophic/Accidental Releases

28

- 30

- 010 Misc. Area Sources; Catastrophic/Accidental Releases; Transportation Accidents

28

- 70

- 000 Misc. Area Sources; ;



### 4.2 US EPA AREA SOURCE DATA

USEPA emissions inventories and emission estimation tools were used to create a preliminary version of the 2007 area source inventory. States reviewed the data available
from USEPA and made a determination on a category by category basis of whether the
USEPA data was acceptable for their State. This section des cribes the data and tools
available from USEPA

.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 65



### 4.2.1 US EPA 2008 National Emission Inventory
Prior to preparation of the 2008 inventory, USEPA, in consultation with ERTAC , revised the recommended emission factors and estimation methods for many area source

cat egories , as listed below

. The goal was to provide standardized emission calculations
and related documentation across states. These were used by USEPA’s contractor to develop 2008 emission estimates for fifteen area source categories to support developmen t of the 2008 National Emission Inventory (NEI). In general, county

- level criteria and HAP pollutant emissions were estimated at the SCC level. In most cases, activity data was collected for 2008. In cases where 2008 activity data did not exist, data fr om the most recent year available was used, as reported in the documentation.

Agriculture Production

- Livestock Asphalt Paving Aviation Gasoline Distribution Commercial Cooking Construction Dust Commercial/Institutional Fuel Combustion Fertilizer Ap plication Gasoline Distribution Industrial Fuel Combustion Open Burning Road Dust Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) Residential Heating Solvent Usage

- Surface Coatings Solvent Usage

- Other The emission factors from the ERTAC process and the r esulting 2008 emissions developed by USEPA were available for State use in this 2007 inventory development process (USEPA 2010 a )

.

4.2.2 EPA Residential Wood Combustion (RWC) Tool
EPA worked with a group of State, local, and regional planning organization

represe ntatives to develop a new methodology for estimating RWC emissions (USEPA 2010b)

. USEPA developed a Microsoft Access Tool to allow S/L agencies to calculate
annual emissions from RWC sources. The new methodology: 1) accounts for appliances
not included in the old methodology (e.g., outdoor hydronic heaters); 2) makes the methodology easier for States to input location

- specific knowledge; and 3) updates many of the assumptions made to calculate emissions (for example, the percent conventional

versus USEPA c ertified wood stoves).Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 66



### EPA updated the RWC tool with 2007 population data and provided it to States to review the input parameters, including county populations, appliance profiles, burn rates, density of cordwood by county, appliance populations, and em ission factors by SCC. The only changes that we re made to the model itself were for Vermont, which provided updated burn rates and other appliance populations . The Contractor reran the revised 2007 RWC
tool for all states. The results of this run are in cluded in the inventory with the exception of New Jersey. New Jersey revised certain model inputs, re

- ran the RWC tool on their own, and provided the Contractor with the resulting NIF files.

4.2.3 EPA CMU Agricultural Ammonia Model
In preparation for the 2008 NE I, USEPA use d the Carnegie Mellon University ( CMU ) Ammonia Model to generate an ammonia emission inventory for the continental United
States based on 2007 activity levels. No significant change was made to the emission
factors in the model. The primary sources of a mmonia are two agricultural operations:

Livestock refers to domesticated animals intentionally reared for the production of food, fiber, or other goods or for the use of their labor. The definition of livestock in this category includes beef c attle, dairy cattle, ducks, geese, goats, horses, poultry, sheep, and swine.

Fertilizer refers to any nitrogen

- based compound, or mixture containing such a compound, that is applied to land to improve plant fitness

.

The Contractor obtained from USEPA a rec ent run of the CMU model for 2007 and provided it to the States for their review (USEPA 2010c). The USEPA data provided to MARAMA included emissions for livestock and fertilizer application. The CMU model is
also capable of estimat ing ammonia emissions f rom non

- domestic animals (deer, bear, etc.) and domesticated pets (dogs and cats) as well as other things such as human perspiration

. However, none of these sources were included in the runs of the CMU model that EPA provided to MARAMA. Thus

, unless a St ate supplie d emission estimate s for those categories, they were not included in the 2007 inventory.

4.2.4 EPA SMARTFIRE Emissions Database
SMARTFIRE is an algorithm and database system developed and built within a geographic information system (GIS) framework that combines multiple sources of fire
information and reconciles them into a unified data set (SONOMA 2009) . SMARTFIRE
data sources include satellite fire detects and ground reports of fire incidents for various
wild land management agencies

. SMARTFIRE was developed by the USDA Forest
Service AirFire Team and Sonoma Technology, Inc. under a grant from NASA.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 67



### SMARTFIRE interfaces with the BlueSky framework to estimate daily, location

- specific
fire emissions

.

The Contractor obtained from USEPA a file of 2007 annual, county

- level emissions data
for wild land fires as calculated using the SMARTFIRE methodology . The Contractor provided the inventory and documentation to States for their review and consideration.

4.3 STATE

- SPECIFIC DATA

States reviewed the doc umentation and resulting emission files for each USEPA estimation methodology. Each State made a decision of whether to accept the USEPA inventory (NEI 2008, RWC tool results, CMU ammonia model results, SMARTFIRE results) or to develop their own emission estimates for these categories. Based on state choices, the
Contractor initiated collection of the State supplied data. Generally states provided their data in NIF3.0 format; however some data was provided in spreadsheets in a State

- specific
format or in the new EIS Emissions format. Where necessary, data was converted to NIF format, filling in as many NIF fields as possible with state

- supplied data.

State submitted emission files were augmented using USEPA data as directed by the
States. Where 2008 N EI data were used to fill missing categories in the 2007 MANE VU+VA inventory, no growth adjustment was made to the emissions

. This is because States felt that activity in 2008 to 2007 was similar due to the economic downturn.

The emissions data is housed in NOF formatted files, which provide additional fields at the end of each table to identify the data source and revision date. Those data elements provide a the data lineage for each source category, thus improving the overall inventory quality assuranc e (QA). The values in the DATA_SOURCE field in the EM table are
shown in Exhibit 4.2. Exhibit 4.3 summarizes the data sources used for each MARAMA State and major source category.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 68



### Exhibit 4.2

– Values Contained in the DATA_SOURCE Field of the EM Table

EM Table DATA

SOURCE Value Description of Data Source

2005NEIv2 All of the records are for CT, which used this value in their submittal to the Contractor

– data taken directly by CT from the 2005 NEI version 2

2008NEI Emissions based on USEPA ’s 2008 NEI using the USEPA data and methodologies described in Section 4.2.1 of this TSD

EPA Emissions based on USEPA ’s 2008 NEI using the USEPA data and methodologies described in Section 4.2.1 of this TSD

EPA NEI05 Emissions based on USEPA ’s 2005 NEI as a gap

- filling measure where 2007 data were not available from State or USEPA

EPA RWC Mo Emissions based on USEPA ’s Residential Wood Combustion model

EPA/Ratio PM emissions were generated using USEPA

- supplied emission values and ratios of condensable to PM

- PRI or other ratios as necessary to complete the PM spectrum of pollutants

EPA

- CMU Emissions based on USEPA ’s 2007 run of the CMU ammonia model

MARAMA02BY Emissions based on MARAMA’s 2002 Ver sion 3 area source inventory as a gap

- filling measure where 2007 data were not available from the State or USEPA

MARAMA2009 Emissions based on MARAMA’s 2009 Version 3 area source inventory as a gap

- filling measure where 2007 data not available from Stat e or USEPA

MOVES Vehicle refueling emissions calculated by NESCAUM using the MOVES model in the inventory mode

NEI0508INT Emissions were linearly interpolated for 2007 based on values in the 2005 NEI and the 2008 NEI

NEI08CTMOD All of the records are for CT, which used this value in their submittal to the Contractor

– these records were based on the 2008 NEI data modified by CT air quality staff

SEMAP07 Emissions for Virginia are based on SEMAPs 2007 area source inventory

Sta te MOVES Vehicle refueling emissions calculated by the state using the MOVES model in the inventory mode

State RWC Emissions for New Jersey based on NJ

- specific application of USEPA ’s Residential Wood Combustion model

State Emissions were provided directly by the State and represent actual 2007 emissions

StateRatio PM emissions were generated using State

- supplied emission values and ratios of condensable to PM

- PRI or other ratios as necessary to complete the PM spectrum of pollutantsTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 69



### Exhibit 4. 3

– Data Sources Generally Used by Each State for Each Area Source Category

SCC4 Description CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT VA

2101 Fuel Comb. / Utility n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a State n/a n/a n/a n/a

2102 Fuel Comb. / Industrial State State State n/a n/a State State State State State State State State

2103 Fuel Comb. / Commercial State State State State State State State State State State State State State

2104 Residential Other Fuels State State State State State State State State State State EPA State / USEPA State

2104 Residential Wood Comb. EPA RWC State EPA

RWC State State EPA RWC State State

RWC State State EPA RWC EPA

RWC EPA

RWC
2294 Paved Road Dust State State State State State State State State State State State State State
2296 Unpaved Road Dust EPA n/a State State State EPA EPA State EPA EPA EPA State EPA

2302 Food & Kindred Products EPA State State State State State EPA State State State EPA EPA State / USEPA

2311 Construction EPA State State State State n/a State / USEPA State EPA EPA EPA EPA EPA
2325 Mining & Quarrying State n/a n/a State n/a EPA NEI05 EPA

NEI05 State MARAMA 09 EPA

NEI05 n/a EPA

NEI05 State

2399 Industrial Refrigeration State n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a State n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

2401 Surface Coating EPA State State State State State State State State State EPA EPA State

2415 Degreasing EPA State State State State State State State State State EPA EPA State

2420 Dry Cleaning EPA State State n/a State State EPA State n/a State EPA EPA State

2425 Graphic Arts EPA State State State State State State State State State EPA EPA StateTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 70

SCC4 Description CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT VA

2440 Industrial Adhesives 2005NEI State n/a State State State n/a State MARAMA 09 n/a n/a n/a n/a

2460 Consumer/Comm Products EPA State State State State State State State n/a State EPA EPA State

2461 Road Asphalt 2005NEI State State State State State State State State State State EPA State

2465 Consumer Products n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a State n/a n/a n/a n/a

2501 Portable Fuel Containers NEI0508 INT State State n/a State EPA EPA State State State State EPA EPA

2501 Gas Stations Stage 1 2008NEI State State State State State State State EPA State State State State

2501 Gas Stations Stage 2 MOVES MOVES MOVES MOVES MOVES MOVES MOVES MOVES State M OVES State

MOVES MOVES MOVES State MOVES 2501 Aviation Gas Stage 1/2 EPA State State State State State n/a State n/a n/a EPA State EPA

2505 Tank Truck Transport 2008NEI State State State State State n/a State EPA State State State State

2610 Open Burning EPA State State State State EPA State State EPA State / USEPA EPA EPA EPA

2620 Landfills State State n/a State State State State State State n/a n/a n/a n/a

2630 Wastewater Treatment EPA State State State State State State State State State EPA EPA EPA
2660 Leaking Underground Tanks State State n/a State State State State State n/a n/a n/a n/a State

2680 Composting State n/a n/a State n/a n/a State State n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
2801 Agriculture Tilling State State n/a State State State State State n/a EPA NEI05 EPA

NEI05 State StateTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 71

SCC4 Description CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT VA
2801 Agriculture Field Burning n/a n/a n/a State n/a n/a n/a State n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
2801 Agriculture Fertilizer EPA CMU State n/a EPA CMU EPA

CMU EPA

CMU EPA

CMU EPA

CMU EPA

CMU EPA

CMU EPA

CMU EPA

CMU EPA

CMU 2805 Agriculture Livestock EPA CMU State n/a EPA CMU EPA

CMU EPA

CMU EPA

CMU EPA

CMU EPA

CMU EPA

CMU EPA

CMU EPA

CMU EPA

CMU

2810 Forest Wildfires n/a State n/a State State State n/a State State EPA n/a State SEMAP 07 2810 Prescribed Fires n/a State State State State n/a n/a State State n/a n/a n/a SEMAP 07

2810 Structure Fires State State State State State State State State State n/a n/a State State

Note: this table provides a general indication of the data source used for each major source category. Refer to the NIF EM table for a comprehensive listing of the Data Source for each individual county/SCC/pollutant.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 72



### 4.4 VERSION 2: STATE AND STAKEHOLDER REVIEW AND COMMENT

The draft MS Access area source files were pro vided to States and stakeholders for review and comment. Within the Access database three queries were provided to allow the States to summarize emissions by State, county, SCC and pollutant to assist with the review. States and stakeholders provided com ments and changes for incorporation and/or change. The following subsections describe the comments received and other QA activities performed that were ultimately incorporated into the final area source inventory.

4.4.1 National Park Service Comments

The only comments received from outside stakeholders came from the National Park Service (NPS). The NPS requested that the documentation be updated to more clearly identify the data sources used by each State for each category. Exhibits 4.2 and 4.3 were

prep ared in response to this request. Note that Exhibit 4.2 provides only a general indication of the data source used for each major source category. Reviewers are directed to the NOF EM table for a comprehensive listing of the Data Source used for each
ind ividual county/SCC/pollutant record

. T he NPS also commented on the large differences in emissions from some categories between 2002 and 2007. These differences
were evaluated and are addressed in Section 4.4. 3 and 4.5 of this TSD.

4.4.2 Checks for Missing Categories , Double Counting , Outliers , and Differences

between 2002 and 2007 Inventories
As shown previously in Exhibit 4.3, a variety of data sources and methods are used by States to develop the 2007 inventory. The potential exists for categories to be inadvertently omitted, double counted (for example by including both State

- specific and
USEPA estimates), or to have a large per

- capita or per

- employee variation from State

- to

State.

To guard against omission or double counting, the Contractor and MARAMA p repared a series of SCC level summary reports and manually reviewed them to determine potentially missing source categories. Among the reports were the following:

“SCC in both 2002 and 2007” compares emissions by State and SCC for SCCs contained in both t he 2002 and 2007 inventories. “2002 SCCs NOT in 2007” contains the SCCs that were in the 2002 inventory, but not in the first draft of the 2007 inventory. “2007 SCCs NOT in 2002” contains the SCCs that were in the 2007 inventory, but not in the 2002 invent ory.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 73



### There are both increases and decreases in emissions between 2002 and 2007 depending upon the State and pollutant. In order to better understand these differences, we also prepared charts to graphically depict t he major differences between the 2002 and 2007 area source inventories. Finally 4

- digit SCC summaries were prepared to identify gaps.

States were asked to review these QA reports and provide responses to fill in gaps or address potentially anomalous emission estimates. Several instances were found where a State did not have emissions for a relatively important source category in the draft 2007 inventory. Examples are several SCCs related to PM emissions from construction, agricultural tilling and mining & quarrying operations. These gaps we re brought to the attention of the affected States for resolution. In some cases, States provided data for the missing categories or advised the Contractor to fill in the gap using available data from existing USEPA or MARAMA inventories. In other cases, States indicated that emissions from the missing categories were small and determined that the effort to fill the missing category gap was not justified.

We reviewed SO2 and NOx emissions by State from industrial, commercial/institutional,
and residentia l fuel combustion. Since the OTC is considering additional control measures for the industrial/commercial/institutional fuel combustion category, these values were closely scrutinized. Pennsylvania showed a dramatic increase in emissions from 2002 to
200 7 for both SO2 and NOx for the industrial fuel combustion category. New York showed a substantial decrease in both the industrial and commercial/institutional categories from 2002 to 2007. Pennsylvania provided updated estimates for Version 3 of the
inve ntory. N ew York did not provide an explanation of the possible reason for the differences, and no changes to the 2007 values were made.

A comparison of 2002 and 2007 VOC emissions by State for three types of solvent evaporation categories revealed that tw o States

– Maine and New York

– appear to have
double

- counted VOC emissions for this category using two different SCCs (24

- 60

- xxx

- xx and 24

- 65

- xxx

- xx). Maine and New York reviewed the issue and provided updates to eliminate the double counting issue.

4.5 VERS ION 3 REVISIONS

4.5.1 Use of New USEPA Road Dust Equation
In January 2011, USEPA issued a new methodology (USEPA 2011) for developing
emission factors for re

- entrained particulate matter from vehicles traveling over a paved surface such as a road or parking lot. The new methodology was not used in Version 2 of
the MANE

- VU+VA 2007 inventory as it was not finalized in time.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 74



### This January 2011 version of the paved road emission factor equation only estimates particulate emissions from suspended road surface materi al. Particulate emissions from vehicle exhaust, brake wear, and tire wear are now estimated separately using USEPA's MOVES model. This approach eliminates possible double counting of emissions resulting from use of the previous version of the equation in this section and MOVES to estimate particulate emissions from vehicle traffic on paved roads.

All states (except Maine) submitted revised paved road emission estimates using the new methodology for Version 3 of the 2007 MANE

- VU+VA inventory. Exhibit 4.4 compares the 2007 PM10 and PM2.5 emissions using the new and previous methodology. PM10 emissions are lower using the new methodology, while PM2.5 emissions are higher.

Exhibit 4.4

– 2007 Paved Road Dust PM10 and PM2.5 Emission Estimates

State PM10

- PRI PM25

- PRI

Version2 (tons/yr) Version 3

New Method (tons/yr) Version2

(tons/yr) Version 3

New Method (tons/yr)

Connecticut 16,085 6,722 688 1,680 Delaware 10,217 4,556 724 1,143 District of Columbia 1,841 819 81 201 Maine* 16,536 16,536 1,665 1,665 Maryland** 12,813 13,798 3,160 3,387 Massachusetts 32,748 27,392 1,622 6,724 New Hampshire 8,821 7,985 524 1,960 New Jersey 38,210 19,914 1,142 4,979 New York 95,075 46,348 5,818 11,376 Pennsylvania 92,927 46,806 6,114 11,489 Rhode Island 4,387 3,833 204 941 Vermont 11,326 5,659 979 1,389 Virginia 50,827 29,637 2,966 7,275

Total 391,814 230,004 25,690 54,207
* Maine did not provide paved road emissions using the new method. ** Maryland used a draft version of the new AP

- 42 method for Version 2.



### 4.5.2 Use of MOVES Model to Estimate Stage II Emissions
States elected to use the Stage II emissions as calculated by the MOVES model, and to include those emissions in the area source sector emission summaries. Stage II emissions result from the refueling of motor vehicles at gasoline service stations. NESCA UM, PA, NY, and VA each executed the MOVES model in inventory mode to calculate vehicle refueling emissions. The MOVES estimates were used instead of the estimates providedTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 75



### by states for Version 2 of the inventory. The MOVES estimates are not included in the onroad sector summaries or modeling files so that the emissions will not be double
counted. Exhibit 4.5 compares the Stage II VOC emissions in the 2008 NEI to the emissions calculated using the MOVES model. VOC emissions are higher using MOVES
in so me states, lower in others. Appendix F contains NESCAUM’s documentation of the MOVES modeling. Appendix G contains the VOC control efficiencies by county used in the MOVES modeling for displacement losses and for spillage losses

.

Exhibit 4.5

– Stage II R efueling VOC Emissions for 2007 Using NMIM and MOVES

State NEI2008 (tons/yr) 2007 Version 3 Using MOVES (tons/yr)

Connecticut 483 286 Delaware 284 294 District of Columbia 71 52 Maine 809 709 Maryland 1,933 2,132 Massachusetts 980 807 New Hampshire 412 419 New Jersey 2,287 2,500 New York 7,604 8,787 Pennsylvania 5,313 6,581 Rhode Island 178 180 Vermont 128 122 Virginia 4,464 5,569

Total 24,947 28,437



### 4.5.3 Connecticut Changes for Fuel Combustion
Connecticut provided updated 2007 emission estimates for non

- wood fuel combustion for the residential, commercial/institutional and industrial source categories. Connecticut previously relied on USEPA’s 2005 NEI

- v2 (commercial/institutional and industrial ) and USEPA’s 2008 NEI (residential) for these categories. Prompted by reviews provided by MARAMA, Connecticut subsequently discovered that USEPA’s inventory assumed a 2.25% sulfur level for residual fuel oil compared to a CT regulatory maximum of 1.0%

su lfur. In addition, Connecticut could not verify whether USEPA’s 2005 NEI

- v2 adjusted its area source estimates to avoid double counting of point sources. As a result,
Connecticut has decided to use emission estimates from its draft

- 2005 periodic emission s inventory (PEI) for the non

- wood fuel combustion portions of the three cited categories.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 76



### The draft

- 2005 PEI includes only CO, VOC and NOx emissions, so fuel use values were multiplied by USEPA emission factors obtained from the 2008 NEI to calculate est imates of annual SO2 and PM2.5 emissions. Emissions for 2005 are assumed to be representative of 2007, with no growth adjustments.

Connecticut identified errors in the Version 2 inventory that were corrected in Version 3. The CO emissions for residential distillate oil combustion were incorrectly reported as
winter season emissions instead of annual emissions. Version 2 emissions for residential, commercial/institutional, and industrial kerosene combustion were based on NEI 2008
values. Connecticut indicated that kerosene emissions in the state are included under the distillate oil category. Emissions for the kerosene combustion SCC s were set to zero in Version 3 to avoid double counting of emissions. For a few SCCs, the sum of the PM10

- FIL and PM

- CON emissions did not equal the PM10

- PRI emissions, and the sum of the
PM25

- FIL and PM

- CON emissions did not equal the PM25

- PRI emissions . Revisions to
the PM10

- PRI and PM25

- PRI emissions were made to correct the error.

4.5.4 Connecticut Revisions for AIM Coatings and Auto Refinishing
Version 2 of the 2007 inventory for AIM coatings was based on USEPA 2008 NEI values, which accounted for the implementation of the OTC model rule for AIM coatings in Connecticut. Since Connecticut’s AIM rule did not go into place in time to produce 2007

r eductions, the 2008 NEI values for those SCCs were increased for the Version 3 inventory. The emission factor used to calculate emissions was changed from 2.41 to 3.02 lbs/person to reflect the absence of reductions from the CT AIM rule in 2007.

Version 2 of the 2007 inventory for industrial maintenance coatings was based on USEPA 2008 NEI values, which accounted for the implementation of the OTC model rule for AIM coatings in Connecticut. Since Connecticut’s AIM rule did not go into place in time to

pr oduce 2007 reductions, the 2008 NEI values for those SCCs were increased for the Version 3 inventory. The emission factor used to calculate emissions was changed from 0.15 to 0.96 lbs/person to reflect the absence of reductions from the CT AIM rule in 200 7.

Version 2 of the 2007 inventory for auto refinishing coatings was based on USEPA 2008 NEI values, which did not account for the implementation of the OTC model rule for mobile equipment repair and refinishing in Connecticut. A rule similar to the OTC rule was in place in Connecticut in April 2006. Since Connecticut’s auto refinishing rule was in place prior to 2007, the 2008 NEI values for those SCCs were reduced for the Version 3 inventory. The emission factor used to calculate emissions was change d from 89 to 55 lbs/employee to reflect the 38 percent reduction in VOC emissions from the Connecticut auto refinishing rule in 2007.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 77



### 4.5.5 District of Columbia Residential Wood Combustion

Emissions for residential wood combustion in the District of Columbia w ere missing from
Version 2 of the 2007 MANE

- VU+VA area source inventory. These emissions were originally estimated using the USEPA RWC tool, but were inadvertently left out of the 2007 inventory. The 2007 emissions calculated by the USEPA RWC tool were a dded

.

4.5.6 Maryland Degreasing VOC Emisions
Maryland provided revised estimates for VOC emissions for the degreasing category.

4.5.7 Massachusetts NH3 Emisions

Massachusetts added NH3 emissions from humans (SCC 28

- 10

- 010

- 000 ), cats (SCC 28

- 06

- 010

- 000 ), and dogs (SCC 28

- 06

- 015

- 000 ) that were missing in Version 2.

4.5.8 New Jersey Bakeries and Auto Refinishing VOC Emisions
New Jersey revised the VOC emissions for bakeries and auto refinishing.

4.5.9 New York VOC Emisions from Residential Wood Combustion

New York revised the CO an d VOC emissions for all residential wood combustion SCCs.

4.5.10 Pennsylvania Industrial Coal Combustion
Pennsylvania revised the i ndustrial c oal emissions for SCCs 2102001000 and 2102002000. This revision was accomplished using one of the two new preferred met hods of point subtraction based on activity throughputs (coal usage). The revised activity method is performed by subtracting the point source coal usage from the state coal usage totals, and then calculating the area source emissions, which is a more acc urate calculation estimate.

4.5.11 Pennsylvania Residential Distillate Oil Combustion
Pennsylvania’s original submittal for SO2 emissions for residential distillate oil were incorrectly underreported by a factor of 100. This error was corrected in Version 3.

4.5.12 Virginia Industrial Coal Combustion
Virginia identified an error in the Version 2 emissions from industrial coal combustion (SCC=21

- 02

- 002

- 000) resulting from a misinterpretation of activity data from the Energy Information Administration. Virginia now b elieves that all industrial coal combustion is accounted for in the point source inventory. All emissions for this SCC were zeroed out for all counties in Virginia.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 78



### 4.5.13 Multiple States Open Burning and Commercial Cooking
USEPA updated their emissions estim ates for the 2008 NEI in August, 2011. Several
states relied on the USEPA estimates for use in the 2007 MANE

- VU+VA inventory.
These revisions included:

For commercial cooking (SCCs 23

- 02

- 002

- xxx and 23

- 02

- 003

- xxx), USEPA added

e mission factors for PM

- CON and emission s for PM25

- PRI were recalculated.

For open burning (26

- 10

- 000

- 100, 26

- 10

- 000

- 400, 26

- 10

- 000

- 500, 26

- 10

- 030

- 000), USEPA updated per capita waste generation and recalculated emissions.

Emissions for states using the USEPA estimates were updated to reflect these changes.

4.6 ANNUAL 2007 AREA SOURCE EMISSION SUMMARY

Overall, estimated area source emissions decreased from 2002 to 2007 in the region for all pollutants. Area source emissions are generally a product of both activity and emission factors. Changes in both activity and emission factors occurred between 2002 and 2007 for several categories resulting in changes in emission estimates

. Exhibit 4.6 summarizes 2002 and 2007 area source CO emissions by State. Exhibit 4.7 presents the 20 07 CO emissions by State and major source category. Most States show a significant reduction in CO area source emissions between 2002 and 2007. The District of Columbia, Rhode Island and Vermont show increases. Regionwide, area source emissions
of CO ar e estimated to be 3 3 % lower in 2007 than was estimated in 2002. Most of the area source CO emissions result from residential wood combustion and open burning, and the emission estimation methods used for these categories changed between 2002 and 2007.
Th erefore, the substantial changes in CO emissions from 2002 to 2007 are primarily due to different emission estimation methodologies used for the 2002 and 2007 inventories.

Exhibit 4.8 summarizes 2002 and 2007 area source NH3 emissions by State. Exhibit 4. 9 presents the 2007 NH3 emissions by State and major source category. Most States show a reduction in NH3 area source emissions between 2002 and 2007, except for the District of Columbia, which show substantial percentage increase. It should be noted tha t the magnitude of NH3 emissions in the District are very small in comparison to regional emissions, and the large percentage increase is insignificant in the context of regional air quality modeling. Regionwide, area source emissions of NH3 are estimated to be 1 5 % lower in 2007 than was estimated in 2002. Nearly all area source NH3 emissions result from agricultural livestock and fertilizer categories which were calculated by USEPA using the CMU ammonia model. Reductions in animal populations and fertil izer usage between 2007 and 2002 are the reason for the change.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 79



### Exhibit 4.10 summarizes 2002 and 2007 area source NOx emissions by State. Exhibit 4.11 presents the 2007 NOx emissions by State and major source category. Most States show
decreases between 2002 and 2007, except for Pennsylvania and Vermont, which show
increases. Regionwide, area source emissions of NOx are estimated to be 2 8 % lower in 2007 than was estimated in 2002. Nearly all area source NOx emissions are from the industrial, commercial, and residential (non

- wood fuel) categories.

Exhibit 4.12 summarizes 2002 and 2007 area source PM10

- PRI emissions by State. Exhibit 4.13 presents the 2007 PM10

- PRI emissions by State and major source category. Regionwide, area source emissions of PM10

- P RI are estimated to be 29 % lower in 2007
than was estimated in 2002. PM10

- PRI emissions are attributable to the paved/unpaved road dust, construction activity, mining & quarrying, and agricultural tilling categories. Changes in the emission calculation m ethodology for road dust from paved roads accounts for a substantial portion of the decrease.

Exhibit 4.14 summarizes 2002 and 2007 area source PM25

- PRI emissions. Exhibit 4.15 presents the 2007 PM25

- PRI emissions by State and major source category. Regi onwide,
area source emissions of PM25

- PRI are estimated to be 19% lower in 2007 than was
estimated in 2002. PM25

- PRI emissions result from residential wood combustion, paved/unpaved road dust, construction activity, mining & quarrying, and open burning

ca tegories. Changes in the emission calculation methodology for road dust from paved roads and residential wood combustion accounts for a substantial portion of the changes.

Exhibit 4.16 summarizes 2002 and 2007 area source SO2 emissions by State. Exhibit 4.17 presents the 2007 SO2 emissions by State and major source category. Most States show decreases between 2002 and 2007, except for Connecticut and Pennsylvania, which show
increases. Regionwide, area source emissions of SO2 are estimated to be 42 % lowe r in 2007 than was estimated in 2002. Nearly all area source SO2 emissions are from the industrial, commercial, and residential (non

- wood fuel) categories.

Exhibit 4.18 summarizes 2002 and 2007 area source VOC emissions by State. Exhibit 4.19 presents the 2007 VOC emissions by State and major source category. All States show substantial reductions in VOC emissions from 2002 to 2007. Regionwide, area
source emissions of VOC are estimated to be 45% lower in 2007 than was estimated in
2002. Part of the difference can be explained by post

- 2002 control measures for architectural coatings, consumer products, degreasing and portable fuel containers. But, as was discuss for CO emissions, part of the difference is due to differences in the methodologies used to estimate emissions from residential wood combustion.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 80



### Exhibit 4. 6

– 2002 and 2007 Area Source CO Emissions by State (tons/year)

STATE 2002 2007 Change

Connecticut 70,198 41,496

- 41%

Delaware 14,052 8,266

- 41%

District of Columbia 2,300 5,488 139%

Maine 109,223 50,496

- 54%
Maryland 141,179 74,188

- 47%

Massachusetts 137,496 79,226

- 42%
New Hampshire 79,647 39,677

- 50%
New Jersey 97,657 77,687

- 20%

New York 356,254 205,055

- 42%
Pennsylvania 266,935 217,079

- 19%

Rhode Island 8,007 15,419 93%

Vermont 43,849 51,109 17%
Virginia 155,873 132,098

- 15%
1,482,669 997,285

- 33%



### Exhibit 4. 7

– 2007 Area Source CO Emissions by Category and State (tons/year)Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 81



### Exhibit 4. 8

– 2002 and 2007 Area Source NH3 Emissions by State (tons/year)

STATE 2002 2007 Change

Connecticut 5,318 4,421

- 17%

Delaware 13,278 12,382

- 7%

District of Columbia 14 183 1188%

Maine 8,747 5,736

- 34%
Maryland 25,835 26,006 1%

Massachusetts 18,809 13,791

- 27%
New Hampshire 2,158 1,500

- 30%
New Jersey 17,572 15,736

- 10%

New York 67,422 45,693

- 32%
Pennsylvania 79,911 72,569

- 9%

Rhode Island 883 625

- 29%

Vermont 9,848 8,013

- 19%
Virginia 43,905 43,394

- 1%
293,699 250,049

- 15%



### Exhibit 4. 9

– 2007 Area Source NH3 Emissions by Category and State (tons/year)Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 82



### Exhibit 4. 10

– 2002 and 2007 Area Source NOx Emissions by State (tons/year)

STATE 2002 2007 Change

Connecticut 12,689 12,422

- 2%

Delaware 2,608 2,237

- 14%

District of Columbia 1,644 1,547

- 6%

Maine 7,360 6,656

- 10%
Maryland 15,678 10,312

- 34%

Massachusetts 34,281 20,252

- 41%
New Hampshire 10,960 4,737

- 57%
New Jersey 26,692 24,175

- 9%

New York 98,803 72,053

- 27%
Pennsylvania 47,591 47,545 0%

Rhode Island 3,886 3,469

- 11%

Vermont 3,208 3,996 25%
Virginia 51,418 19,056

- 63%
316,817 228,458

- 28%



### Exhibit 4. 11

– 2007 Area Source NOx Emissions by Category and State (tons/year)Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 83



### Exhibit 4. 1 2

– 2002 and 2007 Area Source PM10

- PRI Emissions by State (tons/year)

STATE 2002 2007 Change

Connecticut 48,281 30,577

- 37%

Delaware 13,039 10,499

- 19%

District of Columbia 3,269 4,873 49%

Maine 168,953 54,445

- 68%
Maryland 95,060 72,454

- 24%

Massachusetts 192,860 148,756

- 23%
New Hampshire 43,329 27,742

- 36%
New Jersey 61,601 39,140

- 36%

New York 369,595 272,674

- 26%
Pennsylvania 391,897 287,998

- 27%

Rhode Island 8,295 11,361 37%

Vermont 56,131 47,993

- 14%
Virginia 237,577 183,341

- 23%
1,689,886 1,191,853

- 29%



### Exhibit 4. 1 3

– 2007 Area Source PM10

- PRI Emissions by Category and State (tons/year)Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 84



### Exhibit 4. 1 4

– 2002 and 2007 Area Source PM25

- PRI Emissions by State (tons/year)

STATE 2002 2007 Change

Connecticut 14,247 10,606

- 26%

Delaware 3,204 3,031

- 5%

District of Columbia 805 1,542 91%

Maine 32,774 12,526

- 62%
Maryland 27,318 19,789

- 28%

Massachusetts 42,083 30,438

- 28%

New Hampshire 17,532 8,623

- 51%
New Jersey 19,350 18,299

- 5%

New York 87,155 63,906

- 27%
Pennsylvania 74,925 73,514

- 2%

Rhode Island 2,064 3,896 89%

Vermont 11,065 13,106 18%
Virginia 43,989 44,102 0%
376,510 303,378

- 19%



### Exhibit 4. 1 5

– 2007 Area Source PM25

- PRI Emissions by Category and State (tons/year)Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 85



### Exhibit 4. 1 6

– 2002 and 2007 Area Source SO2 Emissions by State (tons/year)

STATE 2002 2007 Change

Connecticut 12,419 16,083 30%

Delaware 1,588 1,144

- 28%

District of Columbia 1,336 1,241

- 7%

Maine 13,149 9,812

- 25%
Maryland 12,393 5,960

- 52%

Massachusetts 25,488 19,859

- 22%
New Hampshire 7,072 5,283

- 25%
New Jersey 10,744 8,811

- 18%

New York 130,409 70,044

- 46%
Pennsylvania 63,679 66,584 5%

Rhode Island 4,557 3,897

- 14%

Vermont 4,088 3,752

- 8%
Virginia 105,890 17,098

- 84%
392,812 229,569

- 42%



### Exhibit 4. 1 7

– 2007 Area Source SO2 Emissions by Category and State (tons/year)Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 86



### Exhibit 4. 1 8

– 2002 and 2007 Area Source VOC Emissions by State (tons/year)

STATE 2002 2007 Change

Connecticut 87,302 57,253

- 34%

Delaware 15,520 9,482

- 39%

District of Columbia 6,432 5,568

- 13%

Maine 100,621 31,966

- 68%
Maryland 120,254 64,429

- 46%

Massachusetts 155,557 85,870

- 45%
New Hampshire 65,371 22,343

- 66%
New Jersey 167,882 98,121

- 42%

New York 507,291 195,976

- 61%
Pennsylvania 240,785 176,781

- 27%

Rhode Island 31,402 24,214

- 23%

Vermont 23,266 14,108

- 39%
Virginia 172,989 142,218

- 18%
1,694,670 928,330

- 45%



### Exhibit 4. 1 9

– 2007 Area Source VOC Emissions by Category and State (tons/year)Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 87



## 5.0 ANNUAL 2007 INVENTORY FOR NONROAD SOURCES

INCLUDED IN THE NONROAD MODEL

5.1 NONROAD MODEL CATEGORIES

The USEPA ’s NONROAD model estimates emissions from equipment such as
recreational marine v essels, recreational land

- based vehicles, farm and construction machinery, lawn and garden equipment , a ircraft ground support equipment (GSE) and rail maintenance equipment. This equipment is powered by diesel, gasoline, compressed natural gas or liquefie d petroleum gas engines.

The National Mobile Inventory Model (NMIM) was developed by USEPA to estimate
county

- level emissions for certain types of nonroad equipment. NMIM uses the current
version the NONROAD model. The NMIM national county database contains monthly input data to reflect county specific fuel parameters and temperatures. Most of the work associated with executing NMIM involved updating the NMIM county database with
State

- specific information. For this analysis, we used the NMIM2008 software (version NMIM20090504), the NMIM County Database (version NCD20090531), and
N ONROAD2008a (July 2009 version) as a starting point (USEPA 2009d). Changes were
made to the NCD20090531 based on State review.

5.2 VERSION 2 INVENTORY DEVELOPMENT

The following subsections describe how Version 2 of the inventory was prepared.

5.2.1 S tate Review of NMIM Meteorology Data and Fuel Characteristics

The Contractor obtained from USEPA the National County Database (NCD20090531) f or use as a starting point for preparing the modeling data sets. NCD20090531contains the 2007 year

- specific meteorology data set that USEPA used to calculate 2007 emissions in addition to fuel revisions for years 2006

- 2011. These fuel values are updates to those in
the 2007 USEPA NMIM run which used NCD20090327. It was decided to use NCD20090531 as a starting point for development of the NONROAD input files for the 2007 modeling inventory. NCD20090531 was made available for state comment.

Several States commented on fuel characteristics data and changes were made to the underlying MySQL database to incorporate those changes into the model. These included changes to Reid Vapor Pressure, sulfur and oxygenate fractions. Where changes were made, the Contra ctor created new gasoline types and IDs using the NMIM MySQL NCD
database default entries as a starting point. Only information related to criteria pollutant emission calculations was changed. Information related to air toxics that was contained inTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 88



### the i nitial default fuel characteristic tables was not adjusted. Thus the fuel types created for the NMIM modeling should NOT be used for air toxics modeling. To further separate the data in the fuel characteristics tables from other modeling efforts, the Con tractor created a separate NCD for use exclusively for this modeling effort.

Exhibit 5.1 shows the number of added gasoline fuel record types added to the “gasoline” table in the MySQL NCD database. The total number of added fuel records was 118 new gasol ine types. These records were given GasolineID values of 4462 to 4479 inclusive.

Exhibit 5.1

– Gasoline Fuel Record Types Add to MySQL NCD Database

State Number of revised

gasoline records

CT 10
MD 48
NH 15
NJ 20
NY 25 

### Although records were added for NY, they were not used since NY performed their own NONROAD modeling (see below).

5.2.2 Update of NMIM Allocation Files for Population and Housing
Several NONROAD categories use housing unit or population data to allocate the emissions to the county level from State calculations. States identified some discrepancies in the housing and population data contained in the NONROAD model and requested that
the Contractor update the allocation files for those categories. As a consequence, the
Contractor obtained 1 and 2 unit housing information and updated 2007 population
estimates. Data were obtained from the sources listed in Exhibit 5.2. :

Exhibit 5.2

– Data Sources for Population and Housing Data

Source Type Data Source
2007 Population Data Source http://www.census.gov/ popest/counties/CO

- EST2008

- 01.html Total Housing Data Source http://www.census.gov/popest/housing/HU

- EST2007

- CO.html
1 yr

- 1 and 2 Unit Housing Data 2007 American Community Survey 1

- Year Estimates

3 yr

- 1 and 2 Unit Housing Data B25024. UNITS IN STRUCTURE

- Universe: HOUSING UNITS Data Set: 2005

- 2007 American Community Survey 3

- Year Estimates, Survey: American Community Survey


### Three sources for the housing unit data were required to evaluate all counties within the region. Census data are frequ ently withheld when the data reporting can lead to disclosureTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 89



### of confidential business information or due to incomplete survey response. For the 1 and 2 unit housing data, the predominant source was the 1 year 1 and 2 unit housing data. If that

was unava ilable due to either confidentiality issues or lack of survey response, then the 3 year data was used by determining an average value for the three year period. Finally if no data were available for the 3 year 1 and 2 unit housing information, total housi ng unit data were utilized. The revised housing unit data affected the allocation of residential lawn and garden equipment. Revised allocation files for all MARAMA States (except NY) were developed and utilized in the NMIM modeling for this category.

For the population data, the latest county estimates of population were obtained from the
Census Bureau. These estimates were available for all counties within the MARAMA region. Again, revised allocation files were developed for all States within the MARAM A region with the exception of NY. These revised allocation files applied to railroad maintenance equipment and AC/refrigeration equipment.

A revised population allocation file was prepared for NH as part of this effort, but those
data were not obtained from the Census Bureau. The NH population data were provided by NH and were obtained from the "2007 Population Estimates of New Hampshire Cities and Towns", New Hampshire Office of Energy and Planning, June 2008. ” Those data
were used in lieu of the Cen sus Bureau data.

In addition, Pennsylvania provided changes to the values for 1 and 2 unit housing for 2007.
The source of these data was not cited.

5.2.3 S tate

- Specific Data Incorporated in NMIM
In addition to the global updates to the housing and population allocation files in the MARAMA region, several States submitted additional information used to update the underlying data used to calculate emissions from nonroad sources. The data submitted and the updates resulting from these submittals are discussed b elow by State.

5.2.3.1 

### Connecticut
Connecticut only provided updated information related to the gasoline characteristics. No additional changes were submitted.

5.2.3.2 

### Delaware
Delaware provided revised values for several additional allocation files beyond those for

popu lation and housing units. Data for 2005 were submitted and updated files were developed for the following allocation categories: golf courses, recreational marine vessels,
snow blowers , number of wholesale establishments, landscaping employees, andTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 90



### manufa cturing employees. In addition, Delaware also submitted data on the engine populations for 2005 for the following recreational marine vessels:

2282005010 2

- Str Outboard

2282005015 2

- Str Personal Water Craft

2282010005 4

- Str Inboard/Sterndrive

2282020005 Dsl

- Inboard

2282020010 Dsl

- Outboard


### The updated population values for 2005 were added to the corresponding file for the
NONROAD model and w ere used for the 2007 runs. Because of the way NONROAD handles missing data, if data for 2007 a re not found, the most current data (in this case 2005) are used to assist in determining a 2007 value.

5.2.3.3 

### Maryland
Maryland only provided information to update the gasoline characteristics. No additional changes were submitted.

5.2.3.4 

### New Hampshire
As indicated above, New Hampshire provided State

- specific population data from their own data source for their counties for use in preparing the population allocation files. A revised population allocation file was prepared for NH as part of this effort, but those data were not obtained from the Census Bureau. The NH population data were provided by NH
and were obtained from the "2007 Population Estimates of New Hampshire Cities and Towns", New Hampshire Office of Energy and Planning, June 2008. Those da ta were
used in lieu of the Census Bureau data.

5.2.4 New Jersey
New Jersey provided revised gasoline characteristics values as well as NONROAD equipment population data with revised data on equipment population values for Air port Ground Support Equipment. In a ddition, NJ provided revised human population data for 2002, 2005, 2010, 2015 and 2020 . These data (along with the 2007 data generated from the Census Bureau) were added to the NJ population allocation file.

5.2.4.1 

### New York
New York opted to not have the Contrac tor calculate emissions using NMIM for their State. Instead, NY calculated their own emissions for the nonroad category and submitted the output files to the Contractor for post processing. The output files submitted by NY were monthly output runs from t he NONROAD model for each county . The ContractorTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 91



### simply post

- processed these files to combine emissions and throughput values for each county into an annual emissions number. Summary annual files were submitted to NY by
the Contractor for approval. No ot her work on the NY emissions was performed by the
Contractor

.

5.2.4.2 

### Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania provided revised data for the 1 and 2 unit housing information for 2007.
Those data were used in lieu of the Census Bureau data for 2007 in the allocation file. The
source of these data was not cited.

5.2.5 NMIM R un Specification
The run specifications for each NMIM run were developed on a State

- by

- State basis. The settings for each specification panel within the NMIM model are detailed below.

Description: A short descrip tive term for the run was entered for each State specific

run.
Geography: The “county” option was selected for each State specific run. All
counties within a State were selected for the run.

Time: On the time panel, the year 2007 was selected in the drop down box and added to the year selections area. The Use Yearly Weather Data check box was also selected. Every month in the Months check box area was selected.

Vehicles/Equipment: Only the nonroad vehicle/equipment area was selected. All
fuels and all v ehicle types were selected for each State run.

Fleet: No selections or information was entered in this panel.

Pollutants: All criteria pollutants (with HC reported as VOC) were selected except
for CO 2 

### . Exhaust PM10 and PM2.5 were also selected.

Advanced f

eatures: Only the server and database were selected in this panel.

Output: Under the Geographic Representation panel the County selection was made. In the General Output area, a new database was selected on the server for the output.

All added external fi les for use in each State run were placed in the external files directory of the NCD. Entries for all external files included were added to the countynrfiles table of
the NCD.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 92



### 5.2.6 S tate and Stakeholder Review of Version 2

The Contractor completed the NMIM modeling runs in October of 2009 . The results were
made available to States and Stakeholders for review and comment. Based on the comments received, the following issues were addressed, and in some cases, changes were
made to the 2007 nonroad inventory for sources included in NMIM.

5.2.6.1 

### Connecticut
Connecticut requested several changes to the NMIM inputs, which were incorporated into
a new 2007 NMIM run. Connecticut indicated that the RFG areas were not applied to counties correctly. RV P values were modified by a small amount to reflect USEPA RFG sample averages for the appropriate mapping of Connecticut counties to RFG areas. Connecticut identified discrepancies in the RFG average sulfur values for 2007 and provided updated values. Co nnecticut also provided updated values for the calculated oxygen weight percents for ethanol.

5.2.6.2 

### New Jersey

N ew Jersey identified a very minor issue with the fuels data used for the 2007 NMIM runs. After considering the insignificant impact it would have on the emission totals, they agreed
the fuels data used in the original NMIM run w ere adequate

.

5.2.7 Removal of Airport Ground Support Equipment Emissions

The NMIM /NONROAD model includes emissions from a irport ground s upport

e quipment . As discussed in detail in Section 6 of this TSD, emissions from airport ground support equipment is also included in USEPA ’s aircraft inventory that was prepared using
the Federal Av iation Administration’s Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS). Correspondence with USEPA indicated that USEPA considers the emissions calculated by EDMS to be better than those calculated by NONROAD. For this reason, all emissions calculated by NMIM/NONROAD for airport ground support equipment were removed from the inventory to avoid double counting emissions.

5.3 CHANGES MADE FOR VERSION 3

Two main modifications were made to the nonroad inventory for 2007 for version 3 of the inventory. First, Vi rginia and New York requested that their emissions be recalculated using the information developed for the MARAMA States. The Virginia reruns were performed for all categories except for ground support equipment and for recreational
marine vessels. Those values replaced the SEMAP supplied values used in versions prior to version 3. As indicated above, New York had originally provided data fromTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 93



### NONROAD model runs that they performed separately. For this version of the inventory,
New York emissions were c alculated using NMIM runs set up using the same criteria as those for other states in earlier versions of the inventory. Both New York and Virginia were provided with the opportunity to review fuel characteristics prior to their runs. Only Virginia made changes to the fuels, however the only changes that were made were to assign alternative default fuels for gasoline powered engines to counties. The fuel characteristics were not modified from the NMIM defaults, only the fuel IDs associated with a particu lar county/month combination were changed to another default fuel. Those changes were instituted in the NCD developed specifically for MARAMA. Default values for diesel, LPG and CNG were maintained for Virginia. New York did not request any changes to th e default values. In addition, the revisions made to the housing population
allocation files were instituted for both states.

The second change was to modify the recreational marine vessel populations for all states except Vermont and Maine. A revised po pulation file was prepared for Virginia but not utilized in the version 3 runs. Virginia used the NMIM default engine population for recreational marine vessels for version 3 runs. The revised population data were provided by the National Marine Manufact urers Association (NMMA). Total state populations for each of the three major categories contained in the NONROAD model (outboard, inboard/sterndrive and personal watercraft) were provided for each state. Because the population files used by the NONROAD model (and thus NMIM) were configured with population values for various horsepower categories, AMEC determined the fraction of the total for each marine vessel type in each horsepower category from the NONROAD default population files. These fractions we re then used to allocate the total state population obtained from NMMA to the various horsepower categories.

The only exception to this was that some states added in data for sailboats to the NMMA data. The sailboat populations were split among two of the default NONROAD categories. In addition, New Hampshire provided their own revised population file. Their population data were provided by the New Hampshire DMV and is not from NMMA.

5.4 SUMMARY OF NMIM MODELING RESULTS FOR 2007

Exhibits 5.3 to 5.9 present S tate

- level summaries that compare 2002 and 2007 annual
emissions for NMIM/NONROAD sources (excluding airport ground support equipment) from Version 3 of the MARAMA inventory

. The 2002 emissions are those that were developed previously for Version 3 of the MANE

- VU and the VISTAS best

- and

- final inventory for Virginia

. Note that previous versions of this document had emissions forTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 94



### Virginia derived from VISTAS/SEMAP NMIM results. For this document the Virginia
data is from NMIM runs made consistent with the MARAMA approach.

For most States and pollutants, emissions from NMIM/NONROAD sources decreased
from 2002 to 2007.

CO emissions generally decreased by 15

- 30% in all States, in part due to turnover to newer, cleaner engines.

NH3 emissions showed increase s from 2002 to 2007 for all states except Connecticut and New Jersey which showed modest decreases.

Emissions of NO x 

### , PM10

- PRI, and PM25

- PRI generally decreased by 9

- 20% from 2002 to 2007, with some States showing slightly higher or slight lower decreases.

For SO 2 

### , emissions decreased by 40

- 50% in all States except New Hampshire and
Rhode Island.

VOC emissions decreased between 5

- 35% over the same time period.

In addition, the estimated decrease in emissions was due to difference s in the versions of
the N ONROAD model that were used to develop the 2002 and 2007 inventories. The new

ver sion of the model (NONROAD 2008 a) used for the 2007 inventory account s for new exhaust and evaporative emission controls, and predicts substantially less HC and CO, and
somewhat less NO x 

### and PM emissions than earlier versions of NONROAD with use of

compara ble scenario inputs. NH3 was relatively unaffected by the new NONROAD
version.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 95



### Exhibit 5. 3

– 2002 and 2007 NMIM/NONROAD CO Emissions by State (tons/year)

STATE 2002 2007 Change

Connecticut 274,388 181,817

- 34%

Delaware 65,954 55,173

- 16%

District of Columbia 18,775 14,319

- 24%

Maine 148,555 131,319

- 12%
Maryland 424,777 297,832

- 30%

Massachusetts 448,399 324,793

- 28%
New Hampshire 128,572 90,461

- 30%
New Jersey 692,548 445,302

- 36%

New York 1,219,168 911,813

- 25%
Pennsylvania 903,168 719,517

- 20%

Rhode Island 71,573 54,028

- 25%

Vermont 61,732 52,497

- 15%
Virginia 582,895 415,093

- 29%
5,040,503 3,693,965

- 27%



### Exhibit 5.4

– 2007 NMIM CO Emissions by Category and State (tons/year)Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 96



### Exhibit 5. 5

– 2002 and 2007 NMIM/NONROAD NH3 Emissions by State (tons/year)

STATE 2002 2007 Change

Connecticut 17 16

- 1%

Delaware 5 6 13%

District of Columbia 2 3 9%

Maine 11 13 11%
Maryland 28 29 4%

Massachusetts 28 28 0%
New Hampshire 9 10 11%
New Jersey 43 40

- 8%

New York 79 83 5%
Pennsylvania 55 60 9%

Rhode Island 4 5 15%

Vermont 5 5 12%
Virginia 42 45 5%

328 342 4%



### Exhibit 5.6

– 2007 NMIM NH3 Emissions by Category and State (tons/year)Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 97



### Exhibit 5. 7

– 2002 and 2007 NMIM/NONROAD NOx Emissions by State (tons/year)

STATE 2002 2007 Change

Connecticut 17,897 16,056

- 10%

Delaware 5,798 4,998

- 14%

District of Columbia 3,066 2,788

- 9%

Maine 8,229 7,439

- 10%
Maryland 27,789 25,726

- 7%

Massachusetts 30,047 26,471

- 12%
New Hampshire 8,150 8,562 5%
New Jersey 43,515 36,345

- 16%

New York 78,601 72,271

- 8%
Pennsylvania 62,265 55,362

- 11%

Rhode Island 4,564 4,388

- 4%

Vermont 4,170 3,743

- 10%
Virginia 40,788 41,325 1%
334,878 305,475

- 9%



### Exhibit 5.8

– 2007 NMIM NOx Emissions by Category and State (tons/year)Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 98



### Exhibit 5. 9

– 2002 and 2007 NMIM/NONROAD PM10

- PRI Emissions by State (tons/year)

STATE 2002 2007 Change

Connecticut 1,713 1,412

- 18%

Delaware 570 476

- 17%

District of Columbia 298 242

- 19%

Maine 1,204 1,151

- 4%
Maryland 3,119 2,600

- 17%

Massachusetts 2,887 2,384

- 17%

New Hampshire 947 846

- 11%
New Jersey 4,285 3,377

- 21%

New York 8,332 7,059

- 15%
Pennsylvania 6,281 5,623

- 10%

Rhode Island 403 367

- 9%

Vermont 518 482

- 7%
Virginia 4,901 4,128

- 16%
35,459 30,146

- 15%



### Exhibit 5.10

– 2007 NMIM PM10

- PRI Emissions by Category and State (tons/year)Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 99



### Exhibit 5. 11

– 2002 and 2007 NMIM/NONROAD PM25

- PRI Emissions by State (tons/year)

STATE 2002 2007 Change

Connecticut 1,578 1,343

- 15%

Delaware 525 453

- 14%

District of Columbia 288 234

- 19%

Maine 1,135 1,080

- 5%
Maryland 2,870 2,473

- 14%

Massachusetts 2,659 2,268

- 15%
New Hampshire 872 799

- 8%
New Jersey 3,951 3,213

- 19%

New York 7,670 6,715

- 12%
Pennsylvania 5,784 5,346

- 8%

Rhode Island 371 349

- 6%

Vermont 477 455

- 5%
Virginia 4,665 3,933

- 16%
32,844 28,660

- 13%



### Exhibit 5.12

– 2007 NMIM PM25

- PRI Emissions by Category and State (tons/year)Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 100



### Exhibit 5. 3

– 2002 and 2007 NMIM/NONROAD SO2 Emissions by State (tons/year)

STATE 2002 2007 Change

Connecticut 1,377 802

- 42%

Delaware 513 266

- 48%

District of Columbia 341 196

- 43%

Maine 772 416

- 46%
Maryland 2,569 1,436

- 44%

Massachusetts 2,428 1,377

- 43%
New Hampshire 673 441

- 34%
New Jersey 3,525 1,905

- 46%

New York 6,961 3,957

- 43%
Pennsylvania 5,292 2,972

- 44%

Rhode Island 335 211

- 37%

Vermont 368 202

- 45%
Virginia 3,982 2,284

- 43%
29,136 16,464

- 43%



### Exhibit 5.14

– 2007 NMIM SO2 Emissions by Category and State (tons/year)Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 101



### Exhibit 5. 15

– 2002 and 2007 NMIM/NONROAD VOC Emissions by State (tons/year)

STATE 2002 2007 Change

Connecticut 33,519 20,721

- 38%

Delaware 7,531 7,157

- 5%

District of Columbia 2,053 1,324

- 36%

Maine 30,741 29,880

- 3%
Maryland 53,035 35,160

- 34%

Massachusetts 54,836 35,676

- 35%
New Hampshire 22,238 17,108

- 23%
New Jersey 81,900 47,521

- 42%

New York 155,463 114,935

- 26%
Pennsylvania 99,241 86,397

- 13%

Rhode Island 7,699 6,721

- 13%

Vermont 10,520 10,339

- 2%
Virginia 53,487 55,135 3%
612,262 468,074

- 24%



### Exhibit 5.16

– 2007 NMIM VOC Emissions by Category and State (tons/year)Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 102



## 6.0 ANNUAL 2007 INVENTORY FOR NONROAD SOURCES

– MARINE VESSELS , AIRPORTS , AND RAIL

The Contractor estimated 2007 base year emissions for the Marine Vessel, Airports, and Rail (MAR) categories using USEPA/ERTAC data, USEPA / ERTAC data revised or augmented with state supplied data ; or State supplied data. Data for each MAR category
was obtained from USEPA and ERTAC for use as a default data set. The USEPA and
ERTAC data, developed to support the 2008 inventory, was provided to stat es for review. State inventory personnel determined which of the above approaches was appropriate for their state. MARAMA coordinated the collection of supplemental or replacement data
from states. The sections below describe the default data sources as well as the modifications received from states for each inventory segment.

6.1 COMMERCIAL MARINE VESSELS

For commercial marine vessels, data was obtained from USEPA 2008 NEI (USEPA 2010d). Initial draft database files were provided to the Contractor by USEPA for Category 1 and 2 CMV and for Category 3 CMV. The Category 1 and 2 database contained emissions for both ports and underway vessels.

The Category 3 database included tables containing emissions from approach, interport, port and RSZ. This database in cludes emissions from CMV operation within 1 2 nautical
miles of shore. Emissions beyond the 12 nautical mile boundaries are not included in this inventory, but will be provided by USEPA to emission modelers in SMOKE format for inclusion in air quality mod eling. These tables were matched to GIS ArcInfo shape files for use in plotting emissions.

Several MARAMA States indicated that they had CMV emissions that they preferred over those provided by USEPA. However, these emissions were only available in NIF area source file format (county/SCC summary level) and not spatially allocated. Thus for consistency, the Contractor summarized the emissions from USEPA to the county/SCC level and input that data into a database format. In late December 2009, USEPA pro vided the Contractor with a final version of the CMV emissions summarized at the county/SCC level. The file was a Microsoft Access database (2008CMVCntySummary.mdb). That database contained a summary table containing the State/county FIPS code, the SCC, pollutant code and 2008 annual emissions (in tons). The Contractor used that database to update the NIF format database for those MARAMA States that had indicated that they wished to use the USEPA data. The USEPA 2008 NEI data was used directly for 2007.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 103



### No changes were made to the 2008 data for 2007 (i.e., the 2007 emissions were assumed to be equal to 2008).

F our States (CT, DC

, RI, VA) used the USEPA NEI data for all CMV categories

. Virginia supplemented the USEPA CMV data by adding military vessels to the inventory. VT indicated that they wanted to use USEPA data but no CMV emissions were in the USEPA
database for VT. Six States (DE, ME, MA, NH, NJ and PA) supplied State specific data for all categories. Maryland used USEPA NEI data for diesel CMV and State

- specific data
for residual CMV. New York used State

- specific data for diesel CMV and upstate residual CMV, and USEPA NEI data for seven countie s in the New York City metro area.

Note that NY included VOC emissions from lightering operations in the CMV inventory using SCC 22

- 80

- 002

- 000. Delaware included VOC emissions from lightering operations in the point source inventory. No other State has significant lightering operations.

Exhibit 6.1 indicates the data source by State and SCC for the emissions in the MARAMA 2007 base year inventory for CMV.

Exhibit 6.1

– Data Sources for Commercial Marine Vessel Inventory

State 22

- 80

- 002

- 100

Diesel Por t 22

- 80

- 002

- 200

Diesel Underway 22

- 80

- 003

- 100

Residual Port 22

- 80

- 003

- 200

Residual Underway 22

- 83

- 000

- 000

All Fuels Military

CT EPA EPA EPA EPA n/a

DE State State State State n/a

DC n/a EPA n/a EPA n/a

ME State State State State n/a

MD EPA EPA State State n/a

MA State * State * State State n/a

NH State State State State n/a

NJ State State State State n/a

NY State State State / EPA State / EPA n/a

PA State State State State n/a

RI EPA EPA EPA EPA n/a

VT n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

VA EPA EPA EPA EPA State

* MA used different SCCs that the other States for diesel CMV to identify Harbor vessels, fishing vessels, military vessels, port operation s, and underway operation

.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 104



### 6.2 AIRPORTS (AIRCRAFT AND GROUND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT)

For airport emissions, states either used their own data or a database developed by USEPA to support the 2008 NEI (USEPA2010e). The USEPA database was developed on an airport by airport basis. Data files provided included:

EIS facility site ID State facility site ID Facility site name State and county FIPS code Source classification code
Pollutant code Airport emissions and The sum of landing and take offs (LTOs). In addition, a database containing geographic information on each facility (l atitude and longitude) along with operational information related to LTOs but contained no emissions
data.

For States that used the USEPA inventory the USEPA 2008 NEI airport data was summarized at the county/SCC level to provide a starting point. The rem aining States provided NIF format county/SCC level files. Once the initial inventory was compiled it was formatted in NIF format and the resultant database was provided to the States for review and comment. Changes resulting from States comments were mad e to the initial inventory.

Exhibit 6.2 indicates by State and SCC which components of the inventory came from different data sources. In those instances where the data source is listed as “EPA”, the data are taken directly from the 2008 NEI. 2008 data were used directly to represent 2007 emissions. No changes to the 2008 data were applied for the 2007 base year inventory. Exhibit 6.2 also indicates that for a number of States, the emission estimates represent blended sources. For example, several of the States providing their own data only provided emission estimates for aircraft emissions but not emissions for ground support equipment (GSE) or auxiliary power units (APUs). For those States, 2008 USEPA NEI data were added to the inventory to provide those estimates. Those States were DE and ME. MD provided State supplied GSE/APU emissions but without a break down of the GSE emissions by fuel type. In addition, NY provided EDMS output files for all aircraft
and GSE/APU emissions from each individua l airport. Those emissions also had GSE emissions as a single value without an indication of the fuel type of the equipment. In both cases (NY and MD), the fuel type ratios used in the USEPA NEI were used to divide GSE emissions by fuel type. Those rati os were:Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 105

SCC SCC Level Two Fraction

2265008005 Off

- highway Vehicle Gasoline, 4

- Stroke 0.1686

2267008005 LPG 0.0165

2268008005 CNG 0.013 1

2270008005 Off

- highway Vehicle Diesel 0.8017



### Finally, while Exhibit 6.2 indicates that most of VA’s emissions were derived from USEPA data, military aircraft operations emissions were provided by VA and were added to the USEPA data. However because these data were added as individual airports in counties where there were already emissions, when the data were summariz ed the data source was maintained as USEPA since the majority of emissions were derived from the USEPA inventory.

For Version 3, the only changes were to use a revised airport inventory for New Jersey.

Exhibit 6.2

– Data Sources for Airport Operations Inventory

State 2265, 2267,

2268, 2270 GSE 2275001xxx

Military 2275020xxx

Commercial 2275050xxx

General Aviation 2275060xxx

Air Taxi 2275070xxx

APUs

CT State State State State State State

DE EPA State State State State EPA

DC n/a n/a n/a State n/a n/a

ME EPA State State State State EPA

MD State and

EPA State State State State State and EPA

MA EPA EPA EPA EPA EPA EPA

NH State State State State State n/a

NJ State State State State State State

NY State n/a State State n/a State

PA EPA EPA EPA EPA EPA EPA

RI EPA EPA EPA EPA EPA EPA

VT EPA EPA EPA EPA EPA EPA

VA EPA EPA EPA EPA EPA EPATechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 106



### 6.3 RAILROAD LOCOMOTIVES AND RAILYARDS

The ERTAC 2008 inventory for railroad locomotives and rail yards was provided to
MANEVU+VA States for review to determine if the inventory should be included in the 2007 base year emission inventory (ERTAC 2010 a, ERTAC 2010b )

. The ERTAC rail inventory included three categories of locomotive emissions: Class I line

- haul, Class I rail yard switchers, and Cl ass II/III short line and regional railroads. The original files provided to the Contractor for the ERTAC inventory included several spreadsheets. There spreadsheets were:

1. EmissionsByCounty_Round61.xls (county level Class I line haul emissions)

2. Emissions ByState_Round61.xls (State level Class I line haul emissions)

3. R

- 1 Fuel Use Data Summary 20072.xls (line haul fuel use data for 2007)

4. Rail

- Class_II_III_revised 4

- 20

- 2010.xls (Class II and III county level emissions by rail line, along with link, mileage, and fuel usage information)

The data in the Class II and III spreadsheet was summarized by county and converted into
NIF format. The Class I emissions were also converted int o NIF format. B oth Class I and Class II/III emissions were reported as hydrocarbons (HC). These emissions were
converted to VOC emissions by multiplying the HC emissions by a factor of 1.053 (USEPA 2009e) for all states except Maryland, where a factor of 1.0478 was used. In addition, all 2008 emissions were assumed to equal 2007 emissions.

Three States (PA, VA and VT) used the ERTAC data directly without modification for the three categories included in the ERTAC inventory (Class I Line Haul, Class II/I II Line Haul, Yard/Switcher Locomotives). New Jersey used the ERTAC Class I data and State

supplied data for Class II/III and Yard locomotives. New York used the ERTAC yard
locomotive data and State

- supplied data for Class I and Class II/III. All other States made changes to the 2008 ERTAC inventory, either to add/modify included sources or to revise
emission values to 2007 values.

ERTAC did not develop emission estimates for Line Haul Passenger (AMTRAK) or Line Haul Commuter locomotives. Six States ( CT, DC, MD, NY, PA, and VA) provided
emission estimates for AMTRAK diesel locomotives. Note that the AMTRAK northeast corridor line uses electric powered locomotives, so there are no emissions from diesel AMTRAK locomotives in DE, NJ, RI, and MA. Seven S tates (CT, DC, MD, MA, NJ, NY, and PA) provided emission estimates for diesel commuter locomotives in their State.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 107



### Exhibit 6.3 provides a breakdown by State and SCC of the data sources for emissions from
railroads and rail yards . Once the draft inventory was prepared the NIF database was provided to the MARAMA States for review. Only minor corrections were made to the database prior to submittal for stakeholder review and comments.

Exhibit 6.3

– Data Sources for Railroad Locomotive and Railyard Inventory

State 2285002006

Line Haul Class I Ops 2285002007

Line Haul Class II/III Ops 2285002008

Line Haul Passenger 2285002009

Line Haul Commuter 2285002010

Yard Locomotives

CT State State State State State

DE State State n/a n/a State

DC State n/a State State State

ME n/a State n/a n/a State

MD State State State State State

MA State State n/a State State

NH n/a State n/a n/a n/a

NJ EPA / ERTAC State n/a State State

NY State State State State EPA / ERTAC

PA EPA / ERTAC EPA / ERTAC State State EPA / ERTAC

RI State State n/a n/a State

VT EPA / ERTAC EPA / ERTAC n/a n/a n/a

VA EPA / ERTAC EPA / ERTAC State n/a EPA / ERTAC



### 6.4 STAKEHOLDER REVIEW AND COMMENT

Draft inventory data files and documentation for MAR sources was posted on the
MARAMA website in August 20 10 for stakeholder review. No comments on the MAR inventory were received.

6.5 VERSION 3 REVISIONS

6.5.1 New Jersey MAR Revisions
Following the completion of Version 2 of the 2007 MANE

- VU+VA inventory in February 2011, New Jersey provided several revision s to the MAR inventory, as follows:Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 108



### developed a new airport inventory using the FAA’s EDMS;

provided revised emission estimates for all commercial marine vessel categories;

allocated GSE emissions calculated by EDMS to four fuel types (gasoline, LPG,
CNG , and diesel) using the apportionment factors listed in Section 6.2. Previously in Version 2, all GSE fuel use was assigned to diesel engines. The revisions did not change the total GSE emissions , simply distributes the EDMS emissions over
the four GSE f

uel types

.

6.5.2 Adjustment of Rail VOC Emissions

It was discovered that the ERTAC

- reported rail emissions for VOC were actually hydrocarbon emissions. For locomotive engines, USEPA estimated that VOC emissions can be assumed to be equal to 1.053 times the hydrocarbon emissions (USEPA2009e)

. This adjustment was not made to the rail inventory developed by ERTAC. The ERTAC inventory assumed that VOC emissions equal hydrocarbon emissions. Some states (DE, NH, RI) made this adjustment in the rail inventories that were used in Version 2. The remaining states did not make the adjustment and the Version 2 VOC emissions were multiplied by 1.053 to generated revised emissions for Version 3. Maryland made a partial adjustment in Version 2, and specified that a fa ctor of 1.0478 should be used to adjust

6.6 SUMMARY OF MAR INVENTORY FOR 2007

Exhibits 6.4 to 6.10 compare the 2002 and 2007 emissions by State and pollutant for MAR

sources . The 2002 emissions are those that were developed previously for Version 3 of the

M ANE

- VU and the VISTAS best

- and

- final inventory for Virginia

. It is likely that many of the differences between the 2002 and 2007 emissions are due to changes in the emission estimation methodologies for CMV, airports, and railroads.

CO emissions are pri marily from aircraft and GSE engines used at airports. CMV is the largest sector for NOx emissions, but there are also substantial NOx emissions from airports and railroad locomotives. SO2 emissions are primarily from the CMV category.
All three sectors also generate PM and VOC emissions.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 109



### Exhibit 6.4

– 2002 and 2007 MAR CO Emissions by State (tons/year)

Marine Vessels Airports Rail Locomotives STATE 2002 2007 Change 2002 2007 Change 2002 2007 Change CT 603 1,077 79% 1,565 4,659 198% 362 184

- 49%
DE 1,138 554

- 51% 1,575 1,625 3% 144 75

- 48%
DC 1 1 1% 0 14 n/a 73 73 0%
ME 376 522 39% 4,487 32,879 633% 69 188 173%
MD 431 2,795 548% 11,575 10,265

- 11% 789 700

- 11%
MA 1,231 1,473 20% 11,294 15,495 37% 748 646

- 14%
NH 169 89

- 47% 2,031 2,089 3% 71 88 24%
NJ 1,424 1,619 14% 29,375 21,878

- 26% 580 665 15%
NY 1,790 3,475 94% 11,895 17,403 46% 1,551 3,061 97%
PA 1,111 1,294 16% 24,799 26,540 7% 3,359 2,987

- 11%
RI 0 522 n/a 1,424 1,739 22% 55 15

- 73%
VT 0 0 n/a 521 2,420 365% 20 72 262%
VA 1,082 3,735 245% 11,873 22,009 85% 1,186 2,701 128% 9,356 17,155 83% 112,414 159,016 41% 9,007 11,456 27%Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 110



### Exhibit 6.5

– 2002 and 2007 MAR NH3 Emissions by State (tons/year)

Marine Vessels Airports Rail Locomotives STATE 2002 2007 Change 2002 2007 Change 2002 2007 Change CT 0 3 n/a 0 0 n/a 0 1 n/a
DE 0 0 n/a 0 0 n/a 0 0 n/a
DC 0 0 n/a 0 0 n/a 0 0 n/a
ME 0 0 n/a 0 0 n/a 0 0 n/a
MD 0 8 n/a 0 0 n/a 0 0 n/a
MA 0 0 n/a 0 0 n/a 0 2 n/a
NH 0 0 n/a 0 0 n/a 0 0 n/a
NJ 0 8 n/a 0 0 n/a 0 2 n/a
NY 0 2 n/a 0 0 n/a 0 0 n/a
PA 0 13 n/a 0 0 n/a 0 9 n/a
RI 0 1 n/a 0 0 n/a 0 0 n/a
VT 0 0 n/a 0 0 n/a 0 0 n/a
VA 0 9 n/a 0 0 n/a 0 8 n/a

0 44 n/a 0 0 n/a 0 23 n/aTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 111



### Exhibit 6.6

– 2002 and 2007 MAR NOx Emissions by State (tons/year)

Marine Vessels Airports Rail Locomotives STATE 2002 2007 Change 2002 2007 Change 2002 2007 Change CT 4,577 6,528 43% 415 713 72% 2,612 1,723

- 34%
DE 8,362 5,094

- 39% 970 805

- 17% 1,105 384

- 65%
DC 4 6 56% 0 0 n/a 502 505 1%
ME 1,154 1,659 44% 184 134

- 27% 269 1,369 409%
MD 2,531 16,027 533% 2,038 1,910

- 6% 5,145 4,767

- 7%
MA 2,590 3,246 25% 2,988 3,190 7% 7,161 6,133

- 14%
NH 1,284 271

- 79% 162 278 72% 332 891 169%
NJ 10,981 11,197 2% 4,739 5,105 8% 5,721 5,957 4%
NY 12,266 28,180 130% 4,880 6,998 43% 14,162 20,675 46%
PA 8,217 11,378 38% 4,131 3,738

- 10% 29,292 20,675

- 29%
RI 1 2,829 n/a 263 289 10% 186 144

- 22%
VT 0 0 n/a 48 103 114% 7 736 10416%
VA 3,088 21,760 605% 3,885 5,520 42% 11,882 18,319 54% 55,055 108,174 96% 24,703 28,783 17% 78,376 82,279 5%Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 112



### Exhibit 6.7

– 2002 and 2007 MAR PM10

- PRI Emissions by State (tons/year)

Marine Vessels Airports Rail Locomotives STATE 2002 2007 Change 2002 2007 Change 2002 2007 Change CT 194 311 61% 45 66 46% 5 46 812%
DE 393 327

- 17% 28 27

- 5% 31 15

- 50%
DC 0 0 n/a 0 0 n/a 12 12

- 2%
ME 129 395 206% 97 83

- 15% 8 28 246%
MD 637 657 3% 1,012 74

- 93% 172 166

- 3%
MA 217 316 45% 246 295 20% 183 159

- 13%
NH 54 13

- 76% 49 37

- 24% 10 22 120%
NJ 796 622

- 22% 280 170

- 39% 143 160 12%
NY 506 1,671 230% 409 140

- 66% 358 608 70%
PA 253 524 107% 2,421 396

- 84% 792 704

- 11%
RI 0 112 n/a 93 22

- 76% 6 4

- 40%
VT 0 0 n/a 12 46 282% 1 18 1712%
VA 359 946 164% 2,010 821

- 59% 1,529 634

- 59%

3,538 5,895 67% 6,702 2,176

- 68% 3,250 2,574

- 21%Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 113



### Exhibit 6.8

– 2002 and 2007 MAR PM25

- PRI Emissions by State (tons/year)

Marine Vessels Airports Rail Locomotives STATE 2002 2007 Change 2002 2007 Change 2002 2007 Change CT 178 296 66% 38 51 35% 5 39 686%
DE 354 305

- 14% 20 19

- 7% 28 15

- 47%
DC 0 0 n/a 0 0 n/a 11 11 4%
ME 119 364 205% 69 61

- 11% 8 25 218%
MD 637 606

- 5% 698 16

- 98% 155 161 4%
MA 200 290 45% 226 215

- 5% 143 145 2%
NH 50 12

- 76% 36 27

- 24% 9 21 132%
NJ 732 575

- 21% 195 143

- 27% 128 147 15%
NY 466 1,541 231% 362 139

- 62% 323 572 77%
PA 232 484 109% 1,718 294

- 83% 713 650

- 9%
RI 0 108 n/a 68 17

- 75% 5 3

- 34%
VT 0 0 n/a 9 32 259% 1 17 1567%
VA 330 908 175% 1,970 580

- 71% 1,375 586

- 57%

3,298 5,489 66% 5,409 1,595

- 71% 2,904 2,395

- 18%Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 114



### Exhibit 6.9

– 2002 and 2007 MAR SO2 Emissions by State (tons/year)

Marine Vessels Airports Rail Locomotives STATE 2002 2007 Change 2002 2007 Change 2002 2007 Change CT 671 1,386 107% 39 96 145% 4 57 1323%
DE 3,377 2,079

- 38% 30 55 84% 64 5

- 92%
DC 1 1 30% 0 0 n/a 33 37 11%
ME 128 189 47% 3 14 376% 15 92 514%
MD 4,739 2,170

- 54% 262 247

- 6% 374 64

- 83%
MA 489 698 43% 284 218

- 23% 591 66

- 89%
NH 188 506 169% 15 28 86% 16 10

- 36%
NJ 11,444 6,712

- 41% 374 507 35% 352 55

- 84%
NY 4,753 9,321 96% 440 699 59% 765 616

- 19%
PA 297 3,067 933% 399 416 4% 1,934 211

- 89%
RI 0 632 n/a 29 30 3% 14 5

- 61%
VT 0 0 n/a 5 12 134% 1 5 412%
VA 386 4,058 951% 272 424 56% 3,641 192

- 95% 26,473 30,819 16% 2,152 2,746 28% 7,804 1,416

- 82%Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 115



### Exhibit 6.10

– 2002 and 2007 MAR VOC Emissions by State (tons/year)

Marine Vessels Airports Rail Locomotives STATE 2002 2007 Change 2002 2007 Change 2002 2007 Change CT 143 161 13% 115 509 343% 114 73

- 36%
DE 132 158 20% 290 620 114% 60 28

- 53%
DC 0 0 n/a 0 1 n/a 20 34 70%
ME 166 233 41% 222 161

- 27% 19 51 166%
MD 74 371 401% 2,920 1,365

- 53% 312 271

- 13%
MA 433 528 22% 1,177 1,129

- 4% 312 267

- 15%
NH 40 23

- 43% 88 134 53% 15 35 136%
NJ 413 658 59% 2,281 2,438 7% 221 258 17%
NY 424 1,905 349% 1,145 1,571 37% 600 1,112 85%
PA 703 538

- 23% 1,155 2,813 144% 1,260 1,153

- 8%
RI 0 64 n/a 74 112 51% 10 8

- 22%
VT 0 0 n/a 27 204 655% 2 29 1331%
VA 531 522

- 2% 2,825 2,764

- 2% 492 1,025 108%

3,059 5,163 69% 12,319 13,822 12% 3,437 4,343 26%Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 116



## 7.0 ANNUAL 2007 INVENTORY FOR ONROAD SOURCES

7.1 OVERALL PROCESS TO DEVELOP THE ONROAD INVENTORY

EPA’s recently released MOVES 2010 ( MO tor V ehicle E mission S imulator) is now the official model for estimating air pollution emissions from onroad mobile sources including buses, cars, trucks and mot orcycles. MOVES2010 replaces MOBILE6.2

, the previous
mobile source model . MOVES input files are somewhat more detailed than the MOBILE6.2 input files. To assist in the transition to the new model, USEPA developed
software tools to convert MOBILE6.2 inpu ts for MOVES. In addition, the MOVES model includes a preprocessing tool called the County Data Manager (CDM) to convert spreadsheet based information to MySQL database files required by MOVES

.

S tates were offered the option of having NESCAUM perform the MOVES modeling using input data provided by and/or reviewed by the state. Three states elected to perform the MOVES modeling for their state using in

- house resources. Exhibit 7.1 shows the approach selected by eac h state:

Exhibit 7.1

– MOVES Modeling Approach by State

States Providing MOBILE6.2 Input Files to NESCAUM States Providing MOVES Input Files to NESCAUM States Performing MOVES Modeling Themselves

DC, ME, NH, RI CT, DE, MD, MA

, NJ, VT NY, PA , VA



### 7.2 MOVES MODEL RUN SPECIFICATIONS AND DOCUMENTATION

Appendix F contains NESCAUM’s documentation of the MOVES modeling.

7.3 SUMMARY OF ONROAD INVENTORY

Exhibits 7.2 to 7.8 compare the 2002 and 2007 onroad emissions by state for each pollutant. The 2002 emissions were estimated using MOBILE6, while the 2007 emissions were estimated using MOVES. Differences between 2002 and 2007 results from the change in emission estimation methodologies (MOBILE6 vs. MOVES), VMT growth, and turnover of the vehicle fleet to newer, clean er fuels and engines.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 117



### Exhibit 7.2

– 2002 and 2007 OnroadCO Emissions by State (tons/year)

STATE 2002 2007 Change

Connecticut 562,124 365,925

- 35%

Delaware 160,760 124,893

- 22%

District of Columbia 66,018 36,379

- 45%

Maine 410,958 215,689

- 48%
Maryland 1,000,763 598,180

- 40%

Massachusetts 1,039,100 583,234

- 44%
New Hampshire 306,793 195,916

- 36%
New Jersey 1,273,513 719,402

- 44%

New York 3,711,150 2,024,775

- 45%
Pennsylvania 2,784,197 1,962,326

- 30%

Rhode Island 186,197 115,532

- 38%

Vermont 248,248 115,532

- 53%
Virginia 1,858,598 1,195,237

- 36%
13,608,417 8,253,020

- 39%
2002 emissions were estimated using MOBILE6 ; 2007 emissions were estimated using MOVESTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 118



### Exhibit 7.3

– 2002 and 2007 Onroad NH3 Emissions by State (tons/year)

STATE 2002 2007 Change

Connecticut 3,294 1,309

- 60%

Delaware 903 406

- 55%

District of Columbia 398 158

- 60%

Maine 1,468 605

- 59%
Maryland 5,594 2,335

- 58%

Massachusetts 5,499 2,194

- 60%
New Hampshire 1,447 511

- 65%
New Jersey 7,382 3,216

- 56%

New York 14,681 6,831

- 53%
Pennsylvania 10,532 5,278

- 50%

Rhode Island 853 356

- 58%

Vermont 934 356

- 62%
Virginia 7,918 4,041

- 49%
60,902 27,597

- 55%
2002 emissions were estimated using MOBILE6 ; 2007 emissions were estimated using MOVESTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 119



### Exhibit 7.4

– 2002 and 2007 Onroad NOx Emissions by State (tons/year)

STATE 2002 2007 Change

Connecticut 68,816 53,814

- 22%

Delaware 21,341 24,456 15%

District of Columbia 8,902 8,714

- 2%

Maine 54,687 36,844

- 33%
Maryland 122,210 114,792

- 6%

Massachusetts 143,368 73,328

- 49%
New Hampshire 33,283 33,858 2%
New Jersey 152,076 135,139

- 11%

New York 319,733 305,617

- 4%
Pennsylvania 346,472 353,083 2%

Rhode Island 16,677 18,055 8%

Vermont 20,670 18,055

- 13%
Virginia 182,482 197,822 8%
1,490,716 1,373,575

- 8%
2002 emissions were estimated using MOBILE6 ; 2007 emissions were estimated using MOVESTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 120



### Exhibit 7.5

– 2002 and 2007 Onroad PM10

- PRI Emissions by State (tons/year)

STATE 2002 2007 Change

Connecticut 1,580 2,057 30%

Delaware 581 828 42%

District of Columbia 222 387 74%

Maine 1,239 1,507 22%
Maryland 3,168 4,103 29%

Massachusetts 3,408 2,915

- 14%
New Hampshire 814 1,479 82%
New Jersey 3,725 5,013 35%

New York 8,457 14,765 75%
Pennsylvania 7,351 12,947 76%

Rhode Island 345 754 118%

Vermont 670 754 13%
Virginia 4,358 6,799 56%
35,920 54,307 51%
2002 emissions were estimated using MOBILE6 ; 2007 emissions were estimated using MOVESTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 121



### Exhibit 7.6

– 2002 and 2007 Onroad PM25

- PRI Emissions by State (tons/year)

STATE 2002 2007 Change

Connecticut 1,042 1,949 87%

Delaware 415 795 91%

District of Columbia 153 373 144%

Maine 934 1,443 54%
Maryland 2,200 3,924 78%

Massachusetts 2,410 2,768 15%
New Hampshire 562 1,418 152%
New Jersey 2,469 4,789 94%

New York 5,898 14,115 139%
Pennsylvania 5,331 12,393 132%

Rhode Island 211 719 241%

Vermont 483 719 49%
Virginia 2,987 6,499 118%
25,095 51,903 107%
2002 emissions were estimated using MOBILE6 ; 2007 emissions were estimated using MOVESTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 122



### Exhibit 7.7

– 2002 and 2007 NMIM/NONROAD SO2 Emissions by State (tons/year)

STATE 2002 2007 Change

Connecticut 1,667 402

- 76%

Delaware 584 202

- 65%

District of Columbia 271 89

- 67%

Maine 1,804 377

- 79%
Maryland 4,058 936

- 77%

Massachusetts 4,399 769

- 83%
New Hampshire 777 275

- 65%
New Jersey 3,649 921

- 75%

New York 10,640 2,187

- 79%
Pennsylvania 10,924 2,518

- 77%

Rhode Island 425 179

- 58%

Vermont 894 179

- 80%
Virginia 6,086 1,435

- 76%
46,176 10,468

- 77%
2002 emissions were estimated using MOBILE6 ; 2007 emissions were estimated using MOVESTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 123



### Exhibit 7.8

– 2002 and 2007 Onroad VOC Emissions by State (tons/year)

STATE 2002 2007 Change

Connecticut 31,755 35,363 11%

Delaware 10,564 10,771 2%

District of Columbia 4,895 3,598

- 27%

Maine 23,037 15,382

- 33%
Maryland 61,847 57,789

- 7%

Massachusetts 57,186 51,149

- 11%
New Hampshire 16,762 13,650

- 19%
New Jersey 89,753 73,624

- 18%

New York 287,845 163,290

- 43%
Pennsylvania 176,090 168,289

- 4%

Rhode Island 12,538 9,780

- 22%

Vermont 17,288 9,780

- 43%
Virginia 114,994 108,001

- 6%
904,554 720,465

- 20%
2002 emissions were estimated using MOBILE6 ; 2007 emis sions were estimated using MOVESTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 124



## 8.0 PREPARATION OF SMOKE MODEL FILES

Air quality modelers in the Mid

- Atlantic and Northeastern States use the SMOKE Modeling System to create gridded, speciated, hourly emissions for input into a variety of air quality models. T his section describes how the SMOKE inventory files were developed . It also describes how the SMOKE the temporal allocation, speciation, and spatial allocation profiles, respectively, were developed.

8.1 PREPARATION OF SMOKE EMISSION FILES

8.1.1 Point Source SMOKE Emission Files
Annual point source inventories wer e prepared in SMOKE PT INV ORL format. As previously discussed in Section 3.2.1

, PTINV files were created for the following types of

sources:

Annual emissions for units that reported hourly data to USEPA CAMD for the entire 12 months of 2007;

Ozone season emissions for units that reported hourly emissions to USEPA CAMD for either 6 or 9 months of 2007 (except for 6 month reporting units in Maryland);

Non

- o zone season emissions for units that reported hourly emissions to USEPA CAMD for either 6 or 9 months of 2007 (except for 6 month reporting units in Maryland);
Units that reported hourly emissions to USEPA CAMD for either 6 or 9 months of 2007 in Maryland;
Units that are classified as distributed generation units by VDEQ; and
All other units (these are not associated with the hourly PTHOUR files; temporal allocation for these units will be accomplished using the standard SMOKE V2.6 temporal allocation profiles )

. The ORL were quality assured to conform to the SMOKE PTINV ORL format and to prevent double coun ting of emissions in the ORL files.

EPA has developed a methodology to reduce fugitive dust emissions for use in air quality modeling analyses (USEPA 2007b) . It is considered a logical step to account for the removal of particles near their emission sour ce by vegetation and surface features. For the MANEVU+VA 2007 inventory the transport factors were NOT applied to the point source inventory because of the very small amount of fugitive particulate emissions in the point source inventory.

Hourly point sou rce inventories were prepared for units that report hourly emissions to
USEPA ’s Clean Air Markets Division in SMOKE PTHOUR EMS

- 95 format. Because ofTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 125



### the large size of the PTHOUR files, separate files were prepared by month. As previously
discussed in Sec tion 3.2.1, the following PTHOUR files were created:

12 monthly PTHOUR files for units that reported hourly emissions to USEPA CAMD for the entire 12 months of 2007;

5 monthly PTHOUR files (May

- September) for units that reported hourly emissions to USEPA CAMD only for the ozone season 2007;
12 monthly PTHOUR files for units in Maryland that reported hourly emissions to USEPA CAMD for the either 6 or 9 months of 2007; and
12 monthly PTHOUR files for units in Virginia that are classified as distributed
gener ations units Since some CAMD units only report hourly emissions data for the ozone season, there was a need for a set of actual 2007 hourly temporal profiles to be used in simulating hourly
emissions for these units in non

- ozone season months. Section 3.4 of this TSD discusses the development of the SMOKE temporal profiles for the non

- ozone season months for
these units.

8.1.2 Area Source SMOKE Emission Files

Annual area source inventories were prepared in SMOKE ARINV ORL format. In developing the SMOKE ARINV O RL files for area sources, the USEPA “transport factor” was applied to reduce fugitive dust emissions to account for the removal of particles near their emission source by vegetation and surface features. The transport factor was NOT applied to the NIF

- fo rmatted annual emissions, but only to the SMOKE ARINV ORL

formatted file.

The standard transport fractions and SCC assignments from the USEPA CHIEF website
were used to reduce the PM10

- PRI and PM25

- PRI emissions in the MANEVU+VA 2007
area source inventor y. Two files were used. The first file contains a list of SCCs for which the transport factor was applied. The major source categories included paved and unpaved roads, construction activity, agricultural crop land tilling, and agricultural livestock op erations. The second file contains the transport factor which varies by county. For example, in Connecticut the transport factors ranges from 0.21 in Tolland County to 0.44 in New Haven County.

Applying the transport factor to area source fugitive dust emissions significantly reduces that amount of particulate matter included in the air quality modeling. Exhibit 8.1 compares the 2007 area source PM10

- PRI and PM25

- PRI emissions before and after t he application of the transport fraction. Region wide , PM10

- PRI emissions are reduced by 5 3 percent and PM25

- PRI emissions are reduced by 2 9 percent by applying the transportTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 126



### fraction. The percent reduction varies by State due to the relative importance of the area source fugitive dust emissions compared to non

- fugitive dust source emissions. The bottom part of Exhibit 8.1 shows the key area source fugitive dust categories and the reductions applied by using the transport fraction.

Exhibit 8.1

– Comparison of 2007 Area Source Emissions With and Without the Application of the Fugitive Dust Transport Factor (tons/year)

PM10

- PRI PM25

- PRI

State /SCC Without

Transport Factor With

Transport Factor Percent

Reduction Without

Transport Factor With

Transport Factor Percent

Reduction
Emissions by State for All Area Source SCCs

CT 30,577 15,591 49 10,606 8,396 21 DE 10,499 7,208 31 3,031 2,407 21 DC 4,873 2,445 50 1,542 1,120 27
ME 54,445 20,227 63 12,526 8,744 30 MD 72,454 38,520 47 19,789 14,710 26 MA 148,756 58,380 61 30,438 18,621 39 NH 27,742 10,650 62 8,623 5,832 32 NJ 39,140 24,801 37 18,299 14,944 18 NY 272,674 140,760 48 63,906 47,023 26
PA 287,998 138,571 52 73,514 50,855 31 RI 11,361 5,553 51 3,896 2,957 24 VT 47,993 19,097 60 13,106 9,434 28 VA 183,341 78,204 57 44,102 29,533 33 All States and SCCs 1,191,853 560,007 53 303,378 214,576 29

MANE

- VU+VA Emissions for Selected SCCs

2294000000 Pave d Roads 230,004 78,795 66 54,207 18,727 65

2296000000 Unpaved Roads 417,951 129,150 69 41,525 12,837 69

2311xxxxxxx Construction 205,811 74,598 64 20,934 7,585 64

2801000003 Ag. Tilling 94,443 33,949 64 17,789 6,511 64Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 127



### 8.1.3 Nonroad NMIM SMOKE Emission Files
As discussed in Section 5, the NMIM/NONROAD model was executed using specifications to generate monthly emission files. Monthly SMOKE ARINV ORL files were created. Average day emissions were calculated by dividing the NONROAD generated monthly emissions by the number of d ays in each m onth

. Various summary reports were prepared to verify agreement between the average day, monthly, and annual
emissions.

8.1.4 Nonroad MAR SMOKE Emission Files

Annual inventories for marine vessels, airport operations and railroad locomotives w ere prepared in SMOKE ARINV ORL format for each county in the region

. Average day emissions were calculated by dividing the annual emissions by 365 days. The ORL files
for Category 3 commercial marine vessels include only the emissions that occur in State waters ( generally from the shoreline to 3

– 10 nautical miles from shore )

.

8.1.5 Onroad SMOKE Emission Files
Smoke emission files for the onroad sector are being developed by NESCAUM under a separate contract. Please contact NESCAUM for documenta tion and data files.

8.1.1 Biogenic SMOKE Emission Files
Smoke emission files for the biogenic sector are being developed by New Jersey and New York under separate efforts. Please contact MARAMA to obtain d ocumentation and data files for biogenic sources.

8.1.1 SMOKE Emission Files for Areas Outside of the MANE

- VU+VA Region

Smoke emission files for areas outside of the MANE

- VU+VA are currently under development. Contact MARAMA for further information.

8.2 REVIEW OF SMOKE AUXILIARY FILES

The following activities w ere performed to quality assure and improve the SMOKE speciation, spatial and temporal profiles :

QA checks were made to ensure that all SCCs in the annual emission inventory
files are cross

- referenced to SCCs in the SMOKE profile s . In cases where a proper

cross

- reference does not exist, the SMOKE files were updated using data for
similar SCCs or as otherwise determined on a case

- by

- case basis.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 128



### SMOKE temporal profiles were reviewed and documented for key categories. Recommendations for improving SMOKE temp oral profiles were made for categories where improved data is available and are reasonable feasible to use.

SMOKE spatial profiles were reviewed and documented for selected categories. Recommendations for improving SMOKE spatial profiles were made for ca tegories where improved data is available and are reasonable feasible to use.

Each of these activities is documented in Appendix F of this TSD

.

8.2.1 SMOKE Speciation Files
Based upon the review of Appendix F by SMOKE emission modelers in the Northeast /
Mid

- At lantic region, MARAMA directed the Contractor to make the following changes to the SMOKE auxiliary files as recommended in Appendix F.

GSREF Speciation Cross

- Reference File

Added r ecords for SCC/pollutant code combinations in the 2007 inventory that
need ed to be added to the GSREF file

GS PRO Speciation Profiles

No changes were needed

8.2.2 SMOKE Spatial Allocation Files
Based upon the review of Appendix F by SMOKE emission modelers in the Northeast /
Mid

- Atlantic region, MARAMA directed the Contractor to make the following changes to the SMOKE auxiliary files as recommended in Appendix F.

AM GREF Spatial Allocation Cross

- Reference File

Added records for SCCs in the 2007 inventory that needed to be added to the
AMGREF file

SRGDESC Spatial Surrogate Cod e Descriptions

No changes were needed

To spatially allocate county

- level emissions from airports, SMOKE modelers will use the
SMOKE ARTOPNT file to allocate c ounty

- level to s pecific point source a irport l ocation s instead of being assigned spatial surrogates. We reviewed this SMOKE file and confirmed the county

- level commercial aircraft emissions are being allocated to the location of theTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 129



### large airport in the county. The only adjustment to the SMOKE ARTOPNT file was as follows:

Changed the allocation factors for commercial aircraft (SCCs 2275000000

, 2275020000 , and 2275070000 ) in Queens County NY to allocate county

- level commercial aircraft emissions to JFK Airport and LaGuardia airport based on the
2008 LTO data from USEPA’s 2008 emission inventory

Emissions for Category 3 commercial marine vessels will be spatially allocated using the following procedures:

For operations from shoreline to roughly 3

- 10 nautical miles from the shore, the
county

- level Categor y 3 emissions prepared by States will be allocated to grid cells using the SMOKE spatial allocation files (profile 800 {Marine Ports} for port emissions, profile 810 {Navigable Waterway Activity} for underway emissions);

For operations outside of State wa ters (generally 10

- 200 nautical miles from shore)
Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic emission modelers will use a Category C3 ORL files ( ptinv_eca_imo_fixFIPS_US_caps_2005_19OCT2010_orl.txt) generated by EPA
for 2005

. The SMOKE modelers will zero out the emissions that have been assigned to counties to avoid double counting of emissions with the State

- provided emissions discussed in the previous bullet.

See Appendix F for a further discussion of the Category 3 spatial allocation issue.

8.2.3 SMOKE Temporal Allocation Fi les
Based upon the review of Appendix F by SMOKE emission modelers in the Northeast /
Mid

- Atlantic region, MARAMA directed the Contractor to make the following changes to the SMOKE auxiliary files as recommended in Appendix F.

AMPT REF Temporal Cross

- Refe rence File

Added records for SCCs in the 2007 inventory that needed to be added to the
AMPTREF file

Changed the monthly allocation code for commercial aircraft (SCC 2275000000) and auxiliary power units (SCC 2275070000) from 246 to 99246 (the new profile

c ode that uses the Bureau of Transportation Statistics { BLS } monthly air travel data for 2007)Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 130



### Changed the day

- of

- week allocation code for commercial aircraft (SCC 2275000000) and auxiliary power units (SCC 2275070000) from 7 to 99007 (the new profile code that uses the BLS day

- of

- week air travel data for 2007)

Changed the hour

- of

- day allocation code for commercial aircraft (SCC 2275000000) and auxiliary power units (SCC 2275070000) from 26 to 99026 (the new profile code that uses the BLS hour

- of

- day air tr avel data for 2007)

Changed the monthly allocation code for SCCs 22

- 80

- 003

- 100 (CMV/Residual/ Port) and 22

- 80

- 003

- 200 (CMV/Residual/Underway) from 262 to 19531, which is the code the EPA recently developed for their C3 inventory

AMPTPRO Temporal Allocation Profiles

Added the monthly allocation code of 99246 (the new profile code that uses the Bureau of Transportation Statistics {BLS} monthly air travel data for 2007)

Added the day

- of

- week allocation code of 99007 (the new profil e code that uses the BLS day

- of

- week air travel data for 2007)

Added the hour

- of

- day allocation code of 99026 (the new profile code that uses the
BLS hour

- of

- day air travel data for 2007)Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 131



## 9.0 FINAL DELIVERABLES

Exhibit s 9 .1 and 9.2 identif y all of the deliverable products for the 2007 MANE

- VU+VA emission inventory developed by the Contractor under this contract. The exhibit also
identifies deliverables associated with the 2007 MANE

- VU+VA under development by other agencies.

All file s are st ored on MARAMA ftp site:

Address: ftp.marama.org Login ID: regionalei

Password: marama2007 Files are stored in the following directories:

\ MARAMA 07

- 17

- 20 Version 3 \ Final 2007 (Version 3_3) \ NIF
\ MARAMA 07

- 17

- 20 Versio n 3 \ Final 2007 (Version 3_3) \ SMOKE
\ MARAMA 07

- 17

- 20 Version 3 \ Final 2007 (Version 3_3) \ TSD
\ MARAMA 07

- 17

- 20 Version 3 \ Final 2007 (Version 3_3) \ XLS

The deliverables are described in 9.1 and 9.2

.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 1 32



### Exhibit 9.1

– NIF Data and Emission Summary Files for the 2007 MANE

- VU+VA Emission Inventory

File Description File Name Format Notes

2007 Annual Point Source Emission Inventory in NOF format MANEVU+VA_ V3_ 3

_ Point_2007_NOF.mdb NOF ACCESS EP table modified to include fields

to (1) identify units as CAMD

EGU, CAMD

- nonEGU, and OTHER; (2) include the CAMD ORIS and UNITID for CAMD units; and (3) identify the percent operating time classification for CAMD units.
See file for Field Definitions

2007 Annual Area Source Emission Inventory in NOF format MANEVU+VA_ V3_ 3

_ Area_2007_NOF.mdb NOF ACCESS See file for Field Definitions

2007 Annual NMIM/NONROAD Source Emission Inventory in NOF format 2007MARAMANRNMIMv3.mdb NOF ACCESS See file for Field Definitions

.

2007 Annual Commercial Marine Vessel, Airport, and Rail (MAR) Emission Inventory in NOF format MANEVU+VA_ V3 _3_ MAR_2007.mdb NOF ACCESS See file for Field Definitions

2007 Annual Point Source Emission Inventory in a spreadsheet format to facilitate State and Stakeholder review MANEVU+VA_ V3_3_ Point_2007_Process_Emissions.xls MS Excel See file for Column Definitions

2007 Annual Point Source Emission Inventory summaries by State and S ource Classification Code (S CC ) MANEVU+VA_ V3_3_ Point_2007_State_SCC_Summary.xls MS Excel See file for Column Defi nitions

2007 Annual Area Source Emission Inventory summaries by State / SCC MANEVU+VA_ V3_3_ Area_2007_State_SCC_Summary.xls MS Excel See file for Column Definitions

2007 Annual NMIM/NONROAD Emission Inventory summaries by State and SCC MANEVU+VA_ V3_3_NMIM _2007_State_SCC_Summary.xls MS Excel See file for Column Definitions

.

2007 Annual MAR Emission Inventory summaries by State and SCC MANEVU+VA_ V3_3_ MAR_2007StateSCCSummaries.xls MS Excel See file for Column DefinitionsTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 133



### Exhibit 9.2

– SMOKE Files for the 2007 MANE

- VU+VA Emission Inventory

File Description File Name Format Notes

2007 Annual Point Source Emission Inventory in SMOKE ORL format PTINV_2007_NonHourly_ jan2012 .orl PTINV_2007_12MonthUnits_ feb2011 .orl PTINV_2007_Ozone_5MonthUnits_ feb2011 .orl PTINV_2007_NonOzone_5MonthUnits_ feb2011 .orl PTINV_2007_VADGUnits_march2010.orl PTINV_2007_MD6MonthUnits_march2010.orl SMOKE PTINV ORL One file for all non

- hourly units

and five separate files for units with hourly emissions. See Section 3.2.1 for the TSD for discussion of the files and Exhibit 3.1 for the file format

. SMOKE PTHOUR EMS

- 95 zip files with hourly emissions for each month of 2007 for units that report hourly emissions to CAMD for the entire 12 months in 2007. The zip file contains 12 monthly files. pthour_2007_jan_12MonthUnits_ nov2011 .ems pthour_2007_feb_12MonthUnits_ nov2011 .ems pthour_2007_mar_12MonthUnits_ nov2011 .ems pthour_2007_apr_12MonthUnits_ nov2011 .ems pthour_2007_may_12MonthUnits_ nov2011 .ems pthour_2007_jun_12MonthUnits_ nov2011 .ems pt hour_2007_jul_12MonthUnits_ nov2011 .ems pthour_2007_aug_12MonthUnits_ nov2011 .ems pthour_2007_sep_12MonthUnits_ nov2011 .ems pthour_2007_oct_12MonthUnits_ nov2011 .ems pthour_2007_nov_12MonthUnits_ nov2011 .ems pthour_2007_dec_12MonthUnits_ nov2011 .ems SMOKE PTHOU R EMS

- 95 See Exhibit 3.2 for file format

SMOKE PTHOUR EMS

- 95 files with hourly emissions for 5 months of 2007 for units classified as “5

- month reporters” in all States except MD. The zip file contains 5 monthly files. pthour_2007_may_5MonthUnits_ Jan2012

. ems pthour_2007_jun_5MonthUnits_ Jan2012 .ems pthour_2007_jul_5MonthUnits_ Jan2012 .ems pthour_2007_aug_5MonthUnits_ Jan2012 .ems pthour_2007_sep_5MonthUnits_ Jan2012 .ems SMOKE PTHOUR EMS

- 95 See Exhibit 3.2 for file format

SMOKE PTHOUR EMS

- 95 files with hourly emissions for each month of 2007 for units classified as “6

- month reporters” in MD. The zip file contains 12 monthly files. pthour_2007_jan_MD6MonthUnits_march2010.ems pthour_2007_feb_MD6MonthUnits_march2010.ems pthour_2007_mar_MD6MonthUnits_march2010.ems pthour_2007_apr_MD6MonthUnits_march2010.ems pthour_2007_may_MD6MonthUnits_march2010.ems pthour_2007_jun_MD6MonthUnits_march2 010.ems pthour_2007_jul_MD6MonthUnits_march2010.ems pthour_2007_aug_MD6MonthUnits_march2010.ems pthour_2007_sep_MD6MonthUnits_march2010.ems SMOKE PTHOUR EMS

- 95 See Exhibit 3.2 for file formatTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 134

File Description File Name Format Notes pthour_2007_oct_MD6MonthUnits_march2010.ems pthour_2007_nov_MD6MonthUnits_march2010.ems pthour_2007_dec_MD6MonthUnit s_march2010.ems

SMOKE PTHOUR EMS

- 95 files with hourly emissions for each month of 2007 for units classified as “distributed generation units” by the Virginia DEQ. The zip file contains 12 monthly files

. pthours_2007_jan_VADGunits_march2010.ems pthours_2007_feb_VADGunits_march2010.ems pthours_2007_mar_VADGunits_march2010.ems pthours_2007_apr_VADGunits_march2010.ems pthours_2007_may_VADGunits_march2010.ems pthours_2007_jun_VADGunits_march2010.ems pthours_ 2007_jul_VADGunits_march2010.ems pthours_2007_aug_VADGunits_march2010.ems pthours_2007_sep_VADGunits_march2010.ems pthours_2007_oct_VADGunits_march2010.ems pthours_2007_nov_VADGunits_march2010.ems pthours_2007_dec_VADGunits_march2010.ems SMOKE PTHOUR EMS

- 95 See Exhibit 3.2 for file format

2007 Annual Area Source Emission Inventory in SMOKE ORL format arinv_marama_2007_ jan2012 _w_tf_orl.txt.gz SMOKE ARINV ORL This file has the PM transport

factor s by county applied to the NOF emissions. See section 8.1.2 for discussion.
See http://www.smoke

model.org/version2.6/html/ for file format

2007 Annual MAR Emission Inventory in SMOKE ORL format ARINV_20 0 7_ MAR_ Jan2012 .txt SMOKE ARINV ORL See http://www.smoke

model.org/version2.6/html/ for file format ; includes commercial marine vessels, airports (including GSE), and railroad locomotives

2007 Monthly NMIM/NONROAD Emission Inventory in S MOKE ORL format arinv_nonroad_2007_jan_29sep2010_v1_orl.txt.gz arinv_nonroad_2007_feb_29sep2010_v1_orl.txt.gz arinv_nonroad_2007_mar_29sep2010_v1_orl.txt.gz arinv_nonroad_2007_apr_29sep2010_v1_orl.txt.gz arinv_nonroad_2007_may_29sep2010_v1_orl.txt.gz arinv _nonroad_2007_jun_29sep2010_v1_orl.txt.gz arinv_nonroad_2007_jul_29sep2010_v1_orl.txt.gz arinv_nonroad_2007_aug_29sep2010_v1_orl.txt.gz arinv_nonroad_2007_sep_29sep2010_v1_orl.txt.gz SMOKE ARINV ORL See http://www.smoke

model.org/version2.6/html/ for file formatTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 135

File Description File Name Format Notes arinv_nonroad_2007_oct_29sep2010_v1_orl.txt.gz arinv_nonroad_2007_nov_29s ep2010_v1_orl.txt.gz arinv_nonroad_2007_dec_29sep2010_v1_orl.txt.gz
SMOKE formatted temporal profiles for units that report to CAMD for only part of 2007. ptpro_2007_marama_egu_13apr2010.txt SMOKE PTPRO See http://www.smoke

model.org/version2.6/html/ for file format and Section 3.4 of this TSD for discussio n of these files SMOKE formatted temporal

cross

- reference tables for annual time periods ptref_2007_marama_egu_annual_13apr2010.txt SMOKE PTREF

SMOKE formatted temporal

cross

- reference tables for nonozone time periods ptref_2007_marama_egu_nonozone_13apr2010.txt SMOKE PTREF

SMOKE formatted temporal profiles MARAMA_amptref_v3_3_revised_10feb2011_v1.txt SMOKE AMPTREF Updated SMOKE temporal files

based on EPA’s 2005v4 modeling platform

. See Section 8.2.3 of this TSD for discussion of the updates made. SMOKE formatted temporal

cross

- reference tables MARAMA_amptpro_2005_us_can_revised_10feb2011_v0.txt SMOKE AMP T PRO

SMOKE formatted spatial fridding cross

- reference file MARAMA_amgref_us_can_mex_revised_17feb20110_v8.txt SMOKE AMGREF Updated SMOKE spatial files

based on EPA’s 2005v4 modeling platform

. See Section 8.2. 2 of this TSD for discussion of the updates made. SMOKE formatted spatial surrogate designation file MARAMA_srgdesc_36km_revised_10feb2011_v1.txt SMOKE SRGDESC

SMOKE formatted area to point file for airports MARAMA_artopnt_2002detroit_10feb2011_v0.txt SMOKE ARTOPNT
SMOKE formatted speciation profile MARAMA_gspro_cmaq_cb05_soa_2005ck_05b_10feb2011.txt SMOKE GSPRO Updated SMOKE speciation files

based on EPA’s 2005v4 modeling platform

. See Section 8.2. 1 of this TSD for discussion of the updates made. SMOKE formatted speciation

cross

- reference file MARAMA_gsref_cmaq_cb05_soa_2005ck_05b_17feb2011.txt SMOKE GSREFTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 136



## 10.0 REFERENCES

ERTAC 2010 a . Eastern Regional Technical Advisory Committee. ERTAC Rail Emissions Inventory Part 1: Class I Line

- Haul Locomotives

. October 2010.

ERTAC 2010 b

. Eastern Regional Technical Advisory Committee. ERTAC Rail Emissions Inventory Part 2: Class I Railyard Switcher Locomotives. September 2010.

MARAMA 20 06

. Mid

- Atlantic Regional Air Management Association

. Technical Support Documentation for 2002 MANE

- VU SIP Modeling Inventories, Version 3.
Novembe r 20, 2006. http://www.marama.org/technical

- center/emissions

- inventory/2002

- inventory

- and

- projections/mane

- vu

- 2002

- e missions

- inventory



### MARAMA 2011. Prepared by MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. for the Mid

Atlantic Regional Air Management Association. Technical Support Document for the Development of the 2007 Emission Inventory for Regional Air Quality Modeling in the
Northeast / Mid

-

Atlantic Region . February 27, 2011.

SONOMA 2009. Sonoma Technology and US Forest Service. SMARTFIRE Algorithm Description . October 2009. http://www.getbluesky.org/smartfire/docs/SMARTFIRE_Algorithm_Description_Final.pdf

US EP A 200 7a

. U.S. Environmental P rotection Agency

. Guidance on the Use of Models
and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze

. April 2007. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/g uide/final

- 03

- pm

- rh

- guidance.pdf



### USEPA 2007 b

. U.S. Environmental Protections Agency. Emissions Modeling Clearinghouse

- Fugitive Dust Fractions . February 2007. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/dustfractions )

US EP A 20 09a

. U.S. Environmental P rotection Agency

. Toxic Release Inventory Explorer Web Site; Chemical Download for Ammonia. File downloaded on July 9, 2009. http://www.epa.gov/triexplorer



### US EP A 200 9b

. U.S. Environmental P rotection Agency

. Clean Air Markets

– Data and Maps Web Site; Unit Level Emissions Query for 2007. File downloaded on September 9,
2009. http://camddataandmaps.epa.gov/gdm/index.cfm?fuseaction=emissions.wizard



### US EP A 200 9c

. U.S. Environmental P rotection Agency

. Clean Air Markets

– Emissions
Data in SMOKE Format for 2007. File ( hour_unit_2007.zip ) downloaded on September 15, 2009. http://camddataandmaps.epa.gov/gdm/index.cfm?fuseaction=emissions.prepacksmokeTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid

- Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 137



### US EP A 200 9d

. U.S. Environmental P rotection Agency

. National Mobile Inventory
Model. http://www.epa.gov/otaq/nmim.htm

US EP A 200 9e

. U.S. Environmental P rotection Agency

. Emission Factors for Locomotives; EPA

- 420F09025, 2009. http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroad/locomotv/420f09025.pdf

US EP A 20 10a

. U.S. Environmental P rotection Agency

. 2008 National Emissions Inventory Data & Documentation ; Workbooks and Documentation for NonPoint Sector. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2008inventory.html#inventorydata

US EP A 20 10b

. U.S. Environmental P rote ction Agency

. 2008 National Emissions Inventory Data & Documentation ; Residential Wood Combustion

. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2008inventory.html#inventorydata

US EP A 20 10c

. U.S. Environmental P rotection Agency

. 2008 National Emissions Inventory Data & Documentation ; Animal Husbandry and Fertilizer Application. http://www.epa.go v/ttn/chief/net/2008inventory.html#inventorydata

USEPA 2010d. U.S. Environmental Protections Agency. Documentation for the Commercial Marine Vessel Component of the National Emissions Inventory Methodology

, Eastern Research Group report # 0245.02.302.00 1 , USEPA Contract number EP

- D

- 07

- 097 . March 30, 2010. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/cmv_report4.pdf

USEPA 2010 e . U.S. Environmental Protections Agency. Documentation for Aircraft Component of the National Emissions Inventory Methodology

. Eastern Research Group report # 0245.02.302.001 , USEPA Contract number EP

- D

- 07

- 097 . April 23, 2010. http://www.epa.gov/t tn/chief/net/aircraft_report_100423.pdf

USEPA 2011. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, AP

- 42 Fifth Edition, Section 13.2.1, Paved Roads . Revised January
2011. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch13/final/c13s0201.pdf