ED 

# 1

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

SECRETARY

May 28, 2014



### Mr. Shawn Garvin Regional Administrator

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III

1650 Arch Street (Mail Code: 3RAOO) Philadelphia, P A 19103

- 2029**.~~u1** 

### Dear Mr. Garvin:

j/.r



### Enclosed for your approval is a revision to the Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan (SIP) to update the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets (MVEBs) in the "Maintenance Plan and Base Year Inventory for the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Area Eight-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area" (Maintenance Plan). In addition, a General Conformity Budget for the construction emissions of

the Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant is included in the revision. The Maintenance Plan was developed according to Section 175A of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.A. §7505a). This

Maintenance Plan revision was developed in accordance with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) April 2012 guidance document titled, Policy Guidance on the Use of

MOVES2010 and Subsequent Minor Revisionsfor State Implementation Plan Development, Transportation Conformity, and Other Purposes. The Commonwealth followed all of the applicable procedural requirements of the Commonwealth's laws and constitution in conducting

and completing the adoption/issuance of the SIP revision.

The Commonwealth has completed its public participation process for this SIP revision. The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) scheduled a public hearing to occur on the final day of the 30-day public comment period, which ended October 18,2012, but no persons expressed interest in presenting testimony or attending before the specified deadline. Therefore,

DEP cancelled the hearing. The DEP received 15 comments from four commentators on the proposed SIP revision.

The following documents are enclosed for your approval:

1. The Maintenance Plan revision, which includes an MVEB for the purposes of transportation conformity; and an emissions budget for the construction emissions for the

Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant for the purposes of General Conformity;

2. A Comment-Response Document;

3. Certification of public participation activities;

4. A technical support document for the Maintenance Plan revision; and

5. Appendix C, "Technical Support Document, Mobile Source Highway Emissions Inventory," which replaces the Appendix C of the same title in the approved Maintenance Plan.

.

Rachel Carson State Office Building I P.O. Box 2063 I Harrisburg, PA 17105-2063

717.787.2814 Printed on Recycled Paper www.depweb.state.pa.us

### Mr. Shawn Garvin -2- May 28, 2014



### A paper copy and a disc containing a searchable PDF copy of the revised Maintenance Plan are enclosed. I certify that the electronic file is an exact duplicate of the hard copy.

The EPA redesignated the ScrantonlWilkes- Barre Area to**attai~ent** 

### on November 19, 2007 (72 FR 64948). In that action, EPA approved all of the components of the ScrantonlWilkesBarre Ozone Maintenance Plan, including the MVEBs (72 FR 64948). The EPA approved a revision to the Maintenance Plan's 2009 and 2018 MVEBs on August 11,2009 (74 FR 40083).

The revision established MVEBs for each Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and Rural Planning Organization (RPO) in the nonattainment area (74 FR 40083). This Maintenance Plan ( revision currently being submitted does not alter the MVEBs for VOC from those approved in

the August 11, 2009, action.

As you know, the EPA updated the model that estimates highway vehicle emissions. The new model, the Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES), better estimates emissions from highway vehicles, but MOVES estimates much higher emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx),

and in some cases, volatile organic compounds (VOC), than the Mobile6.2 model used to derive

the MVEBs in the approved Scranton Wilkes-Barre Maintenance Plan. The Scranton WilkesBarre Area MPO, the Northeastern Pennsylvanian Alliance MPO, and the Northern Tier RPO,

which are responsible for transportation planning in the ScrantonlWilkes- Barre Area, use those approved MVEBs to satisfy transportation conformity requirements. The MPOs and RPO are required to use the most up-to-date version of MOVES for all new transportation planning that begins after March 2,2013. Approval of the updated MVEBs in the Commonwealth's SIP will

allow the MPOs and RPO to compare similarly generated emissions used in transportation improvement plans and the MVEBs, which will allow transportation projects to go forward in a timely manner.

If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Joyce E. Epps, Director

of the Bureau of Air Quality, by email atjeepps@pa.gov or by phone at 717.787.9702.

Sincerely,

E. Christopher Abruzzo Secretary

EnclosuresCOMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA INVOICE NO. STD-521 REV 06-2010 

### PUBLICATIONS AUTHORIZATION AND INVOICE

PUBLICATIONS AUTHORIZATION (To be completed by agency): ,(1" 

### 3(, j /.1 /;

TO: (NAME AND ADDRESS Of NEWSPAPER)

. FEDERAL I.D. NOJSOC. SEC. NO FROM: (NAME AND ADDRESS OF AGENCy) AGENCY TELEPHONE NO

Scranton Times-Tribune 24-0717470 Alex Haas 717-787-9495

149 Penn Avenue PA DEP- BAO
Scranton, PA 18503 400 Market Street**H~rrit;hllrn** PA 171()1 0

HEREWITH IS ENCLOSED COPY FOR PUBLICATION OF ADVERTISEMENT FOR PROPOSALS TO 

### L EMPLOY 

### C PURCHASE ['j CONTRACT [J SELL 

### IlYPE OF AO[]

CLASSIFIED**~** LEGAL NOTICE

PUBLISH ADVERTISEMENT (NO. OF TIMES) 

## I
MAXIMUM NO. OF LINES DATE I ORDER NO.

1x Only October 16, 2013

DATES OF INSERTION SICJ.N,TURE**FORj\G~NCJ** 

# ·(("it

...... October 26, 2013 

## A "'c, ' '"**.,-f{.(~l:.** i.·{ C Vk: '

.. ' You, as vendor, are authorized to publish thiS advertisement In your newspaper, subject to the terms of thiS order, as follows:
Advertisement to be published in regular advertising columns, no position specified; caption of two lines and signature to be in capitals and subject matter and title of officer to be set solid in type regularly used by your newspaper for public (legal) notice advertising; charge to be made at the rate charged to and paid by commercial advertisers for matter similarly set and occupying

similar space; advertisement to be run in the editions specified above. Vendor agrees that, in the performance of any contract
awarded to it hereunder, said vendor wi!1 not discriminate against any employee or other persons on account of race, co!or, sex, religious creed, ancestry, age or national origin and that the Commonwealth, upon receipt of satisfactory evidence of such discrimination, shall have the right to cancel said contract. Return this copy at once if you will not accept this advertisement under

the terms set forth.

Return original and two copies (signed by the editor or publisher) to the agency listed above. Proof of advertising

in the form of a tear sheet must be stapled to original and copies. Original must be notarized.

Commonwealth to be billed only for actual number of printed lines published.

SAP FUND COST CENTER GENERAL LEDGER ACCOUNT CODE %

7027313000 3522710000 6343200

---- liP V 16414000000

-

"

.. (> be completed by publisher)'

DATE OF INSERTION ACTUAL NO. OF PRINTED LINES COST PER LINE TOTAL AMOUNT

-**I;:'l_.~.** 

### I (; I.b ! j 1 {iA, 

## I. < ' / 

## IJ D (j, {A;"

2nd Ad**i~** ,\ /0 .j.**f~ ~-\**  

### !:In

3rd Ad

GRAND TOTAL-+

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

C t f ' ' ) ,; "j' " 'l '., '/

ounyo !**f\!<~(;;i.,fjj~ftJ..!!./iJj>**

Before me, the subscriber, a Notary Public in and for said County, personally came**Ii"~** '1\ 

### iJl;..i C 

### i. ! { (,,! 

### IA

who being duly .sworn, doth depose and say that he is***l.c!~"(_'·L(ll..{--""** ·'41",'C"1...1.-:;,..,I,,,(',;-' -,;-i-,' 1_'

,,--" "'.i'...w.,,-'----c:---------

____ _ the i

, i', :,);' ,i i'i! ;.'. I a general newspaper published at ,,/"":"'.1"":'1""

....

_' ",t"",,,,,! fLjli-,I

... I-I-/",lJ...1

### c!'-'{~,-;- __ -:-

__ -....._:-

___ _ that the advertisement, of which tearsheet is attached hereto, was published in the regular advertising columns of said newspap'

in the editions of said newspaper, in all respects as ordered and invoiced above; and that the Commonwealth is not charg'
therefor at a rate higher than is charged any ordinary advertiser for a similar amount of matter occupying similar space and set ir

similar matter, in said newspaper.

Sworn and subscribed before me this 

# 2;:- i' 

### 4

My commission expires

## -;;;......~. 

# /9;. ';) 0/ 

# 2 day of

## ~",.,t..b"""**~** 

# Au 

# 9-

NOTARY PUBLIC 20 1"2

*This affidavit must be made by the Owner, Publisher, or the designated agent of the owner or publisher. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

Notarial Seal Joseph O. Strubeck, Notary Public City of Scranton, lackawannil County My Commission Expires Aug. 19, 2017

MENSER. P£HHS'I'lVANIA**ASSOClAnO~** OF NOTARIES

## o.}- U Z01:? 

### •

LEGAL NOTiCE**Pro~ad** RevisJon to the Snite lmpJe111entation Plan for the Motor Vehi.cle. Emissions Budgets

, in the- Scrantoo,wilkes--Sarre 199'7 Eight-Hour Ozone

Maintenance Area;

public Hearing

The Pennsylvania Department of**Envi~** (onmentat Protection (Department) is revising the motor vehlele emissions budgets for the ScrantonlWHkes-Barre 1997 EIght-Hour 'Ozone Maintenance Area. The revised budgets, Once**ap~** proved by the U,S, Environmental Protect(on AgBncy (EPA}, will allow lOcal transportation plannIng agencies to better compare highway vehIcle emissions In transportation plans'wlth mo- tor vehicle emission budgets in the State ImplementatiOn Plan (SIP}, The SIP will' 'now include highway emissions estimated using the same com· puter model that locar pJanning agen- cies ate**re~uired** to usa for developing their transportation Plans.

The EPA developed a new computer model, the Motor Vehicle**~missions** Simulator (MOVES), which estlmatas emissiqns from highway vehicles more accurata[y. The Department used 'the formet EPA-apProved model, MonileS, for estlmetlng highway vehicles emissions in the approved maintenance plan for the ScrantonLWllkes-6arre Area. Emissions of oxides of nitrogen and, in some casaSt volatile organic compounds are estimated to be at higher levels by the MOVES model than the levels app'roved by EPA In the ScrantonlWHkes Barre Maintenance Plan. The Transportation Conformity regulation requires that emissions from updated local transportation improvement plans do not exceed the
motor vehfcle emissions budget irtthe area's approved, appifcable SlP, By us- ing the same model in transportation**plannin~** and the SIP, a more realistic
compenson betwee-n the two will re- sult, which wi!! offer less chance of transportation projects being delayed,

The Department IS also includIng, pro- jected emissions from Mat'eellus Shale activity that**wer~"n** ... at included in the prevIously**ap~ed** SIP revision. These: amissio-ng"fesutt tram drUUng and' compressor**st~tion activl~.**  In act: dltlon, the E)epa'rtmerlt is 'including emissions that wHi be produced from bUilding the proposed Bel! Bend Nuclear Power Plant in order for that**proi~ct** to satIsfy General Conformity requirements.

This proposal IS available on the De-: pertment's website at www,depweb, state,pa.us or through the'contact**per~** SOns listed below,

The Department is seeking public**com~** ment on updated emissicns in this proposed SIP revision, which'include chang,es made to the motor vehicle emiSSions budget and inclusion of emissions from Marcellus Shale activity, and building ot the prOposed Bell Bend Nudear Power Plant in the ScrantonlWHkes-Barre 1997 Eight-Hour OZone Maintenance Plan, The**Depart~** ment wfll hold a public hearing to re- ceive comments on the proposal on December 4, 2013, at l:QOp.m. in Susquehanna Room A at the Pennsyl- vania**De~artment** of Environmental Protection s: Northeast Regional Office, 2 Public SQuare, Wilkes·Barre, PA,

Persons wishing to present testimony

at the hearing shOUld contact Alex Haas. p,o, Box 8:468, Harrisburg PA 17105, {7171 187-9495 or alehaas@pa, gov to reserve a time. If, by November 27, 2Q13, na petaon has requested to testify at the hearing, the hearing will be cancei!ed, If, the hearing is can- celled" the Departmem wl1I notffy the pUbUc on tha Bureau of Air Quallty webpage, http://www.dep.state.pa.ust dep/daputate.lalrwaste/aQ/default.htm, Witnesses should keep testimany 10
ten minutes ,and should provide two written. copies of their statement at the hearing.

Persons with a disability who Wish to attend the hearing and require an**aux~** iUary aid, service at other accommodation to participate in the proceeding should contact Alex Haas at (717) 187· 9495 or alehaas@.QI!,gov. TOO users may contact the AT&T Relay Service at (800) 654-5984 to discuss how the Departmentcan best accommodate their needs,

The Departm:snt mUst rscelve com· ments no leter than December 4, 2013. Written comments should be sent to the attention of Klrit Oa[al, Chtef, DIvision of Air Resource Management, Bu-

reau of Air Quality, P,O. Box 8468, Harrisburg, PA 17106-8468, or kdalal@pa. gOY, USe "ScrantonIWUkes·Sarre MVEB Revisions" in the subject Une,

E( Christophel'- Abrl.tlto Acting Secretary Department of
Environmental Protection



### OCT 3 0 2013

Air Resource t"'anagemeot DivisionCOMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 8T0-521 RE.V. C6.2010 

### PUBLICATIONS AUTHORIZATION AND INVOICE

PUBLICATIONS AUTHORIZATION (To be completed by agency): INVOICE NO.**TO:INAMEAN"DADDAES50FNEWSFA~AAJ** 1 FEDERAL I D NO /sac SEC NO FROM: (NAMEANDADDRES$ OF AGENOy) AGENCY I.. TELEPHONE NO.

# ri~~~~:~:i~i;~:e~eader ;? 

# 1**~!11o;;irt~~--" :~:~~:::~~reet**  

# .. 717-787-9495

Wlikes-Barre,PA 18711-0250..**H~rri~hnrn** PA 17101

...

HEREV./lTH IS ENCLOSED COpy FOR PUBLICATION OF ADVERTISEMENT FOR PROPOSALS TO 

## I
TYPE OF AD 

### C EMPLOY 

### 0 PURCHASE 

### 0 CONTRACT 

### D SELL 

### D CLASSIFIED 

### JZl LEGAl.. NOT1CE

?UBUSH ADVERTISEMENT (NO. OF TIMES) I. MAXIMUM NO, OFLlNE8 DATE I ORDER 1'.0.

1x Only October 16,2013

DATES OF INSERTION**SI~~.n;JRE** ... FORAGfNpy / 

## /n / /7

October 26, 2013 

## i:l/i!.,.. (" lit, (Vi A.·;·.,;

You, as vendor, are authorized to publish thiS advertisement in your newspaper, subject to the terms of thiS order, as follows:
Advertisement to be published in regular advertising columns, no position specified; caption of two lines and signature to be in capitals and subject matter and litle of officer to be set solid in type regularly used by your newspaper for public (legal) notice advertising; charge to be made at the rate charged to and paid by commercial advertisers for matter similarly set and occupying

similar space; advertisement to be run in the editions specified above. Vendor agrees that, in the performance of any contract
awarded to it hereunder, said vendor will not discriminate against any employee or other persons on account of race, color, sex, religious creed, ancestry, age or national origin and that the Commonwealth, upon receipt of satisfactory evidence of such discrimination, shall have the right to cancel said contract, Return this copy at once if you will not accept this advertisement under

the terms set forth.

Return original and two caples (signed by the editor or publisher) to the agency listed above. Proof of advertising

in the form of a tear sheet must be stapled to original and copies. Original must be notarized.

Commonwealth to be billed only for actual number of printed lines published.

SAP FUND I COST CENTER GENERAL LEDGER ACCOUNT CODE % 

### , 7027313000 3522710000 6343200



## _ ... _. - 110 V16414000000

INVOICE (To be completed by publJsher)'

-

DATE OF INSERTioN ACTUAL NO. OF PRINTED liNES COST Pr:.R LINE TOTALANtGUNT

1st Ad 

### Il),foher ,:(t

### ~n(? i 

# Iq{ 

# (Lq'i 

# 5'zL

2nd Ad 

### Ifll'1

# ~**I1Jtl~f"(** (!e:::. 

# / '-/.-0 () 1,-/

3rd Ad 

### /

4 /'

GRAND TOTAL**~** 'fJ 

# 6 

# 1'5



# .

. 

## /

-'

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

County of 

## L y 1. er 11 C.

Before me, the subscriber, a Notary Public in and for said County, personally came 

# L l'r\d q 

## B'{ r--ne3**who~g** duly sworn, doth depose and say that he is* 

## C. I" $ 

## s ,-bed 

## £ { e \. ih'l'- It.. 

## I 

# o

t)u



## L 

# D

the II (ll 

### eo" 

## b?, Lev a general newspaper published at 

## jj;:' k "'-? ,- jJc;, 

### ,r;; t?4= 

## 73 7//

that the advertisement, of which tearsheet is attached hereto, was published in the regular advertising columns of said newspapl

in the editions of said newspaper, in all respects as ordered and invoiced above; and that the Commonwealth is not charg'
therefor at a rate higher than is charged any ordinary advertiser for a similar amount of maller occupying similar space and set ir
similar matter, in said newspaper. 

## %

Sworn 

# '7

day of

## -.I'-~'-IE'-...\W,-¥,eL{,I--~-- 20 

# 1-;

*Tn is affidavit must be made by the O';mer, P bUsher, or the designated agent of the owner or publisher. SIGNATURE OF AFFiANT

COMMONWEALTH Of PENNSYLVANiA

Notarial Seal Angela Coscia, Notary Public CIty of Wilkes·Barre, Luzerne County My Commission Expires Feb.**}.:!L~~- '-~-** 

# Proof of Publication



# THE TIMES LEADER

(Under Act of No. 587, approved May 16, 1929)



### STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA,
COUNTY OF LUZERNE 55:

:-"''7-'--/-I.''-!''''--''''-+!:.::::.'*"'c.:",L---::-----:---:---:-:----:--' 

### be i ng duly sw 0 

### rn accord i n g
to law, depose and says that he/she is the bookkeeper of The Times Leader, a daily newspaper published in the City of Wilkes-Barre, County
and State aforesaid, by the Wilkes-Barre Publishing Company, Inc., that
said The Times Leader was established in 1939, and that the printed notice

or publication hereto attached is exactly as printed in the regular edition of

The Times Leader on the following date(s):

Affiant further deposes and says that The Time Leader is a daily newspaper of general circulation and that neither the affiant nor The Times Leader is
interested in the subject matter of the aforesaid notice of advertisement,
and that all allegations in the foregoing statement as to time, place and

character of publication are true.**L-~')**



# '--**~/ ~**  

# C7/t

2 'Ji!(L

# /~**~e~,J**

Copy of Notice

. or Publication

### swornr~efore.me this 

# 2fl day

( 1 

# 7rL

of 

# <:::Y**A':t~~** 

# ,**2~.;;',.**

# ~~g/

# ~~**a~~7"~l~~:~i:r;S~!ate** lmp!ementfilioh PI"," for lIIe Motor Vehicle**E"'i",'lotl.EMiget$·j~1** 0, loo? Eight,l;!!w.o.;one Maint<>nance Area;

P"bllctiearing

DeDa,1mentis also Including projected emissions from Marcellus Shale activity,that were**Ii~~;~;~ra,** in' the previously approved SIP revision. These emissions result from drilling and It station activity. In addition, the Department IS including emissions that will be**p"'d~lceql** buifding'the proposed Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant in order for that project to Conformity requirements.

availabfe on the Oepartmenes website at www.depweb.state.pa.us or through listed below.

Deoa,tment must receive comments no Jater than December 4, 2013. Written corrm,sr,!"l
the attention of Kirit DaJar, Chief, Oivision of Air Resource Man.agement,**R","~,'" l~spr;;{,iO~;'7vitliit';':~B~rBr';OX**  8468, Harrisburg, PA 17105-8468, or kdalai@pa.gov. "1 MVEB Revisions" in the subject line.

E Christopher Abruzzo, Acting Secretary, Civitas Media

- Midwest

The Times Leader

PO Box 690 Miamisburg, OH 45343 Department of Environmental Protection

ADVERTISING INVOICE I STATEMENT 1/1**~ ~**  0"**BI~LINGyDATE** • mERMS'!1:!lf PAUENT '

" '"**~** v" '" 

### NOV 

### 1 3 2013 

# I

Air Resource.**~anagement** 10/31/2013 Net 30 DIvIsion L..

__________ -'-

__________ ......J

DATE DEPT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONIAIR

QUALITY DIVISI

400 MARKET ST. 12TH FLOOR/ALEX HAAS

RACHEL CARSON OFFICE BLDG.
HARRISBURG, PA 17101

TRANs"1{ l!!is'SIllRIPIT1ltLlN**~** 10/26/2013 300064829 scrantonwilkes-barremoves

4000 Times Leader

-

4020 Times Leader Internet

aftl Affidavit $7

aftl Affidavit $7

0-0

$595.10 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 , 11&15

,

1

1

1

$ 0.00 "SAU UNliE.S RATE AMOUNT

' "**~** " ,**~**

3 x 7.25 65.00 8.94 581.10

3 x 7.25 21.75 0.32 7.00

3 x 7.25 21.75 0.00 7.00

7.00

$ 0.00 $595.10

PLEASE RETURN THIS PORTION

WITH YOUR REMITTANCE If you desire to charge this amount to your credit card, please complete the following information

and return to the address below: [ 1 Visa [ 1 Mastercard [ 1 Discover TOTAlli

581.10

588.10

595.10

Acct#

________________ _ Exp Date:

_____ _

Signature

'--

_____ C_O_M_M

______

# ~IIL _____ 8_00_9_3_5_91

____

# ~L_ ____ D_E_P_T_E_N_V_I_R_O_N_M_E_N_T_A_L

____ ......JL.

______________

# ~

The Times Leader

PO Box 690 Miamisburg. OH 45343

NR Phone Number: 1-800-273-8830

Phone: 570-829-7100

Fax: Payment in full is due upon receipt of the statement. A service charge on all balances over 30 days

will be computed by a 'Periodic Rate' of 1-1/2% per month, which is an ANNUAL PERCENTAGE

RATE OF 18%, this applies to the previous balance after deducting current payments and credits appearing on your statement.



### REMITTANCE ADVICE

02333380093591000595100000000000000

# Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

FINAL

Volume I State Implementation Plan Revision: NO X 

# Motor

Vehicle Emission Budget Revisions Based on the MOVES2010a Model; and General Conformity Budget for Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant

Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Eight-hour Ozone

Maintenance Area for the 1997 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard

May 2014

Bureau of Air Quality Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

P.O. Box 8468 Harrisburg, PA 17105-8468

717-787-9495

### [This page intentionally left blank.]

### - i - TABLE OF CONTENTS

VOLUME I

1. Introduction and Overview of Ground-Level Ozone ...........................................................1

1.1. 1997 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard ..................................1

1.2. Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Area and Ozone SIP Revisions ..........................................2

1.3. EPA Requirements for Developing a nd Revising Maintenance Plans ....................4

1.4. Maintenance Plan Demonstration and Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets .............7

1.5. Non-Mobile Inventory Review ................................................................................8

2. Source Category Emissions ...............................................................................................11

2.1. Point Source Category Emissions ..........................................................................11

2.1.1. Control Measures .......................................................................................11

2.1.2. Growth Estimates in the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Ozone
Maintenance Plan .......................................................................................11

2.1.3. Point Source Category Conclusion ............................................................12

2.2. Area Source Category Emissions ...........................................................................13

2.2.1. Control Measures .......................................................................................13

2.2.2. Growth Estimates in the Maintenance Plan ...............................................13

2.2.3. Growth Estimates in MARAMA 2011 Regional Modeling Effort ............15

2.2.4. Marcellus Shale Emissions ........................................................................16

2.2.5 Area Source Category Conclusion .............................................................17

2.3. Nonroad Source Category Emissions ....................................................................18

2.3.1. Control Measures .......................................................................................18

2.3.2. Growth Estimates .......................................................................................19

2.3.3. Nonroad Source Category Conclusion.......................................................19

2.4. General Conformity Budget for Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant ..........................20

2.4.1. Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Emissions ................................................20

2.4.2. General Conformity Budget for th e Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project ........................................................................................................21

2.5 Highway Source Category Emissions ....................................................................21

2.5.1. Control Measures .......................................................................................21

2.5.2. Growth Estimates .......................................................................................22

2.5.3. Mobile Source Category Conclusion .........................................................23

3. Safety Margins ................................................................................................................ ...24

4. Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for Transportation Conformity ....................................24

5. Conclusion .................................................................................................................... .....25

### - ii - VOLUME II

1. Technical Support Document – S ee Volume II Table of Contents

APPENDICES

1. Appendix C: Maintenance Plan Update for the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre (Lackawanna, Luzerne, Monroe and Wyoming Counties) Eigh t-hour Maintenance Area: Motor Vehicle Emission Budget Revisions Using MOVES2010A (See Appendix C Table of Contents)

### - iii - TABLES

Table 1: Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Area 2012 Design Values ...........................................................5

Table 2a: Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for NO X 

### Calculated with MOVES2010a for
the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre MPO ................................................................................................. ....7

Table 2b: Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for NO X 

### Calculated with MOVES2010a for the Northeastern Pennsylvania Alliance MPO ................................................................................8

Table 2c: Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for NO X 

### Calculated with MOVES2010a for
the Northern Tier RPO ......................................................................................................... ............8

Table 3: Revised Scranton/W ilkes-Barre Area Summer Day NO X 

### Emissions from 2004

to 2018 ....................................................................................................................... ....................10

Table 4: 2009 Point Source Emissions – Ma intenance Plan Estimate versus Actual ...................12

Table 5: 2018 Point Source Emissions – Ma intenance Plan Estimate versus Revised
2018 Emissions ................................................................................................................ ..............13

Table 6: Comparison of Growth Factors Used in Maintenance Plan and Inventory Updates from 2002 to 2009...................................................................................................... ......15

Table 7: Comparison of Growth Factors Used in Maintenance Plan and Inventory Updates from 2009 to 2018...................................................................................................... ......15

Table 8: NO X 

### Emissions Related to Marce llus Shale Activity (Tons/Day) .................................17

Table 9: General Conformity Budge t for Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant ...................................21

Table 10: Revised Motor Vehicle Emissi ons Estimates Using MOVES2010a for the
Entire Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Area ............................................................................................. ..23

Table 11: Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets ...............................................................................25

### - iv - [This page intentionally left blank.]

### - 1 - 1. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW OF GROUND-LEVEL OZONE

Maintaining concentrations of ground-level ozone below the health -based 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality st andards (NAAQS) is important because ozone is a serious human health threat and can cause damage to important food crops, forests, and wildlife.

Repeated exposure to ozone po llution may cause a va riety of adverse health effects for both healthy people and those with existing conditions including: difficulty breathing, chest pains, coughing, nausea, throat irr itation, and congestion. Ozone exposure can exacerbate bronchitis, heart disease, emphysem a, and asthma, and reduce lung capacity. Asthma is a significant and growing threat to children and adults. Ozone can aggravate asthma, causing more asthma attacks, in creased use of medication, more medical treatment and more frequent visits to hos pital emergency clinic s. Because ozone pollution usually forms in hot weather, a nyone who spends time outdoors in the summer may be affected, particularly childre n, the elderly, outdoor workers and people exercising. Children are most at risk from exposure to ozone because they are active outside during the summertime wh en ozone levels are highest.

Ozone is one of the most pervasive and detr imental pollutants known to affect vegetation, causing more injury to trees and crops than a ny other air pollutant in the United States. Ozone interferes with photosynthesis, the process by which plants convert water and sunlight to food. Ozone makes plants more susceptible to disease, insects, other pollutants and harsh weather. It damages the foliage of trees and ot her plants, ruining the landscapes of cities, parks, forests, and recreation areas. Research has shown that current
ozone concentrations result in reductions in wood growth of over 10 percent in forests of
the Northeast United States. There is strong scientific ev idence showing that current levels of ozone are reducing crop yields, partic ularly in sensitive species such as soybean, cotton, and peanuts. Annual crop loss alone fr om ozone-affected soybeans in Illinois,
Indiana and Ohio has been calculated to fall between $199 million and $346 million. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA ) has estimated national crop yield losses due to ozone in excess of $1 billion annua lly. One of the key components of ozone, oxides of nitrogen (NO X 

### ), contributes to fish kills and algae blooms in sensitive waterways, such as the Chesapeake Bay.

Ozone is not emitted directly to the a tmosphere, but is formed by photochemical
reactions between volatile or ganic compounds (VOCs) and NO X 

### in the presence of sunlight. The long, hot, humid days of su mmer are particularly conducive to ozone formation, so ozone levels are of concern primarily during the m onths of May through September. The primary sour ces of man-made VOCs and NO X 

### , the ozone precursors, are the evaporation of fuels and solvents (gas oline and consumer pr oducts), combustion of fuels (motor vehicles, power plants and non -road engines), and i ndustrial processes.

1.1. 1997 8-hour Ozone National Am bient Air Quality Standard

In July 1997, the EPA established identic al primary and secondary 8-hour ozone NAAQS at a concentration of 0.08 parts per million (ppm), based on the 3-year

### - 2 - average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone
concentrations measured in the ambi ent air at each monitored location. Implementation of the standards was delayed due to litigation. The EPA designated the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Area, which consists of all of Lackawanna, Luzerne, Monroe, and Wyoming Counties, as nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, based on ambient air quality monitoring data collected from
2001-2003. The Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Ar ea was one of seventeen areas in Pennsylvania designated as an 8-hour oz one nonattainment area for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.

On March 12, 2008, the EPA revised the NAAQS for ozone to 0.075 ppm averaged over 8 hours to provide even gr eater protection for children, other at-risk populations and the environment agains t the array of oz one-induced adverse health and welfare effects (73 FR 16436; March 27, 2008). In April 2012, the EPA designated five areas in Pennsylva nia as nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (77 FR 30088, 30143; May 21, 2012). These areas include all or a portion of the following coun ties: Allegheny, Armstrong, Berks, Beaver, Bucks, Butler, Carbon, Chester, Delaware, Faye tte, Lancaster, Lehigh, Montgomery, Northampton, Philadelphia, Washington and Westmoreland. The ozone standard is currently undergoing its st atutory five year review and EPA is expected to promulgate an ozone standard between 0.060 and 0.070 ppm in the near future. Pennsylvania could have additional areas th at do not meet this anticipated revised
ozone standard.

The promulgation of the new ozone standard does not affect the need for this revision to the approved maintenance plan for the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Area (Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Ozone Main tenance Plan) under the 1997 ozone NAAQS.

1.2. Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Area and Ozone SIP Revisions

The Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Area was desi gnated a “basic” nona ttainment area on April 15, 2004 (69 FR 23858; April 30, 2004). On June 12, 2007, Pennsylvania requested that the EPA redesignate the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Area from
nonattainment to attainment for the ozone standard. The EPA redesignated the
Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Area to attainme nt on November 19, 2007 (72 FR 64948). The DEP concurrently submitted a SIP revision to the EPA that included a maintenance plan based on the attainment and continued long-t erm attainment ofthe 1997 ozone NAAQS for the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Area (Scranton/WilkesBarre Ozone Maintenance Plan), the 2002 baseline inventory, and motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) to be used for purposes of transportation conformity. The EPA’s transportation conformity re gulation, codified at 40 CFR Part 93, Subpart A and incorporated by re ference in its entirety at 25 Pa. Code Chapter 127, Subpart J, requires that th e transportation plan, Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), and project s not from a conforming transportation plan and TIP must be consistent with the MVEBs in the applicable air quality SIP.

### - 3 - This criterion is satisfied if the state can demonstrate that emissions of the pollutants or pollutant precursors for which the area is in nonattainment or maintenance, and for which the applicable SIP contains MVEBs approved or deemed adequate by the EPA, are less than or equal to the MVEBs established in the applicable SIP or SIP submission. The metropolitan planning organizations (MPO) and rural planning organizations (RPOs) for the area, Scranton/WilkesBarre MPO, Northeastern Pennsylvania Al liance MPO, and Northern Tier RPO, ensure that emissions resulting from their TIPs are less than the MVEBs in the SIP by completing periodic conformity determinations, which are subject to public comment. MPOs 1 

### are established in federal re gulation. For the purposes of transportation conformity, DEP consid ers RPOs to perform the same function
as MPOs for areas that do not meet the population requirements for establishing an MPO. In the same November 19, 2007, action in which EPA approved Pennsylvania’s request to redesignat e the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre area as attainment, EPA approved all of the co mponents of the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Ozone Maintenance Plan, including the MVEBs (72 FR 64948). The EPA approved a revision to the mainte nance plan’s 2009 and 2018 MVEBs on August 11, 2009. The revision established MVEBs for each MPO and RPO in the nonattainment area (74 FR 40083). This revision does not alter the MVEBs for VOC from the August 11, 2009, revision.

The approved MVEBs included in the Scra nton/Wilkes-Barre Ozone Maintenance Plan were estimated using the EPA-appr oved highway emissions model in effect at that time, the Highway Mobile So urce Emission Factor Model version 6.2 (Mobile6.2). The MVEBs in the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Area Ozone Maintenance Plan included emission budgets for both NO X 

### and VOC. On March 2, 2010, the EPA released a new m obile source emissions model called the Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator 2010 (MOVES2010). Any new transportation conformity analysis star ted after March 2, 2013, must use the most up-to-date
version of MOVES.

EPA issued the MOVES2010b version of the model and its associated guidance in April 2012. EPA considers both MOVE S2010a and MOVES2010b to be minor
revisions to MOVES2010 that do not significantly affect the results of modeling criteria pollutant estimates for highway ve hicles. References to “MOVES” in the
remainder of this document relate to all of the approved versi ons of the model. The highway vehicle emissions modeli ng for this proposed SIP revision was already developed significantly usi ng MOVES2010a. By the time that version 2010b was issued, using MOVE S2010b would have been impractical.

Compared to Mobile6.2, the MOVES model estimates higher NO X 

### emissions and in some areas higher VOC emissions being produced by highway vehicles, depending on the model’s inputs. As a result, comparing emissions from the
MOVES model to the MVEB included in an approved maintenance plan would not allow local and regional transporta tion planning agencies to meet the

1 23 CFR § 450.300-450.336

### - 4 - requirements of transportation conformity; the emissions budget in the maintenance plan would be exceeded and transportation planning could be adversely affected. This is w hy DEP is updating the MVEB for the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Area using the newer EPA-approved emissions model,

MOVES2010a.

It is important to mention that higher emission estimates calculated by
MOVES2010a do not mean that emissions fr om vehicles dramatically increased.
The MOVES model better estimates emissi ons that are alread y being produced by vehicles. Consequently, the ability of the area to maintain the standard will not be affected by using estimates produced by the new model.

1.3. EPA Requirements for Developing and Revising Maintenance Plans

The EPA-approved 2007 Scranton/Wilkes -Barre redesignation request is consistent with the September 4, 1992, EPA memorandum written by John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, entitled, Procedures for Processing Requests to Rede signate Areas to Attainment . For the
Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Ozone Maintena nce Plan, DEP produced an emissions inventory for NO X 

### , VOC, and carbon monoxide (CO) for 2004, the attainment year, which included ambient air quality m onitoring data that showed emissions that met the 1997 ozone NAAQS in the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Area. The inventory was based on a “typical summer day,” as required by the EPA. The DEP developed an emissions inventory fo r 2018 that demonstrated that the area would meet the 1997 ozone NAAQS for a 10-year period following redesignation
of the area to attainment. The emissi ons inventory for 2018, a maintenance year,
showed that emissions of NO X 

### , VOC, and CO in the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Area would not exceed emissions that occurred in 2004. The maintenance year is a year at least 10 years in the future th at a state chooses to demonstrate that emissions over a 10-year period of analysis will not lead to an exceedance of the
standard. A state demonstrates attain ment of the standard by showing that emissions in a maintenance year are less than emissions in the attainment year.

An emissions inventory in the Scranton/ Wilkes-Barre Ozone Maintenance Plan showed that emissions in 2009, the interi m year, did not exceed emissions in 2004, the attainment year. The 2009 and 2018 inventories both considered future growth projected from a 2002 baseline year, and included emission reductions from permanent and enforceable control measures.

This proposed SIP revision updates hi ghway emissions estimates in the
Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Ozone Maintena nce Plan using the newer MOVES2010a model. DEP need not update emissions estimates for area sources (except to
reflect new emissions related to Marcellu s Shale activity in th e 2018 inventory) or nonroad sources because actual growth in emissions from these two sectors was less than projected in the Scranton/Wilk es-Barre Ozone Main tenance Plan. The growth assumptions for emissions produced by area sources in the maintenance

### - 5 - plan are mostly greater than the actual growth that occurred from 2002 to 2009 (See Tables 6 and 7). The growth as sumptions for emissions produced by nonroad sources in the maintenance plan ar e greater than what actually occurred from 2002 to 2009. Projected growth of nonroad source emissions in the approved Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Ozone Ma intenance Plan for the year 2009 was greater than the actual growth that actually occurred from 2002 to 2009. Additionally, newer, updated emission gr owth projections to 2018 for area and nonroad sources are less than emission grow th projections for these sources in the
Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Ozone Maintenance Plan. Company-reported point source emissions are used in this proposed SI P revision to revise the projected 2009
emissions in the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Ozone Maintenance Plan. Also in this proposed SIP revision, linear ly interpolated 2018 point source emission estimates
derived from the Mid-Atlantic Re gional Air Management Association (MARAMA) 2011 effort for modeling ambien t particulate matter concentrations are used to revise 2018 projected point source emissions in the Scranton/WilkesBarre Ozone Maintenance Plan.

This proposed SIP revision also provides a general conformity budget for Bell
Bend Nuclear Power Plant.

Recent ambient air quality monitoring re sults for the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Area
demonstrate continued attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS (0.08 parts per million, with rounding 84 parts per billion), as shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Area 2012 Design Values

Monitor 2010

4 th 

### highest 2011

4 th 

### highest 2012

4 th 

### highest 3-Year Average or Design Value 1



### Lackawanna 42-069-0101 74 ppb 71 ppb 72 ppb 72 ppb

Lackawanna Downwind

42-069-2006 71 ppb 68 ppb 74 ppb 71 ppb

Luzerne 42-079-1100 70 ppb 64 ppb 66 ppb 67 ppb

Luzerne 42-079-1101 66 ppb 65 ppb 68 ppb 66 ppb

Monroe 42-089-0002 78 ppb 63 ppb 69 ppb 70 ppb

1 A “design value” is the annual fourth highest daily maximu m 8-hour ozone concentration, averaged over three years.



### The EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality developed guidance titled, Policy Guidance on the Use of MOVES2010 and Subsequent Minor Revisions for State Implementation Plan Development, Transportation Conformity, and Other Purposes , (MOVES2010 guidance) EPA 420-B-12-010, April 2012. This guidance describes requirements for SIP revisions. For maintenance demonstrations, areas can have a revise d motor vehicle emissions inventory and budget using MOVES without revising emission s for other sectors included in the applicable SIP or completing additional modeling if:

### - 6 -  The SIP continues to meet applicab le requirements when the previous
motor vehicle emissions inventorie s are replaced with inventories generated by MOVES2010a; and,

 The state can document that growth and control strategy assumptions for
non-motor vehicle sources continue to be valid and minor updates do not change the overall conclusions of the SIP.

The EPA further states that if both of th e criteria are met, the state can simply re-submit the original maintenance plan with the revised motor vehicle emissions inventories, using the most current vers ion of the MOVES model. However, if either criterion is not met, the emissions categories in the maintenance plan that have changed must be brought up to date. In this SIP revision, emissions growth of point, area, nonroad and highway sources are compared directly, but emissions growth due to a new emissions source , Marcellus Shale dr illing activity, is displayed separately and included in the area source inventory. Drilling activity includes well drilling and transport of the gas with the use of compressor stations. Highway vehicle emissions relating to ga s drilling activity is included in the mobile inventory.

For this SIP revision, actual 2009 and pr ojected 2018 point source emissions are
less than the emissions included in the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Ozone Maintenance Plan. Nevertheless, this SI P revision revises point source emissions
for both 2009 and 2018. Actual area source ac tivity did not increase compared to projected growth of area source activity in the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Ozone
Maintenance Plan. The area source emissions in the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Ozone Maintenance Plan will not be revised except for adding Marcellus Shale emissions. Even though area source NO X 

### emissions increased very slightly from
2004 to 2018 in the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Area and increase even more when emissions from Marcellus Shale activity are added, emissions from all sectors in
2018 fall below 2004 NO X 

### emissions.

This proposed SIP revision includes info rmation addressing the recommendations described in the MOVES2010 guidance, listed here:

 Demonstration that the 1997 ozone NAAQS approved maintenance plans continues to meet applicable requirements with the revised motor vehicle emissions inventories, as calculated by the most recently approved MOVES model, and recalculation of th e attainment year, interim year and maintenance year MVEBs with the late st planning assumptions, including documentation of the updated assumptions;

 Review of the point, area, and nonr oad emissions inventories for the interim year and maintenance year to determine if growth and control strategy assumptions have changed and, if so, development of an analysis to determine if these changes affect the conclusion of the maintenance plan that air quality will remain compliant with the 1997 ozone NAAQS;
and

### - 7 -  Assessment to confirm that excess emissions exist and the quantification of these excess emissions for use in the safety margin applied to the

MVEBs.

1.4. Maintenance Plan Demonstration a nd Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

Tables 2a, 2b, and 2c show the revised 2004, 2009 and 2018 NO X 

### MVEBs calculated using the latest planning assu mptions for the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Area using MOVES2010a. Emissions ofVOC are from the Scranton/WilkesBarre Ozone Maintenance Plan. As sumptions used in the MOVES2010a modeling, including model inputs, gr owth assumptions and modeling methodology, are provided in Appendix C. Highway vehicle emissions generated by MOVES2010a show a clear, downward tre nd in emissions in future years.
Emissions of NO X 

### were generated by MOVES and emissions of VOC were generated by Mobile6.2.

Table 2a: Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for NO X 

### Calculated with
MOVES2010a for the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre MPO

Year NO X 

### Emissions (tons/day) VOC Emissions (tons/day)

2004 Attainment Year 54.88 22.77

2009 Modeled Emissions 41.27 16.63 Conformity Portion of Safety Margins 2 

### 1.40 1.36 2009 Interim Year Budget 42.67 17.97

2018 Modeled Emissions 20.53 9.84 Conformity Portion of Safety Margins 1.37 1.96 2018 Maintenance Year Budgets 21.90 11.80

2 A “safety margin” is the amount of emissions by which the total projected emissions from all sources of a given pollutant are less than the total emissions that would satisfy the applicable requirement for reasonable further progress, attainment, or maintenance (40 CFR § 93.101). The state may designate a portion of these emissions for use by the MPO or Department of Transportation (DOT) as a safety margin to be used for transportation projects. See 40 CFR § 93.124(a) for application of a safety margin.

### - 8 - Table 2b: Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for NO X 

### Calculated with MOVES2010a for the Northeastern Pennsylvania Alliance MPO

Year NO X 

### Emissions (tons/day) VOC Emissions (tons/day)

2004 Attainment Year 18.85 7.47

2009 Modeled Emissions 13.61 5.73 Conformity Portion of Safety Margins 0.49 0.46 2009 Interim Year Budget 14.10 6.19

2018 Modeled Emissions 6.55 3.99 Conformity Portion of Safety Margins 0.55 0.65 2018 Maintenance Year Budgets 7.10 4.64

Table 2c: Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for NO X 

### Calculated with
MOVES2010a for the Northern Tier RPO

Year NO X 

### Emissions (tons/day) VOC Emissions (tons/day)

2004 Attainment Year 3.29 1.40

2009 Modeled Emissions 2.39 0.97 Conformity Portion of Safety Margins 0.11 0.03 2009 Interim Year Budget 2.50 0.99

2018 Modeled Emissions 1.46 0.51 Conformity Portion of Safety Margins 0.14 0.03 2018 Maintenance Year Budgets 1.60 0.54

1.5. Non-Mobile Inventory Review

The EPA states in its MOVES2010 guidance that revisions to existing SIPs and motor vehicle emission budgets must conti nue to meet applicable Clean Air Act requirements. A maintenance plan revi sed to take into account new emission estimates due to an update in the hi ghway model must demonstrate that attainment of the standard continues, even with updated control measures and growth estimates. This proposed SI P revision includes increases in the maintenance plan’s NO X 

### emission estimates for the attainment, interim and maintenance years resulting from re vising highway emissions using MOVES
instead of the Mobile6.2 model. This proposed SIP revision also accounts for emissions of point, area, and nonroad sources usi ng the latest planning assumptions and growth estimates. Total emissions of VOC and NO X 

### in the years 2009 and 2018 cannot exceed the emissions in the 2004 attainment year inventory. The DEP conclude s that the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Area will continue
to demonstrate attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS because total emissions of

NO X 

### in the interim year and maintenance year will be less than the 2004 attainment year emissions for NO X 

### . Developing a revised highway inventory for CO and VOC is unnecessary for this pr oposed SIP revision because CO and VOC

### - 9 - emissions in most cases decrease acro ss the maintenance area using MOVES in place of the Mobile6.2 model.

Growth and control strategy assumptions have changed for all of the emission categories since the Scranton/Wilkes-B arre Ozone Maintenance Plan was approved. The changes in these assumpti ons have generally decreased forecasted emissions in future years. A severe economic recession occurred since the maintenance plan was approved and empl oyment was greatly depressed, falling short of the employment projections in the maintenance plan for the year 2009. More controls of source categories have been implemented at both the federal and
state level. Nonroad NO X 

### projected emissions are not being revised for the interim and maintenance year in th is proposed SIP revision. Area source emissions are being kept the same for 2009 and updated for 2018 in this proposed SIP revision. The point source emissi on inventory is being updated. DEP compared updated growth estimates with growth assumptions and growth
estimates in the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Ozone Maintenance Plan. That analysis is
included below. More detailed informati on can be found in Volume II: Technical Support Document.

Some SIP revisions for certain areas in the Commonwealth will require DEP to update growth and strategy assumptions of non-motor vehicle sources. A number
of areas in the Commonwealth are ho me to newly-built stationary air
contamination sources. Some areas ha ve experienced Marcellus Shale gas development, which has incr eased area source emissions.

The EPA developed the Clean Air Inters tate Rule (CAIR) in 2005 to control emissions from EGUs (70 FR 25162; May 12, 2005) and later amendments. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Ci rcuit remanded CAIR in December 2008, without vacating it, in North Carolina v. EPA , 531 F.3d 896, modified

, 550 F.9d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008). EPA developed the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) in 2011 to limit the transport of NO X 

### and sulfur dioxide, which could have changed projected emissions of point sources (76 FR 48208; Aug. 8, 2011), and later revisions. The c ourt vacated CSAPR on August 21, 2012, however, and ordered EPA to continue administering CAIR pending the promulgation of a valid replacement. On April 29, 2014, the Supreme Court of
the United States reversed the D.C. Circ uit Court’s decision that vacated CSAPR,
and remanded the case to the Circuit Cour t for further proceedings. Until CSAPR becomes implemented or further direction is provided by the EPA or the courts, CAIR remains in place. On Novemb er 19, 2012, Assistant Ad ministrator Gina McCarthy issued a memorandum stating that it is appropriate for EPA to rely on CAIR reductions as permanent and enforceable until court proceedings are resolved or, if the vacatur of CSAP R remains in place. On May 31, 2014, the Supreme Court handed down a decision upholding CSAPR, in EPA v. EME Homer City Generation , U.S., No. 12-1182, and American Lung Ass’n v. EME Homer City Generation , U.S., No. 12-1183. In terms of impacts, the CSAPR will require more sources in more states to reduce NO X 

### emissions than CAIR requires.

### - 10 - Some owners and operators of EGUs have responded to new economic and regulatory developments by closing or deac tivating coal-fired electric generation units or by switching fuels (such as natural gas) at their facil ities, which includes
facilities in the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Area.

Table 3 shows that NO X 

### emissions in the future, interim and maintenance years
will not exceed overall emissions from a ll sources in 2004, the attainment year, even though highway emissions are greater in the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Area when modeled by MOVES than when the emissions were estimated by Mobile6.2 in the maintenance plan. Actual emissions for the 2009 point sources and updated 2018 projected point source emissions we re included in the SIP revision inventory. Projected nonroa d category emissions from the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Ozone Maintenance Plan are used for 2009 and 2018 in this proposed SIP revision. Projected nonroad sources do not need to be updated because emissions and activity growth from nonroad sour ces have not increased since the
Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Ozone Maintenance Plan was submitted to EPA. Area
source emissions in the Scranton/Wilkes- Barre Ozone Maintenance Plan are left unchanged since projected growth of thes e sources is either unchanged or less since actual growth is less than what was predicted. However, emissions from Marcellus Shale development activity were added to the 2018 area source emissions as a result of that activity wh ich has occurred and will occur after 2009. Attainment of the 1997 ozone standard is maintained by showing that revised actual and projected growth for 2009 a nd 2018 does not increase overall future emissions of the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Ozone Maintenance Plan. This proposed SIP revision demonstrates that growth assumptions in the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Ozone Maintenance Plan forecast greater growth than what actually occurred or will occur in the major source category segments.

Table 3: Revised Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Area Summer Day NO X 

### Emissions from 2004 to 2018

NO X 

### in Tons/Day

Year Point Area* Nonroad Mobile General Conformity Budget for Bell Bend Total

2004 7.0 4.0 10.9 77.0 0.0 98.9

2009 7.7 4.2 8.9 59.3 1.0 81.1

Δ (2004-2009) 0.7 0.2 -2.0 -17.7 1.0 -17.8

2018 5.8 7.5 5.6 30.6 1.0 50.5

Δ (2004-2018) -1.2 3.5 -5.3 -46.4 1.0 -48.4

*Area sources include emissions of Marcellus Shale Activity.

### - 11 - 2. SOURCE CATEGORY EMISSIONS

2.1. Point Source Category Emissions

2.1.1. Control Measures

At the time of the development of the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Ozone Maintenance Plan, many large sources were affected by the requirements of CAIR. Pennsylvania implemented NO X 

### control programs, including implementation of CAIR, which control NO X 

### from large indu strial boilers, internal combustion engines, electric generating units, and cement kilns.
Another control measure took effect for NO X 

### emissions for point sources
after the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Ozon e Maintenance Plan was approved.
New Source Performance Standard s (NSPS) affected new engines
installed at facilities after Ja nuary 1, 2011, by requiring internal combustion engines to meet a 50 percent reduction in NO X 

### , and will
reduce NO X 

### emissions of the affected s ources in 2018. The reductions
that will result are not included in the inventory. These reductions are
mentioned to demonstrate that emissions will continue to decrease in the

area.

2.1.2. Growth Estimates in the Scrant on/Wilkes-Barre Ozone Maintenance

Plan

Two annual point source inventories using historical emissions data reported to DEP by point source fa cilities were included in the
Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Ozone Maintena nce Plan. The DEP developed an emissions inventory of point sour ces for calendar years 2002 and 2004. The 2002 point source emissions invent ory represents a time when the
Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Area did not meet the 1997 ozone NAAQs. The 2004 point source inventory showed em issions that occurred during 2004, the attainment year for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.

Emission projections for the point so urce sector for 11 states, including Pennsylvania, and the District of Co lumbia, were prepared for MARAMA by MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. (MACTEC). Future year projections were developed by MACTEC so that states could use the point source
inventories in their SIPs. Emission projections were prepared for years
2009 and 2018.

For the purpose of projecting emissions into the future, the point source inventory in the Scranton/Wilkes-B arre Ozone Maintenance Plan is
divided into two subsectors -- the E GU sector and the non-EGU sector. Different projection methods were used for those two sectors. For the EGU sector, the Mid-Atlantic/North east Visibility Union (MANE-VU) used the Integrating Planning Model (IPM) to project future electric

### - 12 - generation, as well as to cal culate the impact of c ontrol programs on future
emission levels. The EGU Modeli ng data was made available by
MANE-VU to its member states , including Pennsylvania. The
Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Area has several CAIR affected facilities. For the non-EGU sector, growth factors we re developed by using the EPA’s Economic Growth Analysis System Version 5.0 (EGAS 5.0). The U.S. Department of Energy fuel co nsumption forecasts were used to replace default values in EGAS 5.0. Also, state-supplied population, employment, and other emission projec tion data were used to update and
enhance the EGAS 5.0 default values.

In the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Area, two electric generating units at the UGI Development Corporation facility in Hunlock Creek were activated since EPA approved the Scranton/Wilke s-Barre Ozone Maintenance Plan. These two units are powered by natural gas. The two units replaced one coal-powered unit, which resulted in significant reductions of NO X 

### emissions. The resulting emissions reductions are projected in the 2018 point source emission invent ory of this SIP revision.

2.1.3. Point Source Category Conclusion

This proposed SIP revision projected NO X 

### emissions for 2009 in the
Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Ozone Maintena nce Plan are being revised with actual emissions for point sources in 2009, because the actual emissions are readily available and allow eas y comparison between the projected emissions in the maintenance plan and the actual emissions. The DEP assessed point source emissions by comparing the actual emissions inventory data submitted to DEP by owners and operators of point sources
for 2009 to the estimated 2009 NO X 

### emissions from point sources in the
Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Ozone Mainte nance Plan. The Scranton/WilkesBarre Ozone Maintenance Plan overes timated point source emissions for 2009. Table 4 shows that the projec ted point source emissions of NO X 

### in
the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Ozone Mainte nance Plan were 1.7 tons per day more than actual 2009 point source em issions. Actual emissions of NO X 

### and VOC declined from 2004 to 2009, even when compared to the slow growth in emissions forecasted in the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Ozone
Maintenance Plan. The emission estima tes were as close as they were
item in the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Ozone Maintenance Plan because
emission reduction credits we re not included as a line.

Table 4: 2009 Point Source Emissions – Maintenance Plan
Estimate versus Actual

2009 Emissions NO X 

### (Tons/Day)

Maintenance Plan Estimate 9.4

Actual 7.7

### - 13 - In this proposed SIP revision, the DE P revises the 2018 inventory in the
Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Ozone Maintena nce Plan by using emissions from the inventory developed by MARA MA. The MARAMA projected inventory estimated emissions for th e years 2017 and 2020 from a baseline 2007 emissions inventory. In order to obtain emission estimates for the 2018 maintenance year, a straight line interpolation between 2007 and 2020 was used and outstanding emission reduction credits were used. Projected point source NO X 

### emissions in 2018 using the MARAMA
estimates are still well below the 2018 projected point source emissions in the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Ozone Maintenance Plan, as shown in Table 5, and thus show that projected point source emissions in 2018 will fall below the 2004 (attainment year) emi ssion levels. For more information about how the projected emissions were estimated, see Volume II: Technical Support Document.

Table 5: 2018 Point Source Emissions – Maintenance Plan
Estimate versus Revised 2018 Emissions

2018 Emissions NO X 

### (tons/day)

2018 Maintenance Plan Estimate 10.5 2018 Revised Estimate (MARAMA Inventory) 5.8

2.2. Area Source Category Emissions

2.2.1. Control Measures

The area sector includes, but is not limited to, such diverse emissions source categories as: surface coating; commercial and consumer solvent use; residential heating; open burning; traffic line painting; and landfill gases. Emissions are produced from a wide number of sources for which
actual emissions or direct indicator s of emissions are not available.

2.2.2. Growth Estimates in the Maintenance Plan

Area source emission growth factors we re developed by using the default configuration in EGAS 5.0. EGAS 5.0 used the Department of Energy Annual Energy Outlook 2004 (AEO2004) fuel use projections. In this proposed SIP revision, the AEO2005 fu el consumption forecasts were used to replace AEO2004 forecas ts. State-supplied population and employment data were used to re place default data, when the statespecific data was available. Growth estimates were represented by growth factors for each area source classification code (SCC) for each
county.

### - 14 - County-level population data for 200 0, and projections for 2010 and 2020 from the Pennsylvania State Data Center, http://pasdc.hbg.psu.edu/ , were provided to derive growth factors for this proposed SIP revision. This data were interpolated to obtain growth factors for projecting emissions from 2002 to 2009 for SCCs that are population based. General employment data for 21 counties or areas for 2000, and projections to 2010 and 2020, were used. This data we re also interpolated to estimate growth factors for projecting from 2002 to 2009 and 2018 for nine area source categories. For all othe r area source categories, AEO2005 forecasts were used for projecting emissions from area source fuel combustion, when available. If AEO2005 forecasts are not available,
EGAS 5.0 default factors were used.

The Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Ozone Maintenance Plan relied upon many different types of socioeconomic indi cators that served as surrogates to
actual sales data to estimate emissi ons growth and emissions from the
area source sector when actual sales da ta was not available. Population, employment, fuel use and housing data are some of the surrogates used. Methodologies for estimating emissions from some area sources were updated by the EPA in the time since EPA approved the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Ozone Maintenance Plan, but because the emissions change similarly for the attainment, interim and maintenance years, as a result of these updated methodologies, the emissions changing will not result in a significant differe nce between the attainment year’s emissions and the maintenance year’s emissions. As Table 6 shows, with the exception of commercial boilers us ing natural gas, growth in area source activity has declined. Overal l, emissions decrease from area sources, since actual growth rates from 2002 to 2009 and projected growth rates from 2009 to 2018 are lower than, or nearly the same as, the growth rates used in the Scranton/W ilkes-Barre Ozone Maintenance Plan. The growth surrogates presented in Table 6 serve as growth surrogates
for most SCCs in the area source cat egory in the maintenance plan, which account for a large majority of the emi ssions in the area source inventory. Table 7 shows that revised growth for 2009 to 2018 is less in most categories than what appeared in the maintenance plan with the exception
of residential distillate oil and anthracite commercial coal use, which are up slightly from the original estimates in the maintenance plan.

### - 15 - Table 6: Comparison of Growth Factors Used in Maintenance Plan and Inventory Updates from 2002 to 2009

Growth Surrogates Maintenance Plan Surrogate Estimates (2006) Actual Growth (Census Data)

Population * 1.0400 1.0215 Total Employment 1.0586 1.0359

Commercial Boilers Natural Gas 1.0106 1.1167 Commercial Boilers, Distillate 1.0731 1.0221
Commercial Boilers, Coal 1.0481 0.6805
*Growth for the year 2009 is computed from the years 2002 to 2009.



### Table 7: Comparison of Growth Factors Used in Maintenance Plan and Inventory Updates from 2009 to 2018

Growth Surrogates Maintenance
Plan Growth (2009-2018)* Revised Growth from MARAMA Inventory (2009-2018)* Population 1.1081 1.0509 Employees 1.1499 1.0113 Anthracite Coal, Industrial 0.9988 0.9799 Anthracite, Commercial 0.9865 1.0055 All Combustor Types, Distillate Oil, Residential 0.9598 0.9615

Boilers and Internal Combustion Engines, Natural Gas, Commercial 1.0521 1.0154

Combustor Types, Natural Gas,
Residential 1.0181 1.0034

*Growth for the year 2018 is given as a factor estimating growth from 2009 to 2018. Due to different time ranges used for growth estimates in the maintenance plan and more recent inventory data, growth based on 2002 was impossible to estimate. This method allows for a direct comparison.



### 2.2.3. Growth Estimates in MARAMA 2011 Regional Modeling Effort

The development of growth fact ors for the MARAMA 2011 regional modeling effort for area sources us ed one or a combination of the following as surrogates for growth : AEO2010, population data, or employment data. A direct comp arison cannot be made between the growth factors based on AEO2005 or population in the original maintenance plan and this proposed SIP revision, which uses growth factors from MARAMA’s 2011 regional modeling effort. As years pass, different inventory methodologies ar e developed. This proposed SIP revision uses the best possible method to compare emissions inventories that use differing methodologies (See Volume II: Technical Support

### - 16 - Document). The MARAMA 2011 regi onal modeling effort developed growth factors for most SCCs usi ng AEO2010 or county level population. Employment data was derived from North American Industry Classification System to the state leve l. Since employment data to the county level was not available fr om the MARAMA 2011 modeling, state employment data was applied to all SCCs and counties in this proposed
SIP revision. The recessi on also reduced employment, which fell short of the projections in the maintenance pl an for the year 2009. Starting from depressed employment levels in 2009, it is unlikely that employment projections in the maintenance plan will be exceeded in reality in 2018, even if employment growth recovers to normal levels in the near future. Revised growth estimates show this to be the likely case.

2.2.4. Marcellus Shale Emissions

Significant infrastructure development to extract Marcellus Shale natural gas in certain counties in Pennsyl vania has occurred since the DEP
submitted the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Area Maintenance Plan to EPA for approval. Area source emissions result from the placement of drilling equipment, gathering lines and compressor stations. The Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Area has experi enced natural gas development of the Marcellus Shale play in the region. In 2011, th e total Marcellus Shale well count in Wyoming and Lackawanna Counties was 101. 3 

### These wells were drilled mostly over a three-year period. According to the Marcellus Shale Coalition, drilling activity has b een forecasted to remain constant into the foreseeable future across Pennsylvania. 4 

### In 2013, the well count in Wyoming and Lackawanna County was 177, which is consistent with a forecast of well drilling activity remaining constant. Approximately, 35 wells are being drilled on averag e every year. Although Marcellus Shale drilling activity is expected to remain constant in Pennsylvania for the foreseeable future, activity of compressor stations will likely increase because the volume of natural gas be ing pumped will likely increase from present to the maintenance year 2018 . Some compressor engines were approved to operate at a limit of 2.0 grams per brake horsepower-hour. Compressor engines are expected to be cleaner in the future, due to DEP’s February 2013 issuance of General Permit BAQ-GPA/GP-5, Natural Gas Compression and/or Processing Facilities (GP-5). Currently, GP-5 limits

NO X 

### emissions of compressor statio n lean-burn engines over 500 brake horsepower, which is the engine type used predominately for compressors, at 0.50 grams per brake horsepow er-hour. Table 8 shows NO X 

### emissions
from Marcellus Shale activities. While some drilling activity occurred in Lackawanna County, the annual emissions rounded to zero when the DEP

3 Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection data submitted to the DEP by gas producers, 2011 inventory.

4 Information was gathered during a phone conversation between DEP staff from the Bureau of Air Quality and Marcellus Shale Coalition representatives, 2012.

### - 17 - estimated daily emissions. Marcellus Shale drilling activity is only occurring in two counties of the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Area and Wyoming County is experiencing th e vast majority of activity.

Compressor engines started to be permitted in Wyoming County beginning in 2012. In 2012, there were 27 permitted compressor engines
in the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Area. Fourteen of these compressor engines began operation by the end of 2013. Gr owth in the needed compressor engine horsepower to pump natural ga s through a pipeline is assumed to be proportional to the natural gas production growth rate for Wyoming County. All projected compressor engi ne emissions were conservatively
forecast. See Volume II: Technica l Support Document for more details on the methodology used for estimating Marcellus Shale drilling activity and compressor engine emissions.

Table 8: NO X 

### Emissions Related to Marcellus Shale Activity (Tons/Day)

County Type of Emission Activity Years

2004 2009 2018

NO X 

### NO X 

### NO X 

### Lackawanna Drilling 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lackawanna Compressor Stations 0.0 0.0 0.0 Wyoming Drilling 0.0 0.0 1.7 Wyoming Compressor Stations 0.0 0.0 1.4

2.2.5 Area Source Category Conclusion

The DEP examined growth indicators that predict most area source emissions growth (population, total empl oyment, and fossil fuel use) that actually occurred between 2002 and 2009. Fossil fuel use is predictive of growth in NO X 

### emissions. Population and to tal employment growth was either the same or slightly lower in 2009 than 2002. Of the major fossil fuels examined, only natural gas use incr eased at a faster rate than what was predicted in the Scranton/Wilkes -Barre Ozone Maintenance Plan. Natural gas use from 2002 to 2009 was about 10 percent higher than what was predicted in the Scranton/Wilkes-B arre Ozone Maintenance Plan. By energy content, in 2009, natural gas used in the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Area was slightly less than the comb ined energy content of coal and
distillate oil used. Actual coal consumption was 36 percent lower and distillate oil consumption was 4 perc ent lower than what was predicted. Even though coal use comprises only half of the energy content of the natural gas used in the Scranton/W ilkes-Barre Area, a 36 percent over prediction in coal use offsets the 10 percent under prediction of natural gas use in terms of total energy used. Ther efore, less energy in the area source sector was used in 2009 than what was predicted in the
Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Ozone Maintenan ce Plan. Since coal and distillate

### - 18 - oil usually produce more emissions th an natural gas per unit of energy content, it can be assumed that em issions from area source fossil fuels
declined from 2002 to 2009.

Emissions produced by Marcellus Sh ale activity were a significant addition to the area source inventory in the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Ozone
Maintenance Plan. Area source emissions were revised by adding
Marcellus Shale emissions to the emi ssions included in the maintenance plan.

For area source emissions other than Marcellus Shale related emissions,
the DEP demonstrated that it is r easonable to assume that emissions growth for area sources that has and is occurring is less than the growth
forecasted in the Scranton/Wilkes-Ba rre Ozone Maintenance Plan for NO X 

### for the interim and maintenance years, 2009 and 2018. DEP compared growth estimates used in the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Ozone Maintenance Plan and the MARAMA 2011 regional modeling effort. Emissions of

NO X 

### from the area source sector have increased only as a result of Marcellus Shale activity. Therefore, the area source inventory was revised by adding emissions from Marcellus Shale activity for the year 2018.

2.3. Nonroad Source Category Emissions

2.3.1. Control Measures

The nonroad category contains many diffe rent types of equipment. DEP
used NONROAD2005 for the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Ozone Maintenance
Plan. All versions of the EPA’s NONROAD Model estimate emissions for over 200 types of engines and vehicl es. Nonroad engines and vehicles can be used for such applications as construction, lawn and garden care, farming, and industrial applications. Emissions from three types of activities -- aircraft, locomotive, and commercial marine vessel
activities -- are not estimated in the NONROAD Model but are in the nonroad category. In the Scranton /Wilkes-Barre Ozone Maintenance Plan, the NONROAD2005 model was us ed to estimate emissions of nonroad vehicles and engines. The model went through one major
revision since then. NONROAD2008a is th e latest version of this model.
This new version of the model incor porates two reduction strategies that affect engines and vehicles in the nonroad sector:

 Diesel recreational marine sta ndards in the 2008 final rule on locomotive and marine engines (See Control of Emissions of AirPollution From Locomotive Engines and Marine CompressionIgnition Engines Less Than 30 Liters per Cylinder ; 73 FR 25098; May 6, 2008); and

### - 19 -  The October 2008 small spark igni tion and spark ignition and recreational marine rule (See Control of Emissions from Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines and Equipment; 73 FR 59034; October 8, 2008).

For the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Ozon e Maintenance Plan, DEP modified files in the NONROAD Model, when st ate specific data was available, that affect emission categories such as residential lawn and garden and
recreational marine vessels.

2.3.2. Growth Estimates

Emissions from nonroad sources have decreased since the submittal of the
Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Ozone Maintena nce Plan as a result of additional controls mentioned in Section 2.3.1, a nd other controls that have been phased in since 2004 for engines used in the nonroad sector. The fleet turnover that occurs as older, mo re polluting nonroad equipment and vehicles are replaced by newer equipm ent and vehicles that meet more stringent emission standards has con tinued to lower emissions in the nonroad sector since the late 1990s, and will continue to do so for the next 10 years. Because of these controls, emission reductions occurred across all segments of the nonroad category, including construction equipment, farming equipment, locomotives, and lawn and garden equipment. Furthermore, the recession significan tly lowered construction, railroad, aircraft, and industrial activity, and, consequently, lowered emissions. Even if growth returns to pre-recessi on levels, overall growth will likely remain lower than predicted in the maintenance plan up to the 2018 maintenance year.

2.3.3. Nonroad Source Category Conclusion

The DEP demonstrated that it is r easonable to assume that emissions growth for nonroad sources that has occu rred, and is occurring, is less than the growth forecasted in the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Ozone Maintenance
Plan for NO X 

### for both maintenance years: 2009 and 2018. DEP compared growth estimates used in NONROAD2005 and NONROAD2008a, and took into account fl eet turnover and the effects of
the recession. Emissions of NO X 

### from the nonroad source sector have not increased as a result of any ne w activity or update in methodology. Therefore, no revisions to the nonroad source sector for NO X 

### emissions

are necessary.

### - 20 - 2.4. General Conformity Budget for Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant

2.4.1. Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Emissions

PPL Nuclear Development, LLC is proposing to build a nuclear power plant in Luzerne County called Be ll Bend. Building the Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant will involve a gr eat amount of earth moving activity, and with that activity, will produce significant NO X 

### emissions. The project will invoke the general c onformity requirements of 40 CFR part 93, Subpart B, which implement Section 176 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7506, and which are adopted by reference by the
Commonwealth in 25 Pa. Code Chapter 127, Subchapter J. The project
schedule indicates it will take se ven years to complete the plant.

The general conformity requirements ar e designed to ensure that Federal actions comply with national ambient ai r quality standards. In order to meet this Clean Air Act requirement, a Federal agency must demonstrate that every action that it undertakes, approves, permits or supports will conform to the appropriate SIP ( http://www.epa.gov/air/genconform/faq.html#6 ). Federal agencies taking actions, in this case the Nuclear Regulatory Agency, will need to
demonstrate that the actions taken by PPL Nuclear Development, LLC meet the requirements of the General Conformity Rule.

The nonroad equipment used for this project will produce an amount of

NO X 

### emissions that will exceed the applicable de minimis NO X 

### threshold in 40 CFR § 93.153(b), which is 100 tons per calendar year for the
Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Area. The project will also increase NO X 

### emissions from highway and area so urces. Annual emissions of NO X 

### for this project are forecasted to be largest during the second year of construction, at 167.7 tons. This am ount of emission is produced by onsite nonroad diesel equipment and vehicles, small combustion engines, work force commuting that occurs w ithin the maintenance area, delivery vehicle that operate within the maintenance area, on-site highway vehicles, and safety-related activities.

Annual VOC emissions for this project will not exceed 14.3 tons, which is
far below the de minimis VOC threshold in 40 CFR § 93.153(b) of 50 tons per calendar year. Emissions of VOC do not need to be considered in this budget.

A NO X 

### budget for the purposes of meeting the requirements of General Conformity is included in this SIP revision. The NO X 

### budget for this project is established at 1.0 tons of NO X 

### per summer day for the maintenance years 2009 and 2018. The summer day budget satisfies the requirements in 40 CFR § 93.158(a)(5)(i)(A), criteria for determining

### - 21 - conformity of general federal acti ons. The budget for 2009 will apply to emissions produced by the project that occur during calenda r years prior to 2018. The budget for 2018 will cover emissions that are produced by the project in calendar years 2018 and be yond. Section 175A(b) of the Clean Air Act requires DEP to submit a second 10-year maintenance plan 8 years after redesignation of the area as attainment, which would be 2015. This maintenance plan would show ma intenance of the ozone standard for
the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre area unt il 2028 and would include interim emission inventories for y ears up to and including 2028.

The summer day emissions budget corres ponds to an annual emissions cap
that does not exceed 201.0 tons of NO X 

### per calendar year. The 201.0 tons
of NO X 

### represents 120 percent of the value of the project’s peak emissions for a calendar year. The 20 percent em issions that are added to the budget that go beyond the estimated emission s for the project should allow the project to proceed in th e event of changes in scheduling or small changes in the scope of the project. If the annual emissions cap is exceeded, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or other agency taking action with respect to this project could be responsible for developing emission mitigation projects or obtaining emission offsets. Finally, any emission reduction obtained from mitigation measures or emissions offsets need to be made in accordance to the offset ratios and scheduling requirements per 40 CFR § 93.163.

See Volume II: Technical Support Document for more details of the emission estimation methodology for Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant project.

2.4.2. General Conformity Budget for the Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project

Table 9: General Conformity Budget for Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant

Calendar Year Pollutant

NO X 

### 2009 1.0 tons/summer day (201 tons/year) 2018 1.0 tons/summer day (201 tons/year)

2.5 Highway Source Category Emissions

2.5.1. Control Measures

Assumptions for vehicle emission st andards have not been changed significantly in the modeled analysis from when DEP submitted the
Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Ozone Maintena nce Plan to EPA. Pennsylvania began implementation of California emission standards, which are

### - 22 - incorporated by reference in Pennsylva nia regulations, in 2005 for dieselpowered heavy-duty trucks, and in 20 08 for passenger cars and light-duty
trucks.

In January 2012, the California Ai r Resources Board (CARB) approved significant revisions to its regulations for criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions from passenger cars, light-duty trucks and medium-duty vehicles. The amendments, referred to as LEV III, were approved by
California’s Office of Administra tive Law (OAL) on August 7, 2012, and will become effective in model year (MY) 2015 for criteria pollutants and in MY 2017 for greenhouse gases. Th e requirements were automatically incorporated by reference as part of the Pennsylvania Clean Vehicles Program, to the extent the amendmen ts apply to Pennsylvania’s program,
under 25 Pa. Code § 126.411.

On August 28, 2012, the EPA and the U.S. Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued a joint Final Rulemaking to extend the National Program of harmonized greenhouse gas and fuel economy st andards to MYs 2017-2025 passenger vehicles. On May 21, 2013, the EPA proposed emission standards for MYs 2017-2025 light duty, medium duty, and some heavy duty vehicles, referred to as Tier 3 emission standards, as well as sulfur content standards for fuel in a proposed rulemaking (78 FR 29816).

The mobile source modeling for this proposed SIP revision was completed prior to the publication of the proposed Tier 3 standards, and, as a result, the impact of the proposed standard s was not included in the modeling. The California LEV III rulemaking, the EPA-NHTSA National Program Final Rulemaking, and the EPA Tier III Proposed Rulemaking have not been analyzed as to their effect on future year emission estimates of NO X 

### in this proposed SIP revision. However, it is reasonable to assume that

NO X 

### and VOC emissions will decrease as these vehicles replace older vehicles during fleet turnover in Pennsy lvania and the rest of the country.

2.5.2. Growth Estimates

Overall emissions from highway vehicles will continue to decrease as new vehicles take the place of older vehicles during normal fleet turnover. There are a variety of different reason s for this continued decrease. Fleet turnover is the greatest driver in lowering emissions from highway
vehicles. Fleet turnover has been slower than forecast in the
Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Ozone Maintenance Plan. This is, in part, a result of the recent recession and its lingering effects. Other factors have some impact on emissions from the highway source category, such as changes in fleet age, vehicle miles traveled, and the fleet mix of vehicles. The fleet age is increasing as people operate their vehicles for a longer period of

### - 23 - time. This will reduce the rate of fleet turnover and the reductions expected in emissions. Also, nationa lly, there was a slight decline in VMT during the recession. The percentage of vehicles in Pennsylvania that are light-duty trucks is also shrinking. Consumers are purchasing more passenger cars than light-duty tr ucks. Passenger cars tend to have
lower emissions.

Both NO X 

### emission estimates in this proposed SIP revision were developed using MOVES2010a and th e latest planning assumptions. Emissions have been estimated for the 2004 (attainment year), 2009 (interim year) and 2018 (maintenance year). The MOBILE6.2 emission
estimates used in the Scranton/Wilkes -Barre Maintenance Plan have been
included in Table 10 to illustrate relative changes in emissions.

Table 10: Revised Motor Vehi cle Emissions Estimates Using

MOVES2010a for the Entire S cranton/Wilkes-Barre Area

Pollutant Original MOBILE6.2 Emissions Revised MOVES2010a Emissions

2004 2009 2018 2004 2009 2018

VOC 31.6 23.3 14.3 N/A N/A N/A

NO X 

### 66.1 46.9 21.6 77.0 57.3 28.5



### Table 10 shows that the MOVES model estimates NO X 

### emissions in 2009
and 2018 exceed the MOBILE6.2-derived emissions estimates in the
Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Ozone Mainte nance Plan. This could cause transportation planning emissions estimates using MOVES to exceed the MVEBs. The updated NO X 

### MVEBs provided in Table 11 will help ensure
that the MPO and RPOs in the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Area can demonstrate transportation conformity using MOVES2010a, while the
emissions estimates still demonstrate that the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Area demonstrates attainment with, a nd continued maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

2.5.3. Mobile Source Category Conclusion

The proposed SIP revision includes revised NO X 

### MVEBs for the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Area using u pdated highway vehicle emissions
estimates derived from MOVES. Appendix C in this proposed SIP revision replaces the corresponding sections of the original Appendix C in the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Ozone Maintenance Plan. Appendix C in this proposed SIP revision describes the highway modeling methodology necessary to produce accurate emission estimates from the MOVES
model.

### - 24 - 3. SAFETY MARGINS

A safety margin is the amount of emissions by which the total projected emissions from all sources of a given pollutant are less than the total emissions that would satisfy the applicable requirement for reasonable furt her progress, attainment, or maintenance (40 CFR 93.101). Table 3 shows that the emissi ons in the maintenance years, even when using the conservative emission estimate s in the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Ozone Maintenance Plan, for point, area and nonroad sectors, provide a significant safety margin potential for continued maintenance of the maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

Therefore, a portion of those safety margins is being allocated to tr ansportation projects (See Tables 2a, 2b, and 2c) to help ensure that any future planning assumption updates will not negatively impact the area’s ability to demonstrate transportation conformity. Adequate transportation safety margins will also defer the need for future SIP revisions, where the purpose of the SIP revision is onl y to update numbers and not to document any actual emissions reductions to the atmosphere.

To help ensure that the transportation conf ormity process is not needlessly delayed, a 2.0 tons/summer day safety margin for NO X 

### has been applied to the MVEBs in 2009 and a 2.0 tons/summer day safety margin for NO X 

### has been applied to the MVEB in 2018. The safety margin is for the entire Scrant on/Wilkes-Barre Area, which contains three
MPOs and RPOs: the Scranton Wilkes-Barre MPO, the Northern Tier RPO, and the Northeast Pennsylvania Alliance (NEPA) MP O. The safety margins are uniformly distributed among these MPOs and RPOs base d on the percentage of highway emissions
that each MPO or RPO contributes to the area total. The Scranton/Wilkes-Barre MPO contributes 70 percent of emissions to the maintenance area, the Northern Tier RPO contributes 25 percent of the emissions and the NEPA RPO contributes 5 percent. All
indications are that the 2009 and 2018 emi ssion estimates made for point, area and
nonroad sources in the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Ozone Maintenance Plan are higher than
the actual emissions for 2009 and revised estim ates for 2018 in this SIP revision. Table 3 quantitatively shows that these safety margins will continue to allow the area to remain well below the 2004 attainment year emissions inventory cap, thereby ensuring that future air quality will continue to meet the 1997 ozone NAAQS.

4. MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSION B UDGETS FOR TRANSPORTATION

CONFORMITY

The DEP proposes to establish budgets for highw ay emissions in order to ensure that transportation emissions do not impede clean air goals in the next decade and beyond.
The MVEBs of NO X 

### are estimated using the MOVES2010a Model while VOC emissions
are identical to those included in the Scra nton/Wilkes-Barre Maintenance Plan. The information in Table 11, once EPA approves it for the purposes of transportation conformity, will establish MVEBs for the Sc ranton/Wilkes-Barre Area. The MVEBs are
exhibited for the MPO and RPOs in the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Area.

### - 25 - Table 11: Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

Metropolitan Planning Organization Counties Calendar

Year Pollutant

NO X 

### VOC

Scranton/Wilkes-Barre

MPO Lackawanna,

Luzerne 2009 42.67 tons/summer day 38,710 kg/summer day 17.99 tons/summer day 16,320 kg/summer day



### Scranton/Wilkes-Barre

MPO Lackawanna,

Luzerne 2018 21.90 tons/summer day 19,867 kg/summer day 11.80 tons/summer day 10,704 kg/summer day



### Northeastern Pennsylvania Alliance

RPO Monroe 2009 14.10 tons/summer day 12,791 kg/summer day 6.19 tons/summer day 5,615 kg/summer day



### Northeastern Pennsylvania Alliance

RPO Monroe 2018 7.10 tons/summer day 6,441 kg/summer day 4.64 tons/summer day 4,209 kg/summer day



### Northern Tier RPO Wyoming 2009 2.50 tons/summer day 2,268 kg/summer day 0.99 tons/summer day 898 kg/summer/day


### Northern Tier RPO Wyoming 2018 1.60 tons/summer day 1,452 kg/summer day 0.54 tons/summer day 489 kg/summer day



### 5. CONCLUSION

By examining actual and projected emissions , increased controls for all emissions categories, and evidence that actual emissions growth for point sour ce, area source, and nonroad source categories has been less than the projected emissions growth in the approved Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Ozone Main tenance Plan, DEP has shown that the
conclusion in the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Ozone Maintenance Plan that the
Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Area will continue to attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS remains valid, after updating the highway emissions estimates using the new EPAapproved MOVES model. Updating NO X 

### emissions in the MVEB will not negatively
affect the Scranton/Wilkes-Bar re Area’s ability to maintain the 1997 ozone NAAQS. In this proposed SIP revision, the DEP has updated emissions of NO X 

### and growth factors
for NO X 

### that were included in the Scranton/W ilkes-Barre Ozone Maintenance Plan for point, area, and highway sources. Emissi ons of nonroad sources were not updated because the growth in emissions for those sources was not updated because growth in
emissions for those sources decreased or were unaffected.

# Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

FINAL

VOLUME II: Technical Support Document State Implementation Plan Revision: NO X 

# Motor

Vehicle Emission Budget Revisions Based on the MOVES2010a Model; and General Conformity Budget for Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant

Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Eight-Hour Ozone
Maintenance Area

May 2014

Bureau of Air Quality Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
P.O. Box 8468 Harrisburg, PA 17105-8468
717-787-9495

### [This page intentionally left blank.]

### - i - TABLE OF CONTENTS

VOLUME II

Introduction .................................................................................................................. ....................1

Point Source Category Emissions ............................................................................................... .....1 2009 Point Source Category Emissions ...............................................................................2 2018 Point Source Category Emissions ...............................................................................5

Area Source Category Emissions ................................................................................................ .....9 2009 Area Source Category Emissions................................................................................9 2018 Area Source Category Emissions..............................................................................10

Marcellus Shale Emissions ..................................................................................................... .......13 Drilling Activity ............................................................................................................. ....14 Current Compressor Engine Activity .................................................................................14 Gas Production in Wyoming County .................................................................................15 Figure 1: Actual and Projected Natura l Gas Production (Jan. 2011 to Dec. 2018) ..........16 Future Compressor Engine Activity ..................................................................................16 Compressor Engine Emissions ..........................................................................................17 Well Drilling ................................................................................................................. .....18

Nonroad Source Category Emissions ............................................................................................2 0 Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Emissions Budget for General Conformity ....................20

Highway Source Category Emissions ............................................................................................2 1

### - ii - [This page intentionally left blank.]

### - iii - TABLES

Table 1: Point Source Emissions for 2009 - SIP Estimated versus Actual .....................................2

Table 2: Actual 2009 Annual NO X 

### and VOC Point Source Inventory for the
Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Ozone Mainte nance Area by Facility Source ............................................2

Table 3: Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Ozone Main tenance Plan Emission Estimates of Point
Sources for 2018 .............................................................................................................. ................6

Table 4: Revised Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Oz one Maintenance Plan Emissions Estimates of Point Sources for 2018 (Derived from MARAMA 2007 Baseline and 2020 Projected Inventories) .................................................................................................................. ....................6

Table 5: MARAMA 2007 Annual Baseline and 2018 Projected NO X 

### Point Source
Inventories for the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Oz one Maintenance Area by Facility Source ..............7

Table 6: Revised Socioeconomic Data for the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Ozone Maintenance Area Relative to Projected Gr owth in the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Area Maintenance Plan (2002-2009) .................................................................................................. ....10

Tables 7a, b, c, d: Revised Socioeconomi c Data for the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Ozone Maintenance Area Relative to the Projected Growth in the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Area Maintenance Plan (2009-2018) .................................................................................................. ....11

Table 7a: Lackawanna County Portion of the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Ozone

Maintenance Area .............................................................................................................. 11

Table 7b: Luzerne County Portion of the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Ozone

Maintenance Area .............................................................................................................. 12

Table 7c: Monroe County Portion of the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Ozone

Maintenance Area .............................................................................................................. 12

Table 7d: Wyoming County Portion of the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Ozone

Maintenance Area .............................................................................................................. 13

Table 8: Actual and Projected Well Production in Wyoming County ..........................................15

Table 9: 2013 NO X 

### Emissions of Operating Compressor Engines and Turbines Used for
Marcellus Shale Natural Gas in th e Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Area .................................................17

Table 10: Projected 2018 NO X 

### Emissions from Compressor Engines and Turbines Used
for Marcellus Shale Natural Gas in the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Area ...........................................18

Table 11: Number of Active Marcellus Shale Wells in Wyoming County ..................................18

Table 12: Reported 2011 Emissions Due to Marcellus Shale Drilling Activity in the
Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Area .................................................................................................... ......19

Table 13: 2018 Emissions for Drilling Activ ity in the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Area ...................19

Table 14: NO X 

### Emissions Related to Marcellus Shale Activity in the
Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Area .................................................................................................... ......19

Table 15: Revised Motor Vehicle Emi ssions Using MOVES2010a Compared to Mobile 6.2 (Tons/Day) ......................................................................................................... ..........22

### - iv - [This page intentionally left blank.]

### - 1 - INTRODUCTION

This Technical Support Document provides detailed information on the categories of point, area, nonroad, and highway sources of oxides of nitrogen (NO X 

### ) estimates and assumptions. Data shown in this document were used in the EPA-approved State Implementation Plan Revision: Maintenance Plan and Base Year Inventory - Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Eight-Hour Ozone

Nonattainment Area , which is hereafter referred to as the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Ozone Maintenance Plan. That data, along with other da ta and assumptions outli ned in this Technical Support Document, are also used in the proposed State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision to the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Ozone Maintenance Plan accompanying this document, entitled, “ State Implementation Plan Revision: NO X



### Motor Vehicle Emission B udget Revisions Based on the MOVES2010a Model; and General Conformity Budget for Bell Bend Nuclear Power
Plant - Scranton/Wilkes-Ba rre Eight-Hour Ozone Maintenance Area for the 1997 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards, ” which is hereafter referred to as the Scranton/WilkesBarre Ozone Maintenance Plan revision. The Sc ranton/Wilkes-Barre Ozone Maintenance Plan revision demonstrates that replacing highway emissions estimates using the MOVES Model instead of the Mobile6 Model to generate emissions estimates will not cause emissions from all sources in the maintenance year to exceed all emi ssions in the attainment year. This Technical Support Document will describe how emission esti mates and emission growth rates that were
used in both the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Ozone Ma intenance Plan and the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Ozone Maintenance Plan revision were developed for all source categories (point, area, nonroad, and highway).

POINT SOURCE CATE GORY EMISSIONS

Point source emissions include emissions from la rge commercial, institutional, and industrial facilities, such as chemical manuf acturing facilities, large waste di sposal sites, and large heating and electric generating units (E GUs). Emission projections used in the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Ozone Maintenance Plan were prepared for th e point source sector for 11 states, including Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia, fo r the Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association (MARAMA) by MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. Fu ture year projections were developed by MACTEC so that states could use the projections as invent ories in their SIPs. Estimates were prepared for years 2009 and 2018, and took into consideration both growth in economic activity and additional controls.

For the purpose of projecting emissions into the future for all of the states’ ozone maintenance plans, the point source in ventory of emissions is divided in to two subsectors - the EGU sector and the non-EGU sector. Different projection met hods were used for those two sectors. The
Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Area has a few EGU e mission sources. For the EGU sector, the
Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibi lity Union (MANE-VU) effort used the Integr ating Planning Model (IPM) to project future electric generation, as well as to calculate the impact of control programs on future emission levels. The Scra nton/Wilkes-Barre Area also contains many non-EGU point sources. For the non-EGU sector, growth factors were developed by using The United States Environmental Protection Agency ’s (EPA) Economic Growth Analysis System (EGAS) Version 5.0. U.S. Department of Energy fuel consumption forecasts were used to replace default values for combustion sources in EGAS 5.0. Also, st ate-supplied population,

### - 2 - employment, and other emission pr ojection data were used if e ither EGAS 5.0 values did not exist or if the state-supplied data was d eemed better than values given by EGAS 5.0.

2009 Point Source Category Emissions

Table 1 gives totals of NO X 

### emissions for both 2009 projected emissions in the Scranton/WilkesBarre Ozone Maintenance Plan and the actua l 2009 Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Area emissions reported to DEP after the Scranton/Wilkes-Bar re Ozone Maintenance Plan was developed. 1 

### Table 1 demonstrates that poi nt source emissions in the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Ozone
Maintenance Plan for 2009 were overestimated for NO X 

### . Table 2 lists the actual 2009 NO X 

### emissions from the individual facilities in the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Area. The annual emissions were divided by 365 days in a year to obtain daily emissions. The reason why actual

NO X 

### emissions are as close to the emissions in the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Area Maintenance Plan is because emission reduction credits (ERC) were annotated in the maintenance plan, but ERC generated by several facilities in the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Ar ea were not added into the original maintenance plan’s 2009 and 2018 inventories. ERC were included as line items in the emissions inventory (See Tables 2 and 5) for these emissions.

Table 1: Point Source Emissions fo r 2009 - SIP Estimated versus Actual

Emissions for 2009 NO X 

### (Tons/Day)

Emissions Estimated in Maintenance Plan 9.4 Actual Emissions (Actual Reported Annual Emissions in Table 2 Divided by 365 days) 7.7

Table 2: Actual 2009 Annual NO X 

### and VOC Point Source Inventory for the
Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Ozone Mainte nance Area by Facility Source

EPA AFS Number Facility Name NO X 

### (Tons/Year)

420690010 SCRANTON ARMY AMMUNITION

PLANT 0.0

420690010 GENERAL DYN OTS

INC/SCRANTON 12.6

420690022 PEI POWER CORP/ARCHBALD 22.1

420690023 MACTAC INC/SCRANTON FAC 3.1

420690029 GENTEX CORP/SIMPSON PROT

CLOTHING 4.0

420690032 CASCADES TISSUE GRP PA

INC/RANSOM PLT 24.1

420690041 COMMUNITY MEDICAL

CTR/SCRANTON FACILITY 4.2

420690092 MOSES TAYLOR HOSP/SCRANTON 3.0

420690096 SANDVIK MATERIALS

TECHNOLOGY/SCOTT TWP 45.9

1 Air Information Management System Submittal, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, 2009.

### - 3 - EPA AFS Number Facility Name NO X 

### (Tons/Year)

420690101 PANEL PRINTS INC/OLD FORGE 0.5

420690125 QUADRANT EPP LAUREL LINE

MFG/SCRANTON 2.1

420690201 ENV & RECYCLING SVC AMITY

LDFL/TAYLOR 2.0

420690205 PA DPW/CLARKS SUMMIT STATE

HOSP 12.2

420690214 HAINES &

KIBBLEHOUSE/DUNMORE

MATERIALS 2.0

420690215 METKOTE LAMINATED

PROD/TAYLOR PLT 0.0

420690217 GENTEX OPTICS INC/SIMPSON

NIGHTVISION 0.0

420690533 ALLIANCE SANI LANDFILL

INC/TAYLOR LDFL 42.8

420690676 EUREKA STONE QUARRY/DALEVILLE 1.6

420690678 CINRAM MFG LLC/OLYPHANT ----

Emission
Reduction Credits CINRAM MFG LLC

----

420690686 METSO PAPER USA INC/CLARKS

SUMMIT SVC CTR ----

420690722 KEYSTONE SANI LDFL

INC/DUNMORE 6.5

420690765 REG HOSP OF

SCRANTON/SCRANTON 4.7

420692039 SHAW ENV & INFRASTRUCTURE

INC/THROOP 30.7

420692115 QUADRANT EPP KEYSER VLY

MFG/SCRANTON 2.1

420790001 ALLEGHENY ENERGY SUPPLY

CO/HUNLOCK 4 3.4

420790013 CERTAINTEED PROD

CO/MOUNTAINTOP 71.2

420790014 UGI DEVELOPMENT

CO/HUNLOCK CREEK 711.5

420790018
Emission
Reduction Credits TECHNEGLAS INC.
784.9

420790035 PA DPW/WHITE HAVEN CTR 29.7

420790038 BEMIS CO INC/HAZLETON 0.0

Emission
Reduction Credits BEMIS CO INC

---

### - 4 - EPA AFS Number Facility Name NO X 

### (Tons/Year)

420790053 WYOMING VALLEY SANI

AUTH/HANOVER STP 4.1

420790058 TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS/BEAR
CREEK STA 515 61.1

420790059 HERSHEY FOODS

CORP/HAZLETON PLT 17.5

420790060 SCHOTT NORTH AMER

INC/DURYEA 24.3

420790062 FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR

CORP/WRIGHT TWP 1.7

420790064 SILGAN WHITE CAP/HAZLETON

PLT 3.3

420790066 OFFSET PAPERBACK

MFG/DALLAS 0.7

420790067 OROGRAIN BAKERIES MFG

INC/VALMONT 4.0

420790068 BERWICK OFFRAY LLC/BERWICK 1.0

420790069 KAPPA GRAPHICS/HUGHESTOWN 0.4

420790076 BARLETTA MATERIALS &

CONST/NESCOPECK 8.4

420790079 GULF OIL LTD PARTNER/DUPONT

TERM ---

420790113 PENNSY SUPPLY INC/DORRANCE

ASPHALT PLT 4.0

420790122 SEALY MATTRESS
MOUNTAINTOP/WRIGHT TWP 1.4

420790132 DUPONT TERM CORP/DUPONT

TERMINALS 0.1

420790202 HAZLETON GEN LLC/HAZLE TWP 1.2

420790267 PIKES CREEK ASPHALT/LEHMAN 5.0

420790317 HAZLETON MATERIALS ASPHALT

PLT/FOSTER TWP 7.2

420790407 CASCADES TISSUE GROUP PA

INC/PITTSTON ---

420790597 PPL MARTINS CREEK

LLC/HARWOOD CTS 0.7

420790616 SUNOCO PARTNERS MKT & TERM

LP/KINGSTON TERM 2.1

420790798 PPL MARTINS CREEK

LLC/JENKINS CTG 0.5

420790799 PPL SUSQUEHANNA LLC/SUSQUEHANNA SES 22.1

420790800 DUPONT EAST TERM/PITTSTON 0.1

### - 5 - EPA AFS Number Facility Name NO X 

### (Tons/Year)

420791255 WILKES BARRE HOSP CO

LLC/WILKES BARRE 4.7

420792033 AMER ASPHALT PAVING/CHASE

PLT 3.8

420792061 WILKES BARRE

MATERIALS/PLAINS PLT 7.6

420792063 SVC MFG INC/A DIV OF PEPSI CO,

INC 3.3

420890008 US DEPT DEFENSE/TOBYHANNA

ARMY DEPOT 17.9

420890013 HAINES & KIBBLEHOUSE/LOCUST

RIDGE 7.3

420890018 ROCK TENN CO/DELAWARE

WATER GAP 6.9

420890539 SANOFI PASTEUR/SWIFTWATER 59.0

420890795 GENON REMA LLC/SHAWNEE 1.5

421310009 PROCTER & GAMBLE PAPER

PROD CO/MEHOOPANY 610.8

Emission
Reduction Credits PROCTER & GAMBLE PAPER

PROD CO 91.1

421310682 DEER PARK LUMBER/DEER PARK

MFG PLT 4.7

Total Actual Annual Emissions 2,816.4

2018 Point Source Category Emissions

Ideally, emissions growth could be compared be tween estimates in the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Ozone Maintenance Plan and recently revised assu mptions for emissions growth. Both sets of assumptions are valid because the EPA requires that assumptions in growth be updated with each revision to the maintenance plan. If the revise d assumptions for growth are less than what was assumed in the original maintenance plan, then it can be easily shown that emissions in the maintenance years are still below the emissions in the attainment year. However, when revised growth in some types of point s ources is higher, and in some t ypes of point sources is lower, emissions growth cannot be compared to show th at the new assumptions still maintain the ozone standard. Then, a projected emi ssions inventory needs to be de veloped and compared. For the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Area, a pr ojected inventory for the mainte nance year 2018 needed to be developed to show mainte nance with the standard.

The 2018 point source inventory for the Scranton /Wilkes-Barre Ozone Maintenance Plan was developed for MARAMA by MACTEC. More recen tly, a projected emissions inventory of all emission source categories (point, area, nonroa d, and highway) was developed by MARAMA and MACTEC for a regional modeling effort. Table 3 and Table 4 can be compared to show
differences in total emissions of NO X 

### produced by point sources in the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Area with the recently developed inventories. In 2012, MARAMA developed inventories for the

### - 6 - baseline year of 2007 and proj ected years of 2013, 2017, 2020, and 2025. 2 

### The difference in the inventory years for the inventory used in the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Oz one Maintenance Plan and new MARAMA/MACTEC inventory developmen t efforts did not allow for easy comparison of growth factors used for proj ecting emissions. Projected emi ssions in 2018 were estimated for the maintenance plan revisions using straight-line interpol ation between the 2007 MARAMA baseline inventory and the 2020 MARAMA proj ected year inventor y using the following equation:

2018 Emissions = 2007 Emissions + ((2020 Emi ssions – 2007 emissions) *(2018-2007) ÷ (2020 - 2007)) + Available Emission Reduction Credits

Emission projections of non-EGU point sour ces in the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Ozone Maintenance Plan were overestimated for the ye ar 2018 when compared to newer emissions data derived by MARAMA (S ee Tables 3 and 4).

Table 3: Scranton/Wilkes- Barre Ozone Maintenance Plan
Emission Estimates of Point Sources for 2018

Year NO X 

### Emissions (tons/year) NO X 

### Emissions (tons/day)

2018 3956.7 10.5

Table 4: Revised Scranton/Wilkes-Ba rre Ozone Maintenance Plan Emissions
Estimates of Point Sources for 2018 (Derived from MARAMA 2007 Baseline and 2020 Projected Inventories)

Year NO X 

### Emissions (tons/year) NO X 

### Emissions (tons/day) 2007 (Baseline) 1930.8 5.3 2020 (Projected) 1572.1 4.3 2018 (Interpolated) + Emission Reduction Credits) 2124.4 5.8

2 MARAMA 2007, 2017, and 2020 Baseline and Projected Inventories, Version 3, Ju lie McDill, Mid-Atlantic Regional Management Association, Towson, MD, January 2012.

### - 7 - Table 5 shows actual 2007 and projec ted 2020 facility emissions of NO X 

### for non-EGU point
source in the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre area.

Table 5: MARAMA 2007 Annual Baseline and 2018 Projected NO X 

### Point Source
Inventories for the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Oz one Maintenance Area by Facility Source

EPA AFS

Number Facility Name 2007 Baseline
NO X 

### Emissions 2020 Projected
NO X 

### Emissions

420690010 SCRANTON ARMY

AMMUNITION PLANT 15.0 17.1

420690022 PEI POWER CORP/ARCHBALD 13.6 13.6

420690023 MACTAC INC/SCRANTON FAC 3.8 3.9

420690029 GENTEX CORP/SIMPSON PROT

CLOTHING 4.3 6.2

420690032 CASCADES TISSUE GRP PA

INC/RANSOM PLT 32.6 37.0

420690041 COMMUNITY MEDICAL

CTR/SCRANTON FACILITY 0.5 0.5

420690096 SANDVIK MATERIALS

TECHNOLOGY/SCOTT TWP 46.7 49.0

420690101 PANEL PRINTS INC/OLD FORGE 0.4 0.4

420690125 QUADRANT EPP LAUREL LINE

MFG/SCRANTON 2.5 2.8

420690201 ENV & RECYCLING SVC AMITY

LDFL/TAYLOR 1.7 1.8

420690205 PA DPW/CLARKS SUMMIT

STATE HOSP 12.5 12.8

420690533 ALLIANCE SANI LANDFILL

INC/TAYLOR LDFL 63.7 67.4

420690676 EUREKA STONE QUARRY/DALEVILLE 1.6 2.0

420690686 METSO PAPER USA INC/CLARKS

SUMMIT SVC CTR 0.5 0.7

420690722 KEYSTONE SANI LDFL

INC/DUNMORE 5.8 6.2

420690765 REG HOSP OF SCRANTON 4.7 5.2

420692039 SHAW ENV & INFRASTRUCTURE

INC/THROOP 36.6 32.0

420790001 ALLEGHENY ENERGY SUPPLY CO/HUNLOCK 4 (NEW OWNERS ARE FIRST ENERGY) 14.6 20.7

420790013 CERTAINTEED PROD
CO/MOUNTAINTOP 94.0 60.4

420790014 UGI DEVELOPMENT

CO/HUNLOCK CREEK 558.3 50.0

420790035 PA DPW/WHITE HAVEN CTR 26.3 27.2

### - 8 - EPA AFS

Number Facility Name 2007 Baseline
NO X 

### Emissions 2020 Projected
NO X 

### Emissions

420790053 WYOMING VALLEY SANI

AUTH/HANOVER STP 1.8 1.8

420790058 TRANSCONTINENTAL
GAS/BEAR CREEK STA 515 53.4 75.9

420790059 HERSHEY FOODS

CORP/HAZLETON PLT 9.2 9.3

420790060 SCHOTT NORTH AMER
INC/DURYEA 158.2 59.0

420790062 FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR

CORP/WRIGHT TWP 1.8 2.3

420790064 SILGAN WHITE CAP/HAZLETON

PLT 1.6 1.8

420790066 OFFSET PAPERBACK

MFG/DALLAS 0.5 0.7

420790067 OROGRAIN BAKERIES MFG

INC/VALMONT 7.6 8.5

420790068 BERWICK OFFRAY

LLC/BERWICK 0.7 0.8

420790069 KAPPA

GRAPHICS/HUGHESTOWN 0.6 0.6

420790113 PENNSY SUPPLY

INC/DORRANCE ASPHALT PLT 8.2 8.2

420790202 HAZLETON GEN LLC/HAZLE

TWP 8.4 11.5

420790597 PPL MARTINS CREEK

LLC/HARWOOD CTS 4.3 5.4

420790616 SUNOCO PARTNERS MKT &

TERM LP/KINGSTON TERM 1.7 1.9

420790798 PPL MARTINS CREEK

LLC/JENKINS CTG 1.0 1.2

420790799 PPL SUSQUEHANNA LLC/SUSQUEHANNA SES 22.1 27.5

420791255 WILKES BARRE HOSP CO

LLC/WILKES BARRE 3.6 5.0

420792061 WILKES BARRE

MATERIALS/PLAINS PLT 9.9 9.9

420890008 US DEPT DEFENSE/TOBYHANNA

ARMY DEPOT 18.7 20.3

420890539 SANOFI PASTEUR/SWIFTWATER 32.6 32.6

421310009 PROCTER & GAMBLE PAPER

PROD CO/MEHOOPANY 639.7 864.9

421310682 DEER PARK LUMBER/DEER

PARK MFG PLT 5.5 6.1

Subtotal of NO X 

### Emissions 1930.8 1,572.1

### - 9 - EPA AFS

Number Facility Name 2007 Baseline
NO X 

### Emissions 2020 Projected
NO X 

### Emissions

420790014

EMISSION

REDUCTION

CREDITS (PLANNED) UGI DEVELOPMENT

CO/HUNLOCK CREEK 0.0 406.0

421310009

EMISSION

REDUCTION

CREDITS PROCTER & GAMBLE PAPER

PROD CO 0.0 91.1

Total NO X 

### Emissions with Emission
Reduction Credits 1930.8 2,069.2

AREA SOURCE CATE GORY EMISSIONS

The area source category includes emissions from sources such as surface coating, solvent use, residential and commercial heating, and other so urces that emit small amounts of emissions on a per use basis but have a large number of users. The Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Ozone Maintenance
Plan relied on a number of socioeconomic indica tors to estimate emissions, and projections of emissions, such as: population, industrial em ployment, employment, and industry specific growth factors. In the maintenance plan, a baseline area source inve ntory of 2002 was grown using socioeconomic factors of expected populati on and employment growth. For some sources, such as coal-, distillate-, or natural gas-fi red boilers, data from the 2005 Annual Energy Outlook or the EGAS model was used to predict future growth and emissions. For other area source categories, state-specific i ndustry growth estimates supplied by the DEP were used.

2009 Area Source Category Emissions

Table 6 shows a recent estimate of actual socioeconom ic indicators. Actual growth that occurred from 2002 to 2009 was derived from data publis hed by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, 3,4, 5 

### and the Energy Information Administ ration, U.S. Department of Energy. 6 

### The actual growth is compared side-by-side with the predicted growth from the Scranton/WilkesBarre Ozone Maintenance Plan. The Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Ozone Maintenance Plan overpredicted growth for most area sources for the 2002 to 2009 timeframe. In one category in the

3 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, "Population Estimates Program," T1. Population Estimates data Set: 2008 Population Estimates, available from http://www.census.gov/popest/counties/CO-EST2009-01.html

, accessed October 2011.

4 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Housing Unit Estimates, Data Set 2002 and 2009Population Estimates, Note: For information on errors stemming from model error, sampling error, and nonsampling error, see: http://www.census.gov/popest/topics/methodology , accessed October 2011.

5 Employee and establishment numbers: U.S. Census Bureau, County Business Patterns, http://factfinder.census.gov/econ/cbp/index.html

. 6 Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, State Energy Data System - Consumption, Physical Units, 1960-2006, available from: http://www.eia.gov/state/seds/sedsstates.cfm?q_state_a=PA&q_state=Pennsylvania

.

### - 10 - maintenance plan, actual growth was slightly hi gher than predicted growth: total natural gas consumption compared to natural gas consumption in boilers.

Table 6: Revised Socioeconomic Da ta for the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Ozone Maintenance Area Relative to Projected Growth in the

Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Area Maintenance Plan (2002-2009)

Surrogate Indicator for Growth Actual
Use 2002 Actual Use
2009 Actual
Growth
2002-2009 Maintenance
Plan Growth (2002-2009) Population 700,767 715,809 1.0215 *1.0400 Total Employees 266,063 275,621 1.0359 **1.0586 Total Coal Consumption (short tons) 501,110 341,022 0.6805 1.0481 Total Natural Gas Consumption (million cubic ft.) 29,205 32,615 1.1167 ---

Natural Gas Boilers --- --- --- 1.0106 Natural Gas, Residential --- --- --- 1.0841 Total Distillate Oil Consumption (barrels) 3,179,508 3,249,696 1.0221 ---

Distillate Oil, Commercial --- --- --- 1.0731 Distillate Oil, Residential --- --- --- 1.0025

* Area’s growth rate is weighted by 2002 population of Lackawanna, Luzerne, Monroe, and Wyoming Counties. ** Area’s growth rate is weighted by 2002 total employment in Lackawanna, Luzerne, Monroe, and Wyoming

Counties



### .

2018 Area Source Category Emissions

The Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Ozone Maintenance Plan estimated area source sector growth using a baseline inventory from 2002 and growing emi ssions to the maintenance years of 2009 and 2018, based on the growth of socioeconomic activity. 7 

### Data used to revise growth estimates were obtained from the same MARAMA inventory effort described in th e point source section
above. The effort used a base line inventory of 2007 and mainte nance year inventories of 2017, 2020, and 2025. 8 

### Just as in the point source emissions , these inventory years made a direct comparison of emissions and growth rates diffi cult because the MARAMA baseline years and projected inventory years were too dissimilar fr om what was included in the Scranton/WilkesBarre Ozone Maintenance Plan. Therefore, th e projected emissions growth from 2009 to 2018 was determined through linear in terpolation by using emission estimates for 2007 and 2020 from the new MARAMA inventory. Projecte d growth between 2009 and 2018 in the
Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Ozone Maintenance Plan was estimated using the 2009 and 2018 emission estimates. In Table 7, the re vised growth projections are given.

7 State Implementation Plan Revision: Maintenance Plan and Base Year Inventory Scranton/Wilkes-Barre EightHour Ozone Nonattainment Area, September 2006, Appendix B-1, Area Source Methodology, p. 2.

8 Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association (MARAMA), Technical Support Document for theDevelopment of the 2017/2020 Emissions Inventories for Regional Air Quality Modeling in the Northeast/MidAtlantic Region, Version 3.3, January 23, 2012, MARAMA Contract Agreement FY2011-004.

### - 11 - The growth rate predicted in the maintenance plan from 2009 to 2018 is derived by the following
formula:

Growth Factor (2009-2018) 

### = ((Growth Factor (2002-2018) 

### – Growth Factor (2002-2009) 

### )
÷ Growth Factor (2002-2009) 

### ) + 1

A straight line interpolation between th e 2007 MARAMA baseline emissions and the 2020 MARAMA projected emissions was used to ca lculate emissions for the years 2009 and 2018. From these interpolated emissions (See equations 1 and 2 below), the projected growth between 2009 and 2018 was calculated (See equation 3 below) . Fossil fuel com bustion surrogates in Table 7 represent most emissions of NO X 

### , while “population” and “employees” represent the best surrogates for many source categories th at produce VOC emissions. The surrogates for growth shown in Table 7 are used to predict revised growth for a large majority of emissions from area source categories in the Scranton/Wilk es-Barre Ozone Mainte nance Plan revision.

(1) 2009 Emissions = 2007 Emissions + ( 2020 Emissions – 2007 Emissions) * ((2009 – 2007) ÷ (2020-2007))

(2) 2018 Emissions = 2007 Emissions + ( 2020 Emissions – 2007 Emissions) * ((2018 – 2007) ÷ (2020-2007))

(3) Emissions Growth (2009-2018) 

### = ((2018 Emission – 2009 Emissions) ÷ 2009 Emissions) + 1

Tables 7a, b, c, d: Revised Socioeconomic Data for the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre
Ozone Maintenance Area Relative to the Projected Growth in the
Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Area Maintenance Plan (2009-2018)

Table 7a: Lackawanna County Port ion of the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre
Ozone Maintenance Area

Indicator for Growth Revised Growth In MARAMA Inventory (2009-2018) Maintenance Plan Growth (2009-2018)

Population 0.9735 0.9911 Employees 1.0290* 1.0293 Anthracite Coal, Industrial 0.9136 0.9983 Anthracite Coal, Commercial 1.0230 0.9865 All Combustor Types, Distillate Oil, Residential 0.8226 0.9598

Boilers and Internal Combustion Engines, Natural Gas, Commercial 1.0687 1.0521

Combustor Types, Natural Gas,
Residential 1.0188 1.0181

* The MARAMA inventory estimated growth in employment based on statewide North American Industry

Classification System codes. NAICS codes proved too cumbersome to establish employment growth on the county level. Employment growth in Table 7a was derived from U.S. Census Bureau industrial employment data and was not developed by MARAMA.

### - 12 - Table 7b: Luzerne County Portion of the
Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Oz one Maintenance Area

Indicator for Growth Revised Growth In MARAMA Inventory (2009-2018) Maintenance Plan Growth (2009-2018)

Population 0.9696 0.9981 Employees 1.0060* 1.0293 Anthracite Coal, Industrial 0.9136 0.9983 Anthracite Coal, Commercial 1.0230 0.9865 All Combustor Types, Distillate Oil, Residential 0.8226 0.9598

Boilers and Internal Combustion Engines, Natural Gas, Commercial 1.0687 1.0521

Combustor Types, Natural Gas,
Residential 1.0188 1.0181

* The MARAMA inventory estimated growth in employment based on statewide North American Industry

Classification System codes. NAICS codes proved too cumbersome to establish employment growth on the county level. Employment growth in Table 7b was derived from U.S. Census Bureau industrial employment data and was not developed by MARAMA.



### Table 7c: Monroe County Portion of the
Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Oz one Maintenance Area

Indicator for Growth Revised Growth In MARAMA Inventory (2009-2018) Maintenance Plan Growth (2009-2018)

Population 1.1841 1.1934 Employees 1.0613* 1.2077 Anthracite Coal, Industrial 0.9136 0.9983 Anthracite Coal, Commercial 1.0230 0.9865 All Combustor Types, Distillate Oil, Residential 0.8226 0.9598

Boilers and Internal Combustion Engines, Natural Gas, Commercial 1.0687 1.0521

Combustor Types, Natural Gas,
Residential 1.0188 1.0181

* The MARAMA inventory estimated growth in employment based on statewide North American Industry

Classification System codes. NAICS codes proved too cumbersome to establish employment growth on the county level. Employment growth in Table 7c was derived from U.S. Census Bureau industrial employment data and was not developed by MARAMA.

### - 13 - Table 7d: Wyoming County Portion of the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre
Ozone Maintenance Area

Indicator for Growth Revised Growth In MARAMA Inventory (2009-2018) Maintenance Plan Growth (2009-2018)

Population 1.0124 1.1243 Employees 0.8969* 1.0293 Anthracite Coal, Industrial 0.9799 0.9983 Anthracite Coal, Commercial 1.0230 0.9865 All Combustor Types, Distillate Oil, Residential 0.8226 0.9598

Boilers and Internal Combustion Engines, Natural Gas, Commercial 1.0687 1.0521

Combustor Types, Natural Gas,
Residential 1.0188 1.0181

* The MARAMA inventory estimated growth in employment based on statewide North American Industry

Classification System codes. NAICS codes proved too cumbersome to establish employment growth on the county level. Employment growth in Table 7d was derived from U.S. Census Bureau industrial employment data and was not developed by MARAMA.



### Tables 7a, 7b, 7c, and 7d show that assumptions in growth in the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Ozone Maintenance Plan are greater than new assu mptions developed by the MARAMA inventory
effort.

It is safe to assume that, due to the seve re economic downturn experienced from 2007 to 2009, employee growth does not approach what was pr edicted in the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Ozone
Maintenance Plan in 2009 out to 2018. A few NO X 

### emission sources relied on population and employment data to grow emissions. Populatio n and employment show clearly that current projections are below what wa s projected in the Scranton/W ilkes-Barre Ozone Maintenance
Plan. Emissions of NO X 

### from area sources are dominated by fossil fuel combustion. While one category, commercial anthracite co al consumption, shows greater projected growth than what is in the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Maintenance Plan, it is a small source of emissions when compared to industrial coal consumption, which shows a lo wer projected growth than what is in the maintenance plan. As occurred from 2002 to 2009, updated projections of natural gas usage was greater than in the maintenance plan. The re duction in projections of industrial coal and residential heating oil will more than offset increa ses in projection of natural gas use. With the over prediction of growth indica tors in the Scranton/Wilkes-Ba rre Ozone Maintenance Plan, it
follows that actual emissions of NO X 

### will be less than what was n eeded in the maintenance plan
to demonstrate maintenance of the 8-hour ozone standard.

MARCELLUS SHALE EMISSIONS

Since the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Ozone Mainte nance Plan was approved by EPA, Lackawanna and Wyoming Counties in the Sc ranton/Wilkes-Barre Area have experienced some Marcellus Shale natural gas drilling activity. Marcellus Shale natural gas drilling activity did not exist in in
the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Area in 2004 and was minimal in 2009. Emissions of NO X 

### increased

### - 14 - due to Marcellus Shale activity since the 2004 attain ment year. The emissions are considered to be part of the area source sector. These area source emissions are produced by activities at the drill pad and compressor engines that pump natura l gas through the gatheri ng pipelines to a main pipeline. While it is easier to project emissions of drilling operations because DEP has actual emissions data submitted by gas exploration companies for that activity, it is more difficult to project emissions for compressor engines becaus e they began operation in 2012. Therefore, DEP projected NO X 

### emissions from an estimate of a 2013 potential to emit.

Drilling Activity

In 2011, the total Marcellus Sh ale well count in Wyoming a nd Lackawanna Counties was 101. 9 

### These wells were drilled mostly over a three-ye ar period. According to the Marcellus Shale Coalition, drilling activity has been forecasted to remain constant into the foreseeable future across Pennsylvania. 10 

### In 2013, the well count in Wyoming and Lackawanna County was 177,
which is consistent with a forecast of well drill ing activity remaining constant. Approximately, 35 wells are being drilled on averag e every year. Projecting this activity into the future means that about 300 wells may exist by 2018, which woul d mean projected growth in the number of wells of 200 percent.

Current Compressor Engine Activity

Compressor station engine activity is expected to increase as more wells are drilled and the pressure of existing wells diminishes. As pressu res at the wellhead decr ease, compressor station engine activity will increase in order to pump natural gas through the netw ork of pipelines. In 2011, natural gas companies did not report any em issions produced by compressor engines in the
Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Area. Co mpressor engines may not have been needed in 2011 because the pressures at the well were sufficient to tran sport Marcellus Shale natural gas to an existingmain pipeline. In 2012, there were 27 permitted compressor engines in the Scranton/WilkesBarre Area. Fourteen of these compresso r engines began operation by the end of 2013.

In early 2013, the DEP issued a new general permit, General Permit BAQ-GPA/GP-5, Natural Gas Compression and/or Processi ng Facilities (GP-5), which among other requirements, lowers the emissions rate for natural gas compressor e ngines used in pumping natural gas. Table 9 displays information received by DEP that desc ribes compressor engine activity levels in the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Area. GP-5 will serve to limit emissions per horsepower because more compressors will be brought online under the more stringent GP-5 emission limits.

Recent stack testing, which owners of compressor engines are required to complete annually and
the results of which owners are required to submit to DEP, indicate that compressor engines in Wyoming County are operating below the GP -5 emissions limit of 0.5 grams of NO X 

### per horsepower-hour. Emissions estimates of NO X 

### for current compressor engines use the enforceable emission factor limits, which ar e 0.5, 2.0 or 0.17 (for natural gas turbines) grams/brake horsepower-hour.

9 Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection data submitted to DEP by gas producers, 2011 inventory.

10 Information was gathered during a phone conversation between DEP staff from the Bureau of Air Quality and Marcellus Shale Coalition representatives, 2012.

### - 15 - Gas Production in Wyoming County

Examination of well production data from 2011 to present indicates natu ral gas production is accelerating in Wyoming County as it is in most of the gas producing counties to the west and north of Wyoming County. This acceleration in gas production will increase emissions from compressor engines. The DEP has received semi-annual gas production reports from gas producers for the last three years. It is difficult to project with a large degree of certainty gas production five years from now base d on the previous three years’ worth of data given all of the factors affecting production. Nevertheless, DE P based future gas production projections in Wyoming County on growth of gas production from 2011 to 2013 in the county. The projections are thought to be conservative (i.e. greater than what is likely to occur). It is important to note that emission from other source types, especially highway vehicles, have declined significantly in the Scranton Wilkes-Barre Area. Therefore, if conservative emission estimates for Marcellus Shale operations are added to the 2018 maintenan ce year emissions inventory, the emissions in the maintenance year will not exceed emissions th at occurred in the attainment year. DEP will periodically check future gas production numbers against the projected gas production in the maintenance plan revision to ensure that th e projected emissions we re not underestimated.

Table 8 displays actual and projected well production rates fo r Wyoming County. As stated previously, DEP expects that well drilling activity will remain constant for the immediate future and gas production should increase at a constant rate over the next seve ral years as production has increased over the last three years. Semi -annual natural gas production increased from a minimum of 6 million thousand cubic feet (Mcf) to a maximum of 30 million Mcf between semiannual periods. In the most recent se mi-annual reporting period, production increased by 30 million Mcf over the previous re porting period. Over the last five reporting periods, the gas production increased on average by 17 million Mcf. A semi-annual growth in gas production of 20 million Mcf was chosen to project gas producti on to the end of 2018. This growth projection is above the average, but takes into account the most recent growth in gas production which exceeded the 3-year average. Wyoming Count y is home to some of the most productive individual gas wells in the Marcellus Shale Re gion. Of course, at some point, natural gas production growth will diminish, but DEP has seen no evidence that growth in production will
decrease before 2018.

Table 8: Actual and Projected Well Production in Wyoming County

Time Range Actual Well Production (Mcf) Projected Well Production (Mcf) January 2011- July 2011 4,236,563 July 2011 - December 2011 10,230,910 January 2012 - July 2012 28,817,674 July 2012 - December 2012 37,415,081 January 2013 - July 2013 60,129,107 July 2013 - December 2013 90,939,699 January 2014 - July 2014 110,000,000 July 2014 - December 2014 130,000,000

### - 16 - Time Range Actual Well Production (Mcf) Projected Well Production (Mcf) January 2015 - July 2015 150,000,000 July 2015 - December 2015 170,000,000 January 2016 - July 2016 190,000,000 July 2016 - December 2016 210,000,000 January 2017 - July 2017 230,000,000 July 2017 - December 2017 250,000,000 January 2018 - July 2018 270,000,000 July 2018 - December 2018 290,000,000

Figure 1: Actual and Projected Natu ral Gas Production (Jan. 2011 to Dec. 2018)

Future Compressor Engine Activity

The amount of compressor engine horsepower ne eded to pump natural gas through a pipeline is assumed to be closely proportional to the growth ra te in natural gas production. The build-out of compressor horsepower may slightly lag in respo nding to natural gas production because when a well is completed a compressor engine may not be n eeded at first to transport the gas to the main pipeline because ample pressure is available at th e wellhead. The effect that the lag in the buildout of compressor engines has over estimating emi ssions diminishes as more natural gas wells are producing. In essence, the effect that the la g has on emission estimates vanishes. In order to estimate the growth rate in natural gas produc tion in Wyoming County, th e amount of projected annual natural gas production in 2018 was divide d by the actual annual natural gas produced in 2013 to obtain the growth that will occur in production between th e end 2013 and the end
of 2018. 0 50,000,000 100,000,000 150,000,000 200,000,000 250,000,000 300,000,000 350,000,000

Mcf Wyoming County Natural Gas Production

Actual Well Production

Projected Well Production

### - 17 - Growth Rate in Gas Production (Wyoming County) 

### = Projected 2018 annual gas production Actual 2013 annual gas production

= 560,000,000 Mcf 150,000,000 Mcf

= 3.73 multiple or 273 percent

The emission projection estimates for 2018 assume that current compressor engines operating under GP-5 and all future compressor engine s will meet the 0.5 grams per horsepower enforceable standard. A few comp ressor engines are required to meet an enforceable standard of 2.0 grams of NO X 

### per brake horsepower-hour. DEP will conservatively estimate emissions using the 2.0 standard for those engines even th ough stack test results indi cate that these engines were under the 0.5 grams per brake horsepower standard.

Compressor Engine Emissions

Compressor engine emissions were estimated for 2009 using accepted methods used in the EPA’s NONROAD Model. The equation for estimating emissions is given:

Emissions = Number of Engines * Horsep ower * LF * EF * Hours of Operation , where, LF
is the load factor and EF is the emission factor . It is assumed that an engine will operate 8,760 hours per year once it becomes operational. The emission factor is conservatively assumed to be the enforceable permit limit.

Table 9: 2013 NO X 

### Emissions of Operating Compressor Engines and Turbines
Used for Marcellus Shale Natural Gas in the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Area

County Number
of Engines Engine Horsepower Facility Horsepower Load
Factor* NO X 

### Emission
Standard (grams/bhp-hr) Emissions (tons/year)

Wyoming 4 1,380 5,520 0.85 2.0 90.5 Wyoming 8 2,370 18,960 0.85 0.5 77.7 Wyoming (Turbines) 2 7,801 15,602 0.85 0.17 21.8

Totals 40,082 190.0
* Load factor was taken from the NONROAD2008 Model for natural gas compressor engines.

### - 18 - Table 10: Projected 2018 NO X 

### Emissions from Compresso r Engines and Turbines
Used for Marcellus Shale Natural Gas in the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Area

County Number
of Engines Engine Horsepower Total Horsepower Load

Factor NO X 

### Emission
Standard (grams/bhp-hr) NO X 

### Emissions (tons/year) Wyoming 4 1,380 5,520 0.85 2.0 90.5 Wyoming 85,791 0.85 0.5 351.8 Wyoming (Turbines) 58,195 0.85 0.17 81.1

Total Projected 2018 NO X 

### Emissions 523.4

* Total horsepower equals 2013 total horsepower multiplie d by the growth in natural gas production (3.73) and

subtracting out engine horsepower of four existing engines with an allowable limit of 2.0 grams/bhp-hr (new engines will be subject to the current GP-5 limit of 0.5 g/ bhp-hr), and the total 2013 turbine horsepower multiplied by the growth in natural gas production (3.73) with an allowable limit of 0.17 grams/bhp-hr (projected turbine horsepower).



### Total projected NO X 

### emissions from compressor engines and turbines activity in Wyoming County are 523.4 tons for 2018 when the results of Tabl e 10 are added.

Well Drilling

The number of wells drilled in Wyoming County has been inconsistent from year to year. Well drilling increased steadily from 2009 through 201 1 and dipped in 2012. In 2013, the number of wells drilled increased to 2011 levels. Drilling em issions will be treated conservatively. We will conservatively assume that approximately 60 well s will be drilled per ye ar in Wyoming County. Therefore, 2011 NO X 

### emissions for well drilling will be nearly identical to those that will occur
in 2018.

Table 11: Number of Active Marce llus Shale Wells in Wyoming County

Year Active Wells Drilled

2009 1

2010 23

2011 63

2012 14

2013 66

Total 167

### - 19 - Table 12: Reported 2011 Emissions Due to Marcellus Shale Drilling Activity
in the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Area

County SCC SCC Description Pollutant 2011 (tons/year) 2018 (tons/year)

Wyoming 2310021500 On-Shore Gas
Production/Gas Well Completion - Flaring NO X 

### 136.8 136.8

Wyoming 2310000220 Oil & Gas Expl &
Prod/All Processes/Drill Rigs NO X 

### 491.6 491.6

Wyoming 2310021100 On-Shore Gas
Production/Gas Well

Heaters NO X 

### 4.7 4.7

Lackawanna 2310000220 Oil & Gas Expl &
Prod/All Processes/Drill Rigs NO X 

### 3.7 3.7

Table 13: 2018 Emissions for Drilling Acti vity in the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Area

County NO X 

### (Tons/Year)

Lackawanna 3.7

Wyoming 633.1 Total Drilling Emissions 636.1

Table 14: NO X 

### Emissions Related to Marcell us Shale Activity in the
Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Area

County SCC* SCC Description 2009 2018

NO X 

### NO X 

### 42069 2310000220 Oil & Gas Exploration/All Processes/Drill Rigs 0.0 3.7 42131 2310000220 Oil & Gas Exploration/All Processes/Drill Rigs 0.0 491.6

42131 2310020600 Oil & Gas Exploration Production/Natural Gas Compressor Engines and Turbines 0.0 523.4

42131 2310021010 On-Shore Gas Production/Storage Tanks:
Condensate 0.0 0.0

42131 2310021100 On-Shore Gas Production/Gas Well Heaters 0.0 4.7

42131 2310021310 On-Shore Gas Production/Gas Well Pneumatic Pumps 0.0 0.0

42131 2310021500 On-Shore Gas Production/Gas Well Completion 0.0 136.8 42131 2310021509 On-Shore Gas Production/Fugitives 0.0 0.0

Annual Area Total 0.0 1160.2

Daily Area Total 0.0 3.18*

* Annual emissions are divided by 365 days to obtain daily emissions.

### - 20 - NONROAD SOURCE CA TEGORY EMISSIONS

Emissions from the nonroad category are produce d by many different types of vehicles and equipment. The EPA’s NONROAD Model es timates emissions for over 200 types of equipment, engines and vehicles. Nonroad e ngines and vehicles can be used for such applications as construction, lawn and garden care, farming, and commercial and industrial applications. Emissions from three types of activities namely aircraft, locomotives, and
commercial marine vessels are not estimated in the NONROAD Model but are still included in the nonroad category. The aircraft , rail, and commercial marine emissions are estimated outside of the NONROAD Model. In the approved Scra nton/Wilkes-Barre Ozone Maintenance Plan, the
NONROAD2005 model was used to estimate nonroad emissions. The model went through one major revision since then. NONROAD2008a is the latest version of this model. This new version of the model incorporated two reduction stra tegies that affect engines and vehicles in the
nonroad sector:

 Diesel recreational marine standards in th e 2008 final rule on locomotive and marine engines (73 FR 25098); and

 The October 2008 small spark ignition and sp ark ignition and recreational marine rule (73 FR 59034).

For the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Ozone Maintenan ce Plan, DEP modified files in the NONROAD Model, when state specific data was available for emission categories such as residential lawn and garden.

Emissions from nonroad sources have decreased since the submittal of the Scranton/WilkesBarre Ozone Maintenance Plan in 2007, as a re sult of the two additiona l controls mentioned
above and normal fleet turnover that occurs wh en older engines are re placed with cleaner engines. The fleet turnover that occurs as ol der, more polluting nonroad equipment and vehicles are replaced by newer equipment and vehicles th at meet more stringent emission standards has
continued to lower emissions in the nonroad sect or since the late 1990s and will continue to do so for the next 10 years. Emission reductions occurred across all segments of the nonroad category, including construction equipment, farm ing equipment, locomotives, and lawn and garden equipment. Modeling runs were not completed for the nonroad emission source categories. The DEP will treat nonroad emissions in the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Area as nonchanging from their 2004 levels for the purpos e of this SIP revision, even though full scale modeling runs using the NON ROAD2008a would show nonroad emissions in a decline.

Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Emissions Budget for General Conformity

An emission budget for NO X 

### that will be produced by the construction of the Bell Bend Nuclear
Power Plant is included in this SIP revision in order that the c onstruction of the plant can meet the applicable requirements of General Conformity. The emi ssions were estimated in the Bell
Bend Nuclear Power Plant Revised General Conformity Analysis Report, Revision 2. 11 

### The Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant project is scheduled to take seven ye ars to complete. The largest
amount of NO X 

### emissions will be produced during year 2 of project construction. Emissions of

11 PPL Nuclear Development, Allentown Pa., Gary Petrewski, February 3, 2012.

### - 21 - NO X 

### will total 167.7 tons during the second year of construction. The annual emissions, if uniformly distributed over the calen dar year, equate to 0.46 tons of NO X 

### per day. Assuming that slightly more construction activity will occur du ring the non-winter months, the daily emissions
of NO X 

### would be slightly more than 0.46 tons . The General Conformity budget for NO X 

### emissions for this project will be 1.0 tons/s ummer day for the maintenance years 2009 and 2018 which corresponds to a 201.0 tons of NO X 

### cap per calendar year of emissions. The cap includes emissions of on-site nonroad diesel equipment and vehicles, small combustion engines, work force commuting that occurs within the maintenan ce area, delivery vehicles that operate within the maintenance area, on-site highway ve hicles, and safety-related activities.

Therefore, the actual emissions of the project should never exceed the emission budget in this
SIP revision.

HIGHWAY SOURCE CATEGORY EMISSIONS

Highway emissions were estimated by Michael Ba ker, Jr., Inc., who is a consultant to the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. The methodology for estimating emissions of highway vehicles is greatly different than what was used in the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Ozone Maintenance Plan because an entirely new highw ay emissions model is being used. Highway emissions are being estimated using the MOVES Model instead of the Mobile6 Model. With this change, a new set of inputs was used. The method for how traffic growth or vehicle miles
travelled was forecasted remains the same as what was used in the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Ozone
Maintenance Plan. Both the revised maintenance plan and the original maintenance plan used
the Statistical Evaluat ion of Projected Traffic Growth . A revised Appendix C, Maintenance Plan Update for the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Eight-H our Ozone Maintenance Area: Motor Vehicle Emission Budget Revisions Using MOVES2010a

, is attached. The Appendix C-1, Mobile Source Highway Emissions Inventory - An E xplanation of Methodolog y is also attached

.

The MOVES Model estimates that highway vehicle emissions increase for NO X 

### for the 2009 and 2018 attainment years when compared to the highw ay vehicle emission estimates included in the
Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Ozone Maintenance Plan fo r those same years (See Table 14). Emission
estimates of VOC in 2009 and 2018 do not increase a significant ove r the attainment year when using MOVES instead of Mobile6. Therefor e, the MVEBs for VOC emissions from the maintenance plan will be kept and will not be revised using MOVES generated emissions. The
MOVES model also increases the emission estimat es of the 2004 attainment year. Since the
emissions increase occurs in both the attain ment and maintenance years, MOVES modeled emissions, like Mobile6 modeled emissions, of hi ghway vehicles still show a large decrease in
emissions between 2004 and 2009 and between 2004 and 2018.

### - 22 - Table 15: Revised Motor Vehi cle Emissions Using MOVES2010a Compared to Mobile 6.2 (Tons/Day)

Pollutant Sub Area Original MOBILE6.2 Emissions Revised MOVES2010a Emissions 

### 2004 2009 2018 2004 2009 2018



### VOC Lackawanna County 

### 8.93 6.51 3.94 7.12 5.91 3.37 Luzerne County 

### 13.84 10.12 5.90 11.19 9.28 5.16

Scranton MPO Subtotal 

### 22.8 16.6 9.8 18.3 15.2 8.5
Monroe County 

### 7.42 5.73 3.99 6.28 5.43 3.05

NEPA MPO Subtotal 

### 7.4 5.7 4.0 6.3 5.4 3.1 Wyoming County 

### 1.40 0.97 0.51 1.18 0.95 0.67

Northern Tier MPO
Subtotal 

### 1.4 1.0 0.5 1.2 1.0 0.7

Total 

### 31.7 23.3 14.3 25.8 21.6 12.3

NO X 

### Lackawanna County 

### 18.85 13.23 6.01 21.69 16.44 8.40 Luzerne County 

### 29.10 20.60 9.34 33.19 24.83 12.13

Scranton MPO Subtotal 

### 48.0 33.8 15.4 54.9 41.3 20.5 Monroe County 

### 15.88 11.60 5.66 18.85 13.61 6.55

NEPA MPO Subtotal 

### 15.9 11.6 5.70 18.9 13.6 6.6 Wyoming County 

### 2.25 1.50 0.64 3.29 2.39 1.46

Northern Tier MPO
Subtotal 

### 2.2 1.5 0.6 3.3 2.4 1.5

Total 

### 66.1 46.9 21.7 77.1 57.3 28.6

# APPENDIX C

Maintenance Plan Update for the
Scranton/Wilkes

- Barre 1997 Eight

- Hour Maintenance Area: Motor Vehicle Emission Budget Revisions

Using MOVES2010a

Technical Support Document Mobile Source Highway Emissions Inventory

Bureau of Air Quality Department of Environmental Protection

### [ This page intentionally left blank

. ]

# APPENDIX C

Maintenance Plan Update for the

Scranton/Wilkes

- Barre 1997 Eight

- Hour 

# Maintenance Area : Motor Vehicle Emission Budget Revisions

Using MOVES 2 010a

Technical Support Document Mobile Source Highway Emissions Inventory

Prepared for:

Mobile Sources Section, Bureau of Air Quality Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

PO Box 8468 Harrisburg, PA 17105

- 8468

Prepared by:

Michael Baker, Jr., Inc.
1304 Concourse Drive Linthicum, MD 21090

410

- 689

- 3400

### Scranton/Wilkes

- Barre Eight

- Hour Maintenance Area : Motor Ve hicle Emission Budget
Revisions



# Exhibit of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

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

R EVISED E MISSIONS I NVENTORY

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

A NALYSIS M ETHODOLOGY

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 2

DATA SOURCES AND ANA LYSIS TOOLS

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

A NALYSIS T OOLS

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

T RAFFIC D ATA S OURCE /F LEET D ATA I NPUTS

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 5

T RAFFIC G ROWTH A SSUMPTIONS

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

V EHICLE P OPULATION G ROWTH A SSUMPTIONS

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 7
I/M AND F UEL P ARAMETERS

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 8

M ETEOROLOGY D ATA

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 9

V EHICLE T ECHNOLOGY P ROGRAMS

................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 9

RESOURCES

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 10



# List of Exhibit s

E XHIBIT 1: S UMMARY OF A PPENDICES

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

E XHIBIT 2: R EVISED M OTOR V EHICLE E MISSIONS U SING MOVES2010 A

................................ ................................ ..... 2

E XHIBIT 3: S UMMARY OF A NALYSIS T OOLS

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

E XHIBIT 4: PPSUITE P ROCESS

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 5

E XHIBIT 5: VMT G ROWTH A SSUMPTIONS

................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 7



# Summary of Appendices

Appendix C

- 1: Mobile Source Highway Emissions Inventory

– An Explanation of Methodology

Appendix C

- 2: Emission Results for Ozone (VOC, NOx)

(By Year, Road Type and Source Type)

Appendix C

- 3 : MO VES Sample Input FilesScranton/Wilkes

- Barre Maintenance Area MVEB Budget Revisions: Executive Summary 1



## EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This technical appendix supports the revised maintenance plan for the Scranton/Wilkes

- Barre Area u nder
the 1997 8

- hour National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone

. 1 Section 107 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) establishes requirements for an area to be considered for redesignation. One of those requirements includes the development of an emissions inventory of ozone precursors, volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitroge n oxides (NOx), for a base year , the year the region attains the ozone standard, and projection years including a year at least 10 years following redesignation. The emissions inventory is used to demonstrate that projected emission levels are sufficient to maintain the ozone
standard. U.S. EPA’s r edesignation g uidance states, “A state may generally demonstrate maintenance of the NAAQS by either showing that future emissions of a pollutant or its precursors will not exceed the
level of the attainment inve ntory, or by modeling to show that the future mix of sources and emission rates will not cause a violation of the NAAQS.”

A maintenance plan and corresponding emissions inventory for the Scranton/Wilkes

- Barre Area was originally approved by EPA on Novem ber 19, 2007 as documented in the Federal Register ( 72 FR 64948 ) and was effective on December 19, 2007

. At that time, EPA also approved the motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) for VOC and NOx that were contained in the maintenance plan document. A SI P revision, requested to split the 2009 and 2018 MVEBs into three sub

- regional MVEBs, was approved by

EPA on August 11, 2009 in 74 FR 40083 and was effective on October 13, 2009

. The original budgets were developed using MOBILE6.2, the latest EPA

- approved emission model at that time. On M arch 2,

2010 , EPA officially released MOVES2010 a to be used for all SIP submittals and future transportation conformity analyses after a grace period through March 2, 201 3 . This maintenance plan update revises
the 2009 and 2018 MVEBs using MOVES2010 a

.

Appendix C has been provided to summarize the methodology and analysis results for the motor vehicle emissions inventory. To complement this executive summary, attachments have been provided with additional detail regardin g the analysis methodology, the MOVES input parameters, and the output vehicle miles of travel ( VMT ) and emission results for the Scranton/Wilkes

- Barre Maintenance Area

. These include:



### Exhibit 1 : Summary of Appendices

Appendix Tit le Description

C

- 1 Explanation of Methodology Provides a detailed summary of the methodology used to

calculate the VMT and emissions.

C

- 2 Ozone (VOC, NOx)

Emission Results Provides emission e xhibit s by county, road type , and source type categories for a July weekday in 2009 and 2018

. C

- 3 MOVES Sample

Input File Provides examples of the MOVES input files.



## R evised Emissions Inventory

A summary of the revised motor vehicle emissions for the Scranton/Wilkes

- Barre Area is provided in
Exhibit 2

. Both VOC and NOx emission estimates have been developed using the MOVES2010 a emission model and latest planning assumptions

. Emissions have been estimated for the 2004 attainment year, 2009 and 2018. The MOBILE6.2 emission estimates from the original m aintenance plan have been
included in the e xhibit to illustrate relative changes in emissions.

1 Prepared for the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection by Michael Baker Jr. Inc. in 2012Scranton/Wilkes

- Barre Maintenance Area MVEB Budget Revisions: Executive Summary 2 

### Exhibit 2 : Revised Motor Vehicle Emissions Using MOVES2010 a ( Short Tons/Day)

Pollutant Sub Area Original MOBILE6.2 Emissions Revised MOVES2010 a Emissions 2004 2009 2018 2004 2009 2018

VOC Lackawanna, Luzerne 22. 77 16.63 9.84 18.3 2 15. 18 8. 5 3

Monroe 7.4 2 5.73 3.99 6. 28 5. 4 3 3. 0 5 Wyoming 1.4 0 0

. 9 7 0.5 1 1. 18 0.9 5 0. 6 7

Total 31. 59 23

. 33 14.34 2 5

. 78 21. 5 6 12. 25

NOx Lackawanna, Luzerne 47.9 5 33.83 1 5.35 5 4

. 88 41. 27 20. 5 3

Monroe 15. 88 11.60 5.66 18

. 8 5 13. 6 1 6. 5 5 Wyoming 2.2 5 1.5 0 0. 64 3. 29 2. 39 1. 46

Total 66. 08 4 6.93 2 1.65 77

. 0 2 5 7. 27 28. 54



## Analysis Methodology

Guidance documents from EPA were used to develop the base and future year emissions inventories for
the Scranton/Wilkes

- Barre Maintenance Area . They include:

 Policy Guidance on the Use of MO VES2010 for SIP Development, Transportation Conformity

, and Other Purposes

, US EPA Office of Air and Radiation, EPA

- 420

- B

- 09

- 046, December 2009

.

 Technical Guidance on the Use of MO VES 20 10 for Emission Inventory Preparation in State Implementation Plans and Transportation Conformity , US EPA Office of Air and Radiation, and Office of Transportation and Air Quality, EPA

- 420

- B

- 10

- 023, April

20 10

.

 Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator, User Guide for MOVES2010a, EPA

- 420

- B

- 10

- 0 36

, August 20 10

.

The highway m obile source emission inventory was developed using available travel data and EPA’s

MOVES2010 a emission model. The methodologies used to produce the emission data conform to the recommendations provided in EPA’s Technical Guidance . A mix of local data and national default (internal to MO VES 2010a ) data has been used for this submission. Local data has been used for the primary data items that have a significant impact on emissions. These include:

 Vehicle miles of travel ( VMT ) by vehicle type

.

 Average s peed d istribution

.

 Vehicle type mix es

.

 Source t ype p opulation (for light

- duty vehicles)

.

 Vehicle age distribution

.

 Hourly distributions

.

 Meteorology data

.

 Inspection/Maintenance p rogram

.

 Fuel s upply

.Scranton/Wilkes

- Barre Maintenance Area MVEB Budget Revisions: Executive Summary 3



### M ost local data inputs to the analysis process reflect the latest planning assumptions ba sed on

200 8 data obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation ( PennDOT )

, the Bureau
of Motor Vehicles , and other local/national sources

. N ewer data was availa ble and was used for traffic forecast growth rates

, control strategies (e.g. Inspection

- Maintenance programs) , vehicle age distributions and fuel characteristics.

The analysis methodology is consistent with past statewide inventory efforts including the 200 8 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) submission

. This includes the use of custom post processing software to calculate hourly speeds and prepare key traffic input files to the MOVES2010 a emission model. A detailed methodology is provided in Appendix C

- 1

. The following sections address the key input data sources and analysis tools used for the emissions inventory for the Scranton/Wilkes

- Barre Area

.Scranton/Wilkes

- Barre Maintenance Area MVEB Budget Revisions: Executive Summary 4



## DATA SOURCES AND ANALYSIS TOOLS

This section provides a summary of the key input data and analysis tools used for producing the
Scranton/Wilkes

- Barre Maintenance Area emission s inventory. The key elements to the modeling protocol are described in the sections below. A more detailed description of the analysis process and tools is provided in the methodology report s in Appendix C

- 1 through C

- 3

.



## Analysis Tools

The mobile vehicle emissions inventory analysis utilizes several key software/programs for producing the county emissions totals. These tools are outlined in Exhibit 3

.



### Exhibit 3 : Summary of Analysis Tools

Tool Purpose

MO VES 2010 a Produces emission rates for each ozone

precursor , VOC and NOx

.

PPSUITE Processes the highway data ; Calculates

hourly congested speeds for each state roadway segment ; Prepares MO VES 2010a input files ; Processes MO VES 2010a output
files into a summary report

.

CENTRAL Provides a batch menu driven process to

execute PPSUITE, MOVES 2010a and other

MYSQL steps.

The Scranton/Wilkes

- Barre Maintenance Area inventory reflects the highway mobile source emission

estimations using EPA’s MO VES 2010a emission model. EPA’s MOVES model was officially released on March 2, 2010 and was followed with a revised versi on (MOVES2010a) in August 2010. The

MOVES 2010a model provides a more robust estimate of emissions as compared to its predecessor

MOBILE6.2. MOVES2010a has been integrated with local traffic, vehicle fleet, environmental, fuel, and control strategy data to estimate emissions

.

PPSUITE represents an enhanced version of the Post Processor for Air Quality (PPAQ) softwar e system that has been used for previous inventory and conformity submissions in Pennsylvania. The software has
under gone significant revision s to ensure consistency with the MO VES 2010a . PPSUITE was used to calculate hourly congested speeds for each road way link, apply vehicle type fractions, aggregate VMT, prepare MOVES 2010a traffic

- related input files and process MOVES 2010a outputs

.

The PPSUITE software and process methodologies are consistent with that used for state inventories and transportation conformity analyses throughout Pennsylvania

. Exhibit 4 summarizes the key functions of

PPSUITE.Scranton/Wilkes

- Barre Maintenance Area MVEB Budget Revisions: Executive Summary 5 

### Exhibit 4 : PPSUITE Process

CENTRAL is a menu

- driven software platform that execute s the PPSUITE and MOVES 2010a processes in batch mode. The software allows users to execute runs for a variety of input options and integrates custom MYSQL steps into the process. CENTRAL provides important quality control and assurance steps including file naming and storage automation.



## Traffic Data Source/Fleet Data Inputs

Traffic Volume Data : The 200 8 P enn DOT Roadway Management System (RMS) data serves as the primary highway data source for the county and functional class VMT estimates. The data source has been updated to provide a “snapshot” of the regional roadway system and traffic volumes in 200 8 and i s also integrated with traffic signal locations . The data includes the 200 8 average annual daily traffic (AADT) volumes for all state roadways in Pennsylvania. To account for additional local roadway VMT and to ensure consistency with reported Highway Pe rformance Monitoring System ( HPMS ) VMT totals,
the 200 8 VMT totals are adjusted to match the 200 8 HPMS VMT totals reported to FHWA.

Seasonal Adjustments : Based on the requirements for ozone inventories, traffic volumes on each RMS roadway segment must b e adjusted to a July weekday. The daily and monthly seasonal factors are developed from data contained in the document, 200 8 Pennsylvania Traffic Data , prepared by

P enn DOT’s Bureau of Planning and Research (BPR) . The seasonal and daily factors provided i n this document are based on statistical analyses of 200 8 traffic counts taken at permanent and in

- pavement ATR (automatic traffic recorder) locations throughout the state. Based on these seasonal traffic volumes, the PPSUITE software calculates unique c ongested speeds for each roadway segment during an ozone summer weekday scenario.Scranton/Wilkes

- Barre Maintenance Area MVEB Budget Revisions: Executive Summary 6

Congested Speeds : PPSUITE calculates congested speeds by hour of the day for each roadway segment and provides the information as input to the MO VES 2010a software. To disa ggregate the daily RMS volumes to hourly volumes, auto and truck hourly pattern data from P enn DOT’s 200 8 Pennsylvania Traffic Data report are used to determine the temporal variations in traffic volumes.

Vehicle Population : Vehicle population is a key input that has an important impact on start and evaporative emissions. MOVES 2010a requires the number of vehicles by 13 s ource t ypes to determine evaporative emissions. State 2008 vehicle registration data was used to estimate vehicle population for ligh t

- duty vehicles and school buses . The data was split to source types using MOVES 2010a default population data

. For transit buses, data from PennDOT and the National Transit Database (NTD) was used to estimate transit bus populations by county

. For all ot her heavy

- duty vehicles, PPSUITE calculates vehicle population based on the analysis year VMT for each source type and default MOVES 2010a ratios of VMT and source type population (e.g. the number of miles per vehicle by source type). Vehicle population is forecast based on projected household and population growth from Woods and Poole Inc. for each Pennsylvania county. The growth rate methodology includes:

 Choosing the highest growth rate between population and households

 Limiting growth as to not exceed the VMT growth assumptions

VMT by Source Type : The total VMT is disaggregated to the 13 MOVES 2010a source types. For this inventory, the vehicle mix was calculated for each county and functional class grou ping utilizing a
combination of:

 2008 RMS truck percentages

 PennDOT and 2008 NTD transit data

 2008 school bus registration data

EPA’s MOVES 2010a default distribution of VMT by source type was used to determine the remaining source type VMT percentages. The development of vehicle type pattern data input to the MO VES 2010a
software is described in more detail in Appendix C

- 1

.

Vehicle Age Distribution : Vehicle age distributions are required to be input by 13 source types . The distributions reflect the percentage of vehicles in the fleet up to 31 y ears old

. A recent 2010 registration
download from PennDOT’s Bureau of Motor Vehicles Registration Database has indicated a substantially

older fleet than recorded in the 2002

- 2008 period

. T he 2010 vehicle age distributions have been used for
this inventory

. Due to insufficient data, only data for light

- duty vehicles are used as local inputs ; and heavy

- duty vehicle ages are calculated using the internal MOVES 2010a defaults for each Pennsylvania County

. The registration data download is based on M O BILE6.2 vehicle categories

. T he data was converted to source types using the EPA convertor spreadsheets provided with the MOVES2010a
emission model.



## Traffic Growth Assumptions

Traffic growth forecasting plays a pivotal role in estimating future year emissions for the region. There are many uncertainties affecting projections of traffic growth including the current economic conditions, potential fuel prices, the impacts of Marcellus Shale activities in many counties throughout the state, and
the futu re growth in population and employment. Growth rates for this emissions inventory were based
on an assessment of available data sources.Scranton/Wilkes

- Barre Maintenance Area MVEB Budget Revisions: Executive Summary 7

For the Scranton/Wilkes

- Barre Maintenance Area , the follo wing data sources are available:

 PennDOT BPR Growth Rate forecasting system

.

 Estimates of Marcellus Shale related activity growth

.

All SIP mobile source highway inventories include the review and assessment of county

- specific growth

rates from a Penn DOT study originally completed in 2005 and documented in the report, Statistical Evaluation of Projected Traffic Growth, Traffic Growth Forecasting System: Final Report, March 14,

2005

. As part of that study, a statewide traffic growth forecasting system was developed that incorporates

traffic data from P enn DOT ’s Traffic Information System and socioeconomic forecasts. That forecasting system is maintained by the PennDOT BPR and is updated on a periodic basis. This system was last updated in December of 2009 to develop new statistical relationships between hist oric VMT growth and population (thru 2008). The forecast population was estimated from the Woods and Poole data “2010
State Profile”. The results of the study have been shared between P enn DOT, PaDEP, and other Interagency Consultation Group members

, including the P ennsylvania Transportation

- Air Quality Work Group ( which also includes EPA, FHWA, and representatives from larger MPOs within the state )

.

The growth rates from the PennDOT BPR forecasting sy s tem are evaluated against other available data including travel model growth and other insights. For the development of MVEBs, upper estimates of the VMT growth range are used for the forecast analyses. From an air quality perspective, the use of the upper boundary is conservative, and provides for factors outside P enn DOT or PaDEP control (e.g., potential socio

- economic growth above current forecasts, fleet age distributions, vehicle type distribution)
that influence motor vehicle emissions. Exhibit 5 summarizes the assumed projected growth of VMT f or future analysis years in the Scranton/Wilkes

- Barre Maintenance Area

.



### Exhibit 5 : VMT Growth Assumptions

Analysis

Year Total Growth

f rom 2004 Annualized Growth Rate

from Previous Year Lackawanna, Luzerne

2004

---- ---- 2009 4.7% 0.9%

2018 30.6% 2.2%

Monroe

2004

---- ---- 2009 1.9% 0.4%

2018 21.9% 1.6% Wyoming

2004

---- ---- 2009 0.1% 0.0%

2018 42.4% 3.0%



## Vehicle Population Growth Assumptions

Vehicle population growth forecasting plays a n important key role in determining emissions for future

year s for the region . For this inventory, v ehicle population was forecasted considering the growth from
three different sources:

 Household growthScranton/Wilkes

- Barre Maintenance Area MVEB Budget Revisions: Executive Summary 8

 Population Growth

 VMT Growth

The household and population data w ere obtained from the PennDOT study documented in the report as discussed above, Statistical Evaluation of Projected Traffic Growth, Traffic Growth Forecasting System: Final Report, March 14, 2005

. The forecast household and population w ere estimated from th e Woods
and Poole data “2010 State Profile”. The highest growth between household and population data was
obtained by county and compared with VMT growth and a factor was chosen limiting growth to VMT growth.



## I/M and Fuel Parameters

I/M Program: The i nspection m aintenance (I/M) program inputs to the MO VES 2010a model are based on past and current programs within each county (all PA I/M programs are based on county boundaries).

All analysis year s include Pennsylvania’s statewide program

. The MOVES 2010a model ha s simplified
the I/M program input parameter s compared to MOBILE6.2

. The default I/M program parameters
included in MOVES 2010a were examined for each county and necessary changes made to the defaults to match the actual local program.

In or der to assure that emission controls are working properly, vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs have been adopted in some nonattainment areas. These programs have the added benefit of improving the fuel efficiency of vehicles

. The Pennsylvan ia inspection and maintenance (I/M) program was upgraded and expanded throughout the state with a phase

- in period starting in September 2003 and fully implemented by June 2004.

The program requirements vary by region (five regions) and include on

- board diagnostics (OBD) technology that uses the vehicle’s computer for model years 1996 and newer to identify potential engine and exhaust system problems that could a ffect emissions. The program, named PAOBDII, is implemented by region, as follows:

 Philadel

phia Region

- Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgo mery and Philadelphia Counties

 Pittsburgh Region

- Allegheny, Beaver, Washin gton and Westmoreland Counties

 South Central and Lehigh Valley Region

- Berks, Cumberland, Dauphin, Lancaster, Lebanon, Lehigh, Northampton and York Counties

 North Region

- Blair, Cambria, Centre, Erie, Lackawanna, Luzerne , Lycoming, and Mercer
Counties

 Other 42 Counties

– Includes Monroe and Wyoming Count ies

The OBDII program is implemented in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh along w ith tailpipe (idle in Pittsburgh and idle and ASM in Philadelphia) and gas cap tests. Tests in other regions include:

 Subject vehicles registered in the South Central and Lehigh Valley counties receive the visual, OBD and gas cap tests.

 Subject vehicles registered in the North region receive a gas cap test and visual inspection.

 Subject vehicles registered in the other 42 counties (67 total counties) receive a visual inspection as part of the annual safety inspection.

Fuel Assumptions : The MOVES 2010a default fuel formulation and fuel supply data were reviewed and updated based on available local volumetric fuel property information. The gasohol market penetration
and RVP values were updated but MOVES 2010a default data was used for the remaining parameters. Updated assumptions included:Scranton/Wilkes

- Barre Maintenance Area MVEB Budget Revisions: Executive Summary 9

 8.7 RVP used for summer months.

 Conventional gasoline used throughout the year for analysis year 2004.

 32% market share of conventional gasoline and 68% market share of 10% ethanol used throughout the year for an alysis year 2009.

 10% ethanol used throughout the year for analysis year 2018.



## Meteorolog

y Data

Updated weather information has been obtained from WeatherBank, Inc. ( www.weatherbank.com ). The

10

- year average minimum and maximum monthly temperature and relative humidity values were
obtained for each of the 9 airport locations in Pennsylvania.

The MOVES 2010a model requires temperature and relative humidity data for each hour of the day. EPA’s data converters were used to convert minimum and maximum daily temperatures to an hourly temperature profile that could be input to MOVES 2010a

. These assumptions are consistent with the 2008 NEI inventory submission.



## Vehicle Technology Programs

Federal Programs

Current f ederal vehicle emissions control and fuel programs are incorporated into the MO VES 2010a
software. The se include the National Program standards covering model year vehicles through 2016.
Modifications of default emission rates ar e required to reflect the early implementation of the National Low Emission Vehicle Program (NLEV) program in Pennsylvania. To reflect these impacts, EPA has released instructions and input files that can be used to model these impacts. This inventory ut ilized the August 2010 version of the files ( http://www.epa.gov/oms/models/moves/tools.htm ).

State Programs

The Pennsylvania Clean Vehicles (PCV) Program, adopted in 1998, incorporated the California Low Emission Vehicle Program (CA LEVII) by reference

, although it allowed automakers to comply with the NLEV program as an alternative to this Pennsylvania program until MY 2006. Beginning with MY 2008, “new” passenger cars and light

- duty truc ks with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 8,500 pounds or less that are sold or leased and titled in Pennsylvania must be certified by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) or be certified for sale in all 50 states. For this program, a “new” vehi cle is a qualified vehicle with an odometer reading less than 7,500 miles. Pa DEP and PennDOT worked with the automobile manufacturers, dealers and other interested business partners and finalized procedures for complying with these new requirements. DEP focus es its outreach effort with the manufacturers and

dealers regarding what vehicles can be offered for sale and how to certify that the vehicles are compliant.
PennDOT’s role is to ensure licensing and registration records include these certifications of compliance or that the vehicle owner qualifies for an exemption to the requirements. In all cases, DEP will use information obtained during PennDOT’s title and registration process to oversee and audit, as needed,

certain vehicle title transactions to d etermine compliance to the program.

The impacts of this program are modeled for a ll analysis years beyond 2008 using the same instructions and tools as downloaded for the early NLEV analysis. EPA provided input files to reflect the CAL LEVII

program. Modifications to those files were made to reflect a 2008 start date for Pennsylvania.Scranton/Wilkes

- Barre Maintenance Area MVEB Budget Revisions: Executive Summary 10



## RESOURCES

Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator, User Guide for MOVES2010a, EPA

- 420

- B

- 10

- 036, August 2010.

Technical Guidance on the Use of MOVES 20 10 for Emission Inventor y Preparation in State Implementation Plans and Transportation Conformity , US EPA Office of Air and Radiation, and Office of Transportation and Air Quality, EPA

- 420

- B

- 10

- 023, April 2010.

200 8 Pennsylvania Traffic Data

, PENNDOT Bureau of Planning and Resea rch, 200 8

.

Policy Guidance on the Use of MOVES2010 for SIP Development, Transportation Conformity

, and Other Purposes , US EPA Office of Air and Radiation, EPA

- 420

- B

- 09

- 046, December 2009.

Instructions for Using LEV and NLEV Inputs for MOVES, US EPA, EPA

- 420

- B

- 10

- 003a, August 2010.

Statistical Evaluation of Projected Traffic Growth, Traffic Growth Forecasting System: Final Report, Michael Baker Jr., Inc., March 14, 2005.

Metrological Data from Weather Bank, Inc., www.weatherbank.com

# APPENDIX C

- 1

S cranton/Wilkes

- Barre Area An Explanation of Methodology

Bureau of Air Quality Department of Environmental Protection

### [ This page intentionally left blank

. ]

# APPENDIX C

- 1

Scranton/Wilkes

- Barre Area 

# An Explanation of MethodologyAn Explanation of Methodology 

### Explanation of Methodology May 20 1 2



# TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

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

O VERVIEW OF E MISSIONS I NVENTORIES

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

H IGHWAY V EHICLE E MISSION I NVENT ORIES

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

WHERE DOES PENNSYLVA NIA OBTAIN ITS DATA?

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

S UMMARY OF MOVES I N PUTS

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

V EHICLE M ILES OF T RAVEL (VMT)

................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 5

A DJUSTMENTS TO R OADWAY D ATA

................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 8

V EHICLE T YPE P ROCESSING

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 9

V EHICLE F LEET AND P OPULATION D ATA

................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 10

E NVIRONMENTAL

, F UEL AND T ECHNOLOGY A SSUMPTIONS

................................ ................................ .................... 11

SPEED/EMISSION ESTIM ATI ON PROCEDURE

................................ ................................ .............................. 12

V OLUME /VMT D EVELOPMENT

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 12

S PEED /D ELAY D ETERMINATION

................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 15

HPMS AND VMT A DJUSTMENTS

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 16

MOVES E MISSIONS R UN

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 17

RESOURCES

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 18

HIGHWAY VEHICLE INVE NTORY GLOSSARY

................................ ................................ ............................. 19



## List of Exhibits

E XHIBIT 1: S UMMARY OF PPSUITE P ROCESS

................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 3

E XHIBIT 2: MOVES L OCAL D ATA I NPUT S UMMARY

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

E XHIBIT 3: P ENN DOT U RBAN /R URAL AND F UNCTIONAL C LASS C ODES

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

E XHIBIT 4: E MISSION F ACTOR VS

. S PEED V ARIANCES (NO X )

................................ ................................ ........................ 7

E XHIBIT 5: MOVES S OURCE T YPES AND HPMS V EHICLE G ROUPS

................................ ................................ .............. 9

E XHIBIT 6: PPSUITE S PEED / E MISSION E STIMATION P ROCEDURE

................................ ................................ .............. 13Appendix C

- 1 1



## INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this document is to explain how the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (Department) estimates emissions from highway vehicles for inclusion in its emission inventories and State Implementation Plans.



## Overview of Emissions Inventories

The Department’s inventories generally categorize emissions into four categories:

 H ighway vehicles

.

 S t ationary sources (major industrial, commercial and utility sources)

.

 A rea sources (smaller industrial/commercial sources, consumer products)

.

 N onroad mobile sources (including construction and agricultural equipment, lawn and garden equipment)

.

An evaluat ion of emissions from point, area, and mobile sources is needed to develop a complete inventory needed for a maintenance demonstration plan. This documentation addresses the mobile source activity and emissions for base and future years used to support su ch a demonstration.

Of all of the sources of air pollution, only the emissions of some stationary sources are measured directly and continuously through instrumentation. Emissions from all other sources must be modeled based on
available local data , i ncluding those from highway vehicles. In their very simplest form, estimates of emissions follow the following pattern:

Emission rate x activity level = emissions per time period (usually day or year)

Most emission rates have been developed by the U

. S

. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA ) , in cooperation with industry and states, and are compiled and documented in to key references or emission
models. These include Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors (AP

- 42)

, the Motor Vehicle
Emission Simula tor (MOVES) model, and the NONROAD model. Adding up the products of the emission rates and activity levels for all sources of a given pollutant constitutes the emission inventory for that pollutant.



## Highway Vehicle Emission Inventories

Highway vehicles c ontribute significantly to air pollution, particularly to ground

- level ozone, which is the most persistent air pollutant in Pennsylvania. Ground

- level 

### o zone is not emitted directly to the atmosphere, but is formed by photochemical reactions between volati le organic compounds (VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen (NO

x 

### ) in the presence of sunlight. The long, hot, humid days of summer are particularly conducive to ozone formation, so ozone levels are of concern primarily during the months of May through September. Both VOCs and NOx are emitted from highway vehicles. Pennsylvania’s ozone

- related emission inventory efforts focus on these two types of pollutants.

Obviously, direct measurement of emission levels from all vehicles in use is impossible. In comparison to highway vehicles, estimating residential heating emissions is a fairly simple calculation because there is a constant emission rate and a fairly simp le measure of activity. However, f or highway vehiclesAppendix C

- 1 2

estimating the emission rate and activity levels of all vehicles on the road during a typical summer day is a complicated endeavor.

If every vehicle emitted the same amount of pollution all the time, one could simply multiply those emission standards (emission rate in grams of pollution per mile) times the vehicle miles traveled ( VMT ) to estimate total emissions. But emission rates from all vehicles vary over the entire range of conditions
under whic h they operate. These variables include air temperature, speed, traffic conditions, o perating

mode and fuel characteristics . The inventory must also account for non

- exhaust or evaporative emissions. In addition, the fleet is composed of several generati ons and types of vehicles with different emission control technologies. This requires the estimation algorithm include the composition of the fleet (vehicle ages and types)

.

In order to estimate both the rate at which emissions are being generated and to calculate vehicle miles traveled (activity level), Pennsylvania examines its road network and fleet to estimate vehicle activity.

For ozone

- related inventories, this is done for a typical summer weekday. For c arbon m onoxide (CO) and

p articulate m atter (PM) emission inventories, this may be done for a typical winter weekday , summer weekday and/ or annual conditions. Not only must this be done for a baseline year, but it must also be projected into the future. This process involves a large quantity of dat a and is extremely complex.

Computer models have been developed to perform these calculations by simulating the travel of vehicles on the Commonwealth’s roadway system. The models also generate emission s rates (also called emission factors) for di fferent vehicle types for area

- specific conditions

, and then combine them in summary form.

The area

- specific conditions include vehicle and highway data, plus control measure characteristics and future year projections of all variables. The key models us ed to generate this mobile source emissions inventory are:

MO VES : EPA’s MOVES model was officially released on March 2, 2010 and was followed with a revised version (MOVES2010a) in August 2010. The MOVES model provides a more robust estimate of
emiss ions as compared to its predecessor MOBILE6.2. MOVES calculates average in

- use fleet emission s for each of thirteen categories of vehicles under various conditions affecting in

- use emission levels (e.g., ambient temperatures, average traffic speeds, gasol ine volatility) as specified by the model user.

For this mobile source inventory, Pennsylvania used MOVES2010a as approved by EPA. MOVES can be used to estimate national, state, and county level inventories of criteria air pollutants, precursors, greenhouse gas emissions, and some mobile source air toxics from highway vehicles. Additionally, MOVES can make projections for energy consumption (total, petroleum

- based, and fossil

- based).

PPSUITE : For the Department’s highway emissions inventory, a p ost processor named PPSUITE (formerly named PPAQ

- Post Processor for Air Quality) is used , which consists of a set of programs that perform the following functions:

 Analyzes highway operating conditions

.

 Calculates highway speeds

.

 Compiles vehicle miles of travel (VMT) and vehicle type mix data

.

 Prepares MO VES runs and processes MOVES outputs.

PPSUITE is a widely used and accepted tool for estimating speeds and processing emission s rat es. The software is based upon accepted transportation engineering methodologies. For example, PPSUITE uses speed and delay estimation procedures based on planning methods provided in the Highway Capacity
Manual , a report prepared by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) summarizing current knowledge and analysis techniques for capacity and level

- of

- service analyses of the transportation system.Appendix C

- 1 3

The PPSUITE process is integral to producing key input files to the MOVES emission model. Exhibit 1 summarizes the key functions of PPSUITE and the traffic

- related input files prepared for the MOVES County Data Manager (CDM).



### Exhibit 1 : Summary of PPSUITE Process

The following sections summarize the key data and methodologies used to produce the mobile source emissions inventory. This includes a summary of local data sources and a step

- by

- step review of the speed calculation process. The emission data and process has been developed according to recommendations provided by EPA in key policy and technical guidance as provided below:

 Policy Guidance on the Use of MOVES2010 for SIP Development, Transportation Conformity , and Other Purposes , US EPA Office of Air and Radiation, EPA

- 420

- B

- 09

- 046, December 2009.

 Technical Guidance on the Use of MOVES2010 for Emission Inventory Preparation in State Implementation Plans and Transportation Conformity , US EPA Office of Air and Radiation, and Office of Transportation and Air Quality, EPA

- 420

- B

- 10

- 023, April

2010.

The process has focused on developing an emissions inventory using the available tools and data to its
fullest extent. This includes the use of available local data for items that have a significant impact on
emis sions and applying a robust calculation process to estimate hourly traffic speeds.Appendix C

- 1 4



## WHERE DOES PENNSYLVANIA OBTAIN ITS DATA?

Summary of MOVES Inputs

A large number of inputs to MO VES are needed to fully account for the numerous vehicle and
environmental parameters that affect emissions . These include traffic flow characteristics (as determined from the PPSUITE software), vehicle descriptions, fuel parameters, inspection/maintenance program parameters, and environmental varia bles

. MOVES includes a default national database of meteorology, vehicle fleet, vehicle activity, fuel, and emission control program data for every county ; but EPA cannot certify that the default data is the most current or best available information for any spe cific area

. As a result, local data is recommended for use for analyses supporting s tate i mplementation p lans (SIPs)

.

A mix of local and default data is used for this inventory. Local data sources are used for all inputs that have a significant impact on calculated emission rates. Exhibit 2 summarizes Pennsylvania

- specific inputs assembled and used for this inventory

. These data items are discussed in the following sections.



### Exhibit 2 : MOVES Local Data Input Summary

Traffic Vehicle Fuel Inspection Environmental

Data D escriptions Parameters Maintenance Variables

Vehicle Type Vehicle Type RVP Start Year H ourly

VMT Mix Model Year s Temperatures

Vehicle Vehicle Age Sulfur T est Standards

, Population Distribution Level Source Types, Humidity Frequency

VMT Average Speeds Ethanol Stringency,

Fractions (PPSUITE) Volume Waiver Rate, (PPSUITE) Compliance

Road Type Hourly Refueling

Distribution Distributions Controls (PPSUITE)

R amp Fraction (PPSUITE)

Emission RatesAppendix C

- 1 5



## Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT)

The VMT input to emissions calculations for Pennsylvania is based on information from the Roadway Management System (RMS) maintained by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation’s ( P enn DOT’s ) Bureau of Planning and Research (BPR) . P ennD OT obtains this information from periodic visual and electronic traffic counts. RMS data is dynamic

, since it is continually reviewed and updated
from new traffic coun ts and field visits conducted by P enn DOT. Information on roadways included in the National Highway System is reviewed at least annually, while information on other roadways is reviewed at least biennially.

On a triennial basis, a current “snapshot” of t he RMS database is taken and downloaded to provide an up

to

- date record of the Commonwealth’s highway system for estimating emissions. Th is emissions inventory is based on the most current snapshot of the RMS data.

The RMS database contains all state hi ghways, including the Pennsylvania Turnpike, divided into segments approximately 0.5 miles in length. These segments are usually divided at important intersections or locations where there is a change in the physical characteristics of the roadway (e.g. t he
number of lane s changes). There are approximately 99,000 state highway segments for the 67 Pennsylvania counties contained in the RMS. Each of these segments contains an abundance of descriptive data, but only the following information is extracted fo r emission calculations:

 Lanes

.

 Distances

.

 Volumes representing Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT)

.

 Truck percentages

.

 P enn DOT urban/rural classifications

.

 P enn DOT functional class codes

.

 Number of signals (based on linkage to PennDOT GIS signal location data)

.

RMS volumes and distances are used in calculating highway VMT totals for each county. As discussed in the next section, adjustments are needed to convert the volumes to an average summer weekday, winter weekday, and monthly day. In addition, the traffic volumes must be forecast to support future year
emission inventories. Lane values and traffic signals are an important input for determining the congestion and speeds for individual highway segments. Truck percentages are used in the speed
deter mination process and are used to split volumes to individual vehicle types used by the MO VES
software.

R oad segments are classified by function, as well as whether it is located in an urban, small urban or rural area, as indicated below in Exhibit 3 . The P enn DOT urban/rural (UR) and functional classes (FC) are important indicators of the type and function of each roadway segment. The variables provide insights into other characteristics not contained in the RMS data that are used for speed and emission calculations.Appendix C

- 1 6 

### Exhibit 3 : PennDOT Urban/Rural and Functional Class Codes

Urban/Rural Code 1=Rural
2=Small Urban
3=Urban

Functional Class Rural Functional Classes Used Urban Functional Classes Used

For Rural Areas For Small Urban and Urban Areas

------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------ 1 =Rural Freeway 11=Urban Freeway 2=Rural Other Principal Arterial 12=Urban Expressway
6=Rural Minor Arterial 14=Urban Principal Arterial 7=Rural Major Collector 16=Urban Minor Arterial
8=Rural Minor Collector 17=Urban Collector

9=Rura l Local 19=Urban Local

Additional Network Information: The PPSUITE software system allows for many additional variables other than those available in the RMS database. Using these variables improves the ability of the Department to incorporate real ro adway conditions into its estimates. The variables include information regarding free

- flow speeds and capacities, signal characteristics and other physical roadway features that can affect a roadway’s calculated congested speed. This data can be determin ed from lookup tables based on a roadway segment’s urban/rural code and functional class. Much of the lookup table data was developed from i nformation contained in the Highway Capacity Manua l

, PennDOT information on speeds and signal densities , and other e ngineering judgment

.

MOVES Traffic Inputs: The PPSUITE software uses RMS traffic data to prepare key inputs to the
MOVES emission model including :

 VMT

.

 T ravel speeds

.

 R oad type distributions

.

 Ramp fractions

.

VMT is the primary traffic input that affects emission results. The roadway segment distances and traffic volumes are used to prepare estimates of VMT. PPSUITE performs these calculations and outputs the MOVES annual VMT input file to the County Data Man ager (CDM).

Emissions for many pollutants (including both VOC and NOx ) vary significantly with travel speed. While VOCs generally decrease as speed increases, NOx decreases at the low speed range and increases at higher speeds

, as illustrated in Exhibit 4

. To obtain the best estimate of vehicle speeds

, the Department uses the PPSUITE set of programs, whose primary function is to calculate speeds and to organize and simplify the handling of large amounts of data needed for calculating speeds and for preparing MOVES input files . The PPSUITE software prepares the MOVES vehicle hours of travel (VHT) by speed bin file which summarizes the distribution of speeds across all links into each of 16 MOVES speed bins for each hour of the day. This robust process ensures that MOVES emission rates are used to the fullest extent an d is consistent with the methods and recommendations provided in EPA’s Technical Guidance on the Use of MOVES2010 for Emissions Inventory Preparation in State Implementation Plans and Transportation Conformity

.Appendix C

- 1 7 

### Exhibit 4 : Emissi on Factor vs. Speed Variances (NOx)

In MOVES, typical drive cycles and associated operating conditions vary by the type of roadway. MOVES defines five different road types as follows:

1 Off

- Network

. 2 Rural Restricted Access

. 3 Rural Unrestricted Access

. 4 Urban Restricted Access

. 5 Urban Unrestrict ed Access

.

The off

- network road type includes emissions from vehicle starts, extended idle activity, and evaporative
emissions. Off

- network activity in MOVES is primarily determined by the Source Type Population input

, as discussed in a following section

. The remaining distribution among road types is determined by equating the PennDOT functional class with each MOVES road type as follows:

 MOVES Road Type (2) = PennDOT Functional Class (1)

.

 MOVES Road Type (3) = PennDOT Functional Class (2,6,7,8,9)

.

 MOV ES Road Type (4) = PennDOT Functional Class (11,12)

.

 MOVES Road Type (5) = PennDOT Functional Class (14,16,17,19)

.

For this inventory, the MOVES road type distribution file is automatically generated by PPSUITE using the defined equivalencies.

Since ramps are not directly represented within the RMS database information, it is assumed that 8% of the Freeway V H T is Ramp V H T. This is consistent with the recommendations provided in EPA’s

t echnical g uidance

. Source: Figure 3 from Implications of the MOVES2010 Model on Mobile Source Emission Estimates, Air & Waste Management Association, July 2010.Appendix C

- 1 8



## Adjustments to Roadway Data

Before the RMS d ata can be used by PPSUITE for speed and emission calculations, several adjustments and additions must be made to the roadway data. These adjustments are summarized below.

HPMS Adjustments : According to EPA guidance, baseline inventory VMT computed from the RMS highway segment volumes must be adjusted to be consistent with Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) VMT totals. The HPMS VMT reported for Pennsylvania is a subsystem of the RMS established to meet the data reporting requirements of the Fed eral Highway Administration (FHWA) and

to serve as P enn DOT’s official source of highway information. Although it has some limitations, the HPMS system is currently in use in all 50 states and is being improved under FHWA direction.

Although the HPMS VM T and the roadway data used for an inventory emissions analysis are both based on data from the RMS system, differences do exist between them and include the following. First, the HPMS and inventory roadway data are “snapshots” of the RMS data taken at di fferent times. Since the RMS is dynamic, changing constantly due to new data, differences will result between the data used for calculating HPMS VMT totals and the inventory data used for an emissions analysis. Second

, since the RMS does not contain many of the local roadways, local road estimates of HPMS VMT are obtained through alternative procedures developed by P enn DOT

. To account for such differences, adjustment factors are calculated and used to adjust the inventory roadway data to the reported HPM S VMT totals
submitted to FHWA. The VMT contained in the HPMS reports are considered to represent average annual daily traffic (AADT).

Adjustment factors are calculated which adjust the base year RMS download VMT to the reported HPMS totals for that year. These factors are developed for each county and functional class combination and are also applied to all future year runs. Adjustment s for the “higher” functional classes (e.g. Freeway,

Arterials

- major routes) are close to 1.000 since HPMS VMT is derived from RMS information, and the only difference in the data is that the “snapshot” for the emission calculations is taken at a different time than for the HPMS. “Lower” classes (e.g. local roads) require greater adj ustment since a large part of the local system is not under state jurisdiction and is not in the RMS database. There is, of course, a significant amount of local road mileage in the state. It is assumed that those local streets that are in RMS

are represe ntative of all local streets in their area with respect to volume and speed, so that roadway mileage adjustment is appropriate.

Seasonal Adjustments to Volumes : The RMS contains AADT volumes that are an average of all days in the year

, including weekends and holidays. An ozone emission analysis, however, is based on a typical July or summer weekday. PM and CO analyses require volumes representing a typical summer or winter weekday and monthly average conditions (needed for producing annual totals). Therefore, the RMS volumes must be seasonally adjusted. Seasonal factors were developed for each functional class and urban/rural code based on yearly count information prepared by P enn DOT’s B PR . These factors are applied to the existing RMS AADT volumes to produce the July volumes. The same factors are also use d to develop the MOVES daily and monthly VMT frac tion files.

Hourly Adjustments : Speeds and emissions vary considerably depending on the time of day

. Therefore, it is important to estimate the pattern by which roadway volume varies by hour of the day. The

24

- hour pattern data provides PPSUITE with inf ormation used to split the daily roadway segment volumes to each of the 24 hours in a day. Pattern data is in the form of a percentage of the daily volumes for each hour. Distributions are provided for each county and functional class grouping. This dat a is developed from 24

- hour count data compiled by PennDOT’s B PR , according to the process in the agencies annual traffic data reports. The same factors are also used to develop the MOVES hourly
fraction file.Appendix C

- 1 9

Traffic Volume Forecasts : Traffic growth for ecasting plays a pivotal role in estimating future year emissions for the region. There are many uncertainties affecting projections of traffic growth

, including the current economic conditions, potential fuel prices, the impacts of Marcellus Shale activi ties in many counties throughout the state, and the future growth in population and employment. Growth rates for the Department’s emissions inventor ies are based on an assessment of available data sources which include:

 PennDOT BPR growth rate forecasting system.

 Regional travel model, if available.

 Estimates of Marcellus Shale related activity growth, if applicable

.

All SIP mobile source highway inventories include the review and assessment of county

- specific growth rates from a PennDOT study originally completed in 2005 and documented in the report, Statistical Evaluation of Projected Traffic Growth, Traffic Growth Forecasting System: Final Report, March 14,

2005 . As part of that study, a statewide traffic growth forecasting system was develo ped that incorporates traffic data from PennDOT’s Traffic Information System and socioeconomic forecasts. That forecasting system is maintained by the PennDOT BPR and is updated on a periodic basis to develop new statistical relationships between historic VMT growth and population and updated demographic forecasts from
Woods and Poole , Inc. The growth rates from the PennDOT BPR forecasting system are evaluated against other available data including travel model growth and other insights.



## Vehicle Type P

rocessing

Emission rates within MOVES vary significantly by the type of vehicle. The MOVES model produces emissions and rates by thirteen MOVES vehicle source types. However, VMT is input to MOVES by six HPMS vehicle groups. Exhibit 5 summarizes the d istinction between each classification scheme.



### Exhibit 5 : MOVES Source Types and HPMS Vehicle Groups

SOURCE TYPES HPMS Class Groups

11 Motorcycle 10 Motorcycle

21 Passenger Car 20 Passenger Car

31 Passenger Truck 30 Passenger/Light Truck

32 Light Commercial Truck 40 Buses

41 Intercity Bus 50 Single Unit Trucks

42 Transit Bus 60 Combination Trucks

43 School bus

51 Refuse Truck

52 Single Unit Short

- haul Truck

53 Single Uni t Long

- haul Truck

54 Motor Home
61 Combination Short

- haul Truck

62 Combination Long

- haul Truck

The process used for this inventory includes a method to disaggregate the RMS traffic volumes to the thirteen source types and then to recombine the esti mates to the six HPMS vehicle classes. V ehicle type pattern data is used by PPSUITE to divide the hourly roadway segment volumes to the thirteen MOVES source types. Similar to the 24

- hour pattern data, this data contains percentage splits to each source type for every hour of the day. The vehicle type pattern data for this inventory is developed from several
sources of information:Appendix C

- 1 10

 P enn DOT truck percentages from the RMS database

.

 Hourly distributions for trucks and total traffic compiled by PennDOT’s B P R

.

 Transit data from PennDOT and the N ational T ransit D atabase

.

 S chool bus registration data from PennDOT’s Bureau of Motor Vehicles Registration Database

.

The vehicle type pattern data is developed for each county and functional class combination. First, RMS truck percentages are averaged for all roadways within a county and functional class grouping. Using this percentage data, the total roadway volume for any segment is divided to auto and truck vehicle type categories. The transit data and scho ol bus data is used to further disaggregate trucks

, resulting in four vehicle groups (light

- duty, school, transit, and other heavy

- duty)

.

From these groups, MO VES default Pennsylvania county VMT distribution s by source type are used to
divide the four g roups into each of the MO VES source type s

. P enn DOT hourly distributions for trucks
and total traffic are used to create source type percentage breakdowns for each hour of the day.

Vehicle Type Capacity Analysis Factors : Vehicle type percentages are provided to the capacity analysis section of PPSUITE to adjust the speeds in response to trucks. That is, a given number of larger trucks take up more roadway space than a given number of cars, and this is accounted for in the speed estimation process by adjusting capacity using information from the Highway Capacity Manual

.



## Vehicle Fleet and Population Data

The information on the vehicle fleet including the number and age of vehicles has a significant impact on
forecasted start and evaporative emissions within MOVES. The MOVES Model requires the population of vehicles by the thirteen source type categories

. Pennsylvania county vehicle registration data is used to estimate vehicle population for light

- duty vehicles and school buses. The data is split t o source types using MOVES 2010a default P ennsylvania county population data. For transit buses, data from PennDOT and the National Transit Database (NTD) is used to estimate county transit bus totals. O ther heavy

- duty
vehicle population values are based on VMT for each source type using the vehicle mix and pattern data discussed previously. The PPSUITE software automatically applies default MOVES 2010a ratios of VMT and source type population (e.g. the number of mi les per vehi cle by source type) to the local VMT estimates to produce vehicle population.

Vehicle population is forecast based on projected household and population growth from Woods and Poole Inc. for each Pennsylvania county. The growth rate methodology includes:

 Choosing the highest growth rate between population and households

.

 Limiting growth as to not exceed the VMT growth assumptions

.

Vehicle Age : Vehicle age distributions are input to MO VES for each county by the thirteen source types.
The distributions re flect the percentage of vehicles in the fleet up to 31 years old. The most recent
available registration download from PennDOT’s Bureau of Motor Vehicles Registration Database has been used for the inventory. Due to insufficient data, only information for light

- duty vehicles are used as local inputs; and, heavy

- duty vehicles use the internal MOVES2010a national defaults. The registration data download is based on MOBILE6.2 vehicle categories. As a result, the data was converted to source types using the EPA convertor spreadsheets provided with the MOVES2010a emission model.Appendix C

- 1 11



## Environmental, Fuel and Technology Assumptions

Information on environmental, fuel, vehicle technology and other control strategy assumptions were
determined based on a review of MOVES 2010a default information by the PaDEP.

Fuel Parameters : The same vehicle will produce different emissions using a different type of gasoline. Fuel control strategies can be powerful emission reduction mechanisms

. The MOVES2010a default fuel
for mulation and fuel supply data were reviewed and updated based on available local volumetric fuel property information. The gasohol market penetration and RVP values were updated for all the counties

. MOVES 2010a default data was used for the rest of the pa rameters.

Refueling Emissions : MO VES also allows users to calculate refueling emissions, the emissions created when vehicles are refueled at service stations. Pennsylvania includes refueling emissions in its area source inventory and not in its highway vehicle inventory. R efueling emissions are not included in the highway emissions inventory.

Vehicle Emission Inspection/Maintenance (I/M) Parameters : MO VES allows users to vary inputs depending on the I/M program in place for the area

. The inputs include:

 P rogram start year

.

 S tringency level

.

 F irst and last model years subject to the program

.

 W aiver rates

.

 Co mpliance rates

.

 P rogram type (test

- only, test

- and

- repair, etc.) and effectiveness

.

 F requency of inspection (annual, biennial)

.

 V ehicle type coverage

.

 T est type (idle, loaded, etc.)

The MOVES2010a default P ennsylvania assumptions were reviewed and modifications were made per actual program parameters.

Environmental Variables : Evaporative emissions are influenced significantly by the temperatures of the surrounding air. Hourly temperatures have been compiled for each county based on information from WeatherBank, Inc. to specify temperatures from nine airports within the state

. Ozone analysis temperature and humidity values we re determined using the procedures documented in EPA’s technical guidance. Minimum and maximum temperatures for each month were converted to hourly temperatures using EPA convertors supplied with the MOVES2010a model.

A summary of the MO VES related inputs used for the inventory and future year estimates are attached
with the submission.Appendix C

- 1 12



## SPEED/EMISSION ESTIMATION PROCEDURE

The previous sections have summarized the input data used for computing speeds and emission s for Pennsylvania. This section explains how PPSUITE and MO VES use s that input data to produce emission estimates. Exhibit 6 summarizes PPSUITE’s analysis procedure used for each of the RMS highway segments in the state.

Producing an emissions inventory with PPSUITE requir es a process of disaggregation and aggregation. Data is available and used on a very small scale

-- individual 1⁄2 mile roadway segments 24 hours of the day. This data needs to be processed individually to determine the distribution of vehicle hours of tra vel (VHT) by speed and then aggregated by vehicle class to determine input VMT to the MOVES emission
model.



## Volume/VMT Development

Before speeds can be calculated and MO VES run, volumes acquired from RMS must be adjusted and disaggregated. Such adjustm ents include factoring to future years, seasonal adjustments, and disaggregating daily volumes to each hour of the day and to each of the thirteen MO VES source types.

Determine Future Year Volumes : The RMS database contains up

- to

- date current year volumes

. However, to conduct a future year analysis, these volumes must be factored to the year being analyzed. Growth factors have been prepared for each county and functional class grouping. These growth factors are applied to the base year RMS volumes to ob tain future year estimates that can be utilized by

PPSUITE.

Example:

A typical freeway link in the RMS database is I

- 80 segment 2500 in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania . This link has an urban/rural code=1 which indicates the link is in a rural area, and a functional class=1 indicating a rural freeway.

The average annual daily traffic (AADT) from the RMS database for this link in 200 8 is 12,077 vehicles/day.

Growth factors have been developed to factor the 200 8 volume to future years. For example, to
factor the 200 8 volume to the year 20 14 , a growth factor of 1.282 would yield:

20 14 volume = 12,077 vehicles/day x 1.282 = 15,483 vehicles/dayAppendix C

- 1 13 

### Exhibit 6 : PPSUITE Speed / Emission Estimation Procedure

Data From PPSUITE Input Files PPSUITE Analysis Process Data from Roadway Source (RMS)

The Following is Performed For Each RMS Roadway Segment

Percent Pattern Distributions Expand to 24 hourly volumes RMS AWDT Adjusted Volumes

Apply VMT Adjustments Adjust Volumes for Peak Spreading (V/C thresholds for spreading)

Vehicle Type Patterns Disaggregate to Vehicle Type RMS Truck Percentages

T ransit D ata
School Bus Data

Calculate Link & Signal Capacities Roadway Attributes (Lanes, FC code, UR code) Speed/Capacity Lookup Table
Calculate Link Calculate Midblock Speed Approach Delay

Apply Post Speed VMT Adjustments

Prepare MOVES CDM Files

VHT by Annual RoadType SourceType Hourly Ramp Speed Bin V MT Fractions Population Fractions Fractions

Per VMT
<Optional>

Off

- line File Preparation

Vehicle Age

Distribution Run MOVES Importer to convert county input data Hourly into MYSQL data format Temps/Humidity

I/M

Parameters

Fuel Run MOVES

ParametersAppendix C

- 1 14

Seasonal Adjustmen ts : PPSUITE takes the input daily volumes from RMS ( which represent s annual average daily traffic ( AADT ) ) and seasonally adjusts the volumes to an average weekday in July. This adjustment utilizes factors developed for each functional class and urban/rura l code. VMT can then be calculated for each link using the adjusted weekday volumes.

Example:

Again, assume the rural freeway link: I

- 80 segment 2500 in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania. The AADT for this link in 2008 is 12,077 vehicles/day.

Seasonal factors have been developed for urban/rural code and functional class combinations. For an urban/rural code=1 and a functional class=1, the factor to convert from AADT to an average weekday in July is = 1.15

.

Average Weekday July Volume = 12,077 x 1.15 = 13,889 vehicles/day

.

Total VMT (daily) for this link is calculated as volume x distance. The distance of this link as
obtained from RMS is 0.2 9 6 miles.

2008 VMT = 13,889 vehicles/day x 0.296 miles = 4,111 vehicle

- miles / day

.

Disaggregation to 24 Hours : After seasonally adjusting the link volume, the volume is split to each hour of the day. This allows for more accurate speed calculations (effects of congested hours) and allows PPSUITE to prepare the hourly VMT and speeds for input to the MOVES mo del.

Example:

To support speed calculations and emission estimates by time of day, the July weekday volume is disaggregated to 24 hourly volumes. Temporal patterns were previously developed from

P enn DOT count data and input to PPSUITE. For the I

- 80 ru ral freeway link with morning peak volumes similar to evening peak hours (neutral), the following temporal pattern is applied:

Using the I

- 80 segment, typical hourly volumes which result include:

8

- 9 a.m. 6.0% x (4,111 veh icle miles/ 0.296mi.) = 833 vehicles/hour (vph)

12

- 1 p.m. 5.0% x (4,111 vehicle .miles/ 0.296mi.) = 694 vph
5

- 6 p.m. 6.3% x (4,111 vehicle miles/ 0.296mi.) = 875 vphAppendix C

- 1 15

After dividing the daily volumes to each hour of the day, PPSUITE identifies hours that are unreasonably congested. For those hours, PPSUITE then spreads a portion of the volume to other hours within the same peak period, thereby approximating the “peak spreading” that normally occurs in such over

- capacity
conditions.

Disaggr egation to Vehicle Type : EPA requires VMT estimates to be prepared by source type, reflecting specific local characteristics. As a result, for Pennsylvania’s emission inventory runs, the hourly volumes are disaggregated to the thirteen MOVES source types based on count data assembled by P enn DOT in
combination with MOVES defaults.

Example:

Disaggregation of the total I

- 80 VMT to the various source types would include the following:

Total Volume 8

- 9 am = 833 vph

Source Type Volume 8

- 9 am: Motorcycle 11 0.5% 4 vph Passenger Car 21 54.7% 456 vph Passenger Truck 31 27.9% 232 vph Light Commercial Truck 32 9.3% 78 vph Intercity Bus 41 0.1% 1 vph

Transit Bus 42 0.1% 1 vph
School bus 43 0.1% 1 vph

Refuse Truck 51 0.0% 0 vph Single Unit Short

- haul Truck 52 2.2% 19 vph Single Unit Long

- haul Truck 53 0.3% 2 vph

Motor Home 54 0.1% 1 vph
Combination Short

- haul Truck 61 1.9% 16 vph
Combination Lon g

- haul Truck 62 2.6% 22 vph



## Speed/Delay Determination

EPA recognizes that the estimation of vehicle speeds is a difficult and complex process. Because emissions are so sensitive to speeds, it rec ommends special attention be given to developing reasonable and consistent speed estimates; it also recommends that VMT be disaggregated into subsets that have roughly equal speed, with separate emission factors for each subset. At a minimum, speeds shoul d be estimated separately by road type.

The computational framework used for this analysis meets and exceeds that recommendation. Speeds are individually calculated for each roadway segment and hour and include the delays encountered at signals.

Rathe r than accumulating the roadway segments into a particular road type and calculating an average speed, each individual link hourly speed is represented in the MOVES vehicle hours of travel (VHT) by speed bin file. This MOVES input file allows the specific at i on of a distribution of hourly speeds.

For example, if 5% of a county’s arterial V H T operate s at 5 mph during the AM peak hour and the remaining 95% operate s at 65 mph, this can be represented in the MOVES speed input file. For the
model runs, distr ibutions of speeds are input to MOVES by road type and source type by each hour of the day; VMT and VHT is accumulated by the same groupings for the application of the emission factors to produce resulting emission totals.Appendix C

- 1 16

To calculate speeds, PPSUITE firs t obtains initial capacities (how much volume the roadway can serve before heavy congestion) and free

- flow speeds (speeds assuming no congestion) from the speed/capacity lookup data. As described in previous sections, this data contains default roadway in formation indexed by the urban/rural code and functional class. For areas with known characteristics, values can be directly coded to the RMS database and the speed/capacity data can be overridden. However, for most areas
where known information is not a vailable, the speed/capacity lookups provide valuable default information regarding speeds, capacities, signal characteristics, and other capacity adjustment information used for calculating congested delays and speeds. An effort has been made to enhance the RMS data with traffic signal locations using other GIS signal data available from PennDOT’s Bureau of Highway Safety and Traffic Engineering.

Example:

The speed/capacity lookup table is used to obtain important data used for link speed calculations.

For the I

- 80 link with an urban/rural code = 1 (rural) and a functional class = 1 (freeway), the lookup table provides information including the following:

freeflow speed = 65 mph capacity = 1800 vph per lane number of signals = 0 (per RMS linkage t o GIS traffic signal locations)

This information is used along with the physical characteristics of the roadway to calculate the delay (including congestion) to travel this link during each hour of the day:

For example: The I

- 80 link is calculated to ha ve a travel time, including delay of 17.76 seconds
for the 8

- 9am hour

.

Total travel time, in vehicle hours, for the 8

- 9am hour is calculated as:

VHT (8

- 9am) = 17.76 seconds x 833vph / 3600 sec/hr = 4.12 vehicle hours

.

The result of this process is an estimated average travel time for each hour of the day for each highway segment. The average time can be multiplied by the volume to produce vehicle hours of travel (VHT).



## HPMS and VMT Adjustments

Volumes must also be adjusted to account for differen ces with the HPMS VMT totals, as described previously. VMT adjustment factors are provided as input to PPSUITE, and are applied to each of the roadway segment volumes. These factors were developed from the latest HPMS download (conducted triennially) ; ho wever, they are also applied to any future year runs. The VMT added or subtracted to the RMS database assumes the speeds calculated using the original volumes for each roadway segment for each hour of the day.Appendix C

- 1 17 Example:

Using the Luzerne County I

- 80 rural freeway link example, the daily assigned volume is adjusted to account for reconciliation with the HPMS VMT. RMS VMT (in AADT) for Luzerne County rural freeways totals 962,559 vehicle miles in 2008. HPMS VMT (in AADT) as supplied by

P enn DOT and rep orted to FHWA totals to 990,088 vehicle miles for the rural freeways. A factor is developed by dividing the HPMS VMT by the RMS VMT:

HPMS adjustment factor for Luzerne County rural freeways = 990,088 / 962,559 = 1.029

.

This factor is held constant in a ll future years. As an example, this adjustment is made to the

I

- 80 freeway link VMT for the 8

- 9am hour after speed calculations are made, and produces the final July weekday VMT for this hour used for Ozone runs.

I

- 80 Link VMT (8

- 9am) = 833vph x 0.2 96 miles x 1.029 = 254 vehicle miles

.



## MO VES Emissions Run

After computing speeds and aggregating VMT and VHT, PPSUITE prepares traffic

- related inputs needed
to run EPA’s MOVES software, which is used to estimate emission factors in grams of polluta nt per vehicle mile and to produce total emissions based on input VMT to the model. The process uses MOVES2010a, the officially released emissions model that was obtained directly from EPA.

The MOVES inputs prepared by PPSUITE include the following:

 V ehicle Type VMT

.

 Vehicle Population

.

 VMT fractions

.

 Average speed distributions

.

 Road Type Distribution

.

 Ramp Fractions

.

These files are text formatted files with a *.csv extension. The files are provided as input s within the MOVES county data importer

. In addition the remaining MOVES input data including temperatures, I/M programs, fuel and vehicle ages are prepared manually outside of the PPSUITE process.

The MOVES county importer is run in batch mode. This program converts all data files into the MYSQL formats used by the MOVES model. At that point a MOVES run specification file (*.mrs) is created which specifie s options and key data locations for the run. MOVES is then executed in batch mode

.

MOVES can be executed using either the inventory or rate

- based approaches. For this highway emissions inventory, MOVES is applied using the inventory

- based approach. Under this method, actual VMT and population are provided as input s to the model ; MOVES is responsible for producing the total

emissions for the region. Under the rate

- based approach, MOVES would produce emission factors , after
which PPSUITE would apply the emission factors to the link data and calculate total regional emissions.Appendix C

- 1 18



## RESOURCES

MO VES model

Modeling Page within EPA’s Off ice of Mobile Sources Website (http://www.epa.gov/omswww/models.htm) contains a downloadable model, MO VES users guide and
other information.

Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator, User Guide for MOVES2010a, EPA

- 420

- B

- 10

- 036, August 2010.

Technical Guidance on the Use of MOVES2010 for Emission Inventory Preparation in State Implementation Plans and Transportation Conformity , US EPA Office of Air and Radiation, and Office of Transportation and Air Quality, EPA

- 420

- B

- 10

- 023, April 2010.

Policy Guidance on the Use of MOVES2010 for SIP Development, Transportation Conformity

, and Other Purposes , US EPA Office of Air and Radiation, EPA

- 420

- B

- 09

- 046, December 2009.

Traffic Engineering

Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, presents current knowledge and techniques for analyzing the transportation system.

Traffic Data Collection and Factor Development Report, 200 8 Data, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Bureau of Planning and Research.Appendix C

- 1 19



## Highway Vehicle Inventory Glossary

AADT: Average Annual Daily Traffic, average of ALL days.

AWDT: Average Weekday Daily Traffic

.

Basic emission rates: MOBILE emission rates based on the applicable Federal emission standards and the emission control technologies characterizing the fleet in var ious model years.

Emission rate or factor: E xpresses the amount of pollution emitted per unit of activity. For highway vehicles, usually in grams of pollutant emitted per mile driven.

FC: Functional code, applied in data management to road segments to identify their type (freeway, local, etc.)

.

Fuel volatility: The ability of fuel components to evaporate, thus entering the atmosphere as pollution. Fuel volatility is usually measured as Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) in pounds per square inch. The lowe r the RVP, the less volatile the fuel.

Growth factor: Factor used to convert volumes to future years

.

HPMS: Highway Performance Monitoring System, PENNDOT’s official source of highway information

and a subset of RMS.

I/M: Vehicle emissions inspection/maintenance programs ensure that vehicle emission controls are in good working order throughout the life of the vehicle. The programs require vehicles to be tested for emissions. Most vehicles that do not pass must be repaired.

MOBILE: The m odel EPA has developed and which Pennsylvania uses to estimate emissions from highway vehicles.

MOVES: The latest model EPA has developed with which Pennsylvania uses to estimate emissions from highway vehicles.

Pattern data: Extrapolations of traffic patterns (such as how traffic volume on road segment types varies by time of day, or what kinds of vehicles tend to use a road segment type) from segments with observed data to similar segments.

PPSUITE: Post

- Processor for Air Quality, a set of programs that estimate speeds and processes MOBILE
emission rates.

RMS: Roadway Management System, a database maintained by PENNDOT from traffic counts and field
visits

.

Segment ( also referred to as link) : D i vision of roadway in the PENNDOT Roadway Management System. Usually represents 0.5 mile segments of roadway.

UR: Urban/rural code, applied in data management to identify whether a road segment is urban, small
urban or rural.Appendix C

- 1 20

VHT: V ehicle hours trav eled

.

VMT: V ehicle miles traveled. In modeling terms, it is the simulated traffic volumes times link length.

Vehicle Type : One of eight types, distinguished primarily by fuel type and/or weight, used in MOBILE modeling.

Source Type : One of thirtee n types, distinguished primarily by weight, used in MOVES modeling.

Road Type: Functional code, applied in data management to road segments to identify their type (rural/urban highways, rural/urban arterials, etc.)

County Data Manager: U ser interface developed to simplify importing specific local data for a single
county or a user

- defined custom domain without requiring direct interaction with the underlying MySQL
database.

# APPENDIX C

- 2

Scranton/Wilkes

- Barre Area Emission Summary Tables (Provided in Electronic Form Only)

Bureau of Air Quality Department of Environmental Protection

### [ This page intentionally left blank

. ]

## APPENDIX C-2 Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Area Emission Summary Tables

A ppendix C-2-1 2004 July Weekday Emissions

Emission Summary Emission Summary by Road Type Emission Summary by Source Type

Emission Summary by Process

A ppendix C-2-2 2009 July Weekday Emissions

Emission Summary Emission Summary by Road Type Emission Summary by Source Type

Emission Summary by Process

A ppendix C-2- 3 2018 July Weekday Emissions

Emission Summary Emission Summary by Road Type Emission Summary by Source Type

Emission Summary by Process

# APPENDIX C

- 3

Scranton/Wilkes

- Barre Area MOVES Sample Input Files

Bureau of Air Quality Department of Environmental Protection

### [ This page intentionally left blank

. ]

# APPENDIX C

- 3

Scranton/Wilkes

- Barre Area MOVES Sample Input FilesAppendix C

- 3 1 

## July Weekday MOVES Run Specification File Settings

Sample xml file format

<moves>

< importer mode="county" >

<filters> <geographicselections>

(Specify County to be run) <geographicselection type="COUNTY" key="42069" description="PENNSYLVANIA

- Lackawanna County"/> </geographicselections> <timespan>

<year key="2018"/>
<month id="07"/> <day id="2"/> <day id="5"/> <beginhour id="1"/> <endhour id="24"/>
<aggregateBy key="Hour "/> </timespan>

<onroadvehicleselections>

<onroadvehicleselection fueltypeid="2" fueltypedesc="Diesel Fuel" sourcetypeid="62" sourcetypename="Combination Long

- haul Truck"/> <onroadvehicleselection fueltypeid= "2" fueltypedesc="Diesel Fuel" sourcetypeid="61" sourcetypename="Combination Short

- haul Truck"/> <onroadvehicleselection fueltypeid="2" fueltypedesc="Diesel Fuel" sourcetypeid="41" sourcetypename="Intercity Bus"/>

<onroadveh icleselection fueltypeid="2" fueltypedesc="Diesel Fuel" sourcetypeid="32" sourcetypename="Light Commercial Truck"/> <onroadvehicleselection fueltypeid="2" fueltypedesc="Diesel Fuel" sourcetypeid="54" sourcetypename="Motor Home"/> <onroadvehicleselection fueltypeid="2" fueltypedesc="Diesel Fuel" sourcetypeid="11" sourcetypename="Motorcycle"/> <onroadvehicleselection fueltypeid="2" fueltypedesc="Diesel Fuel" sourcetypeid="21" sourcetypename="Passenger Car"/> <onroadvehicleselection fueltypeid="2" fueltypedesc="Diesel Fuel" sourcetypeid="31" sourcetypename="Passenger Truck"/> <onroadvehicleselection fueltypeid="2" fueltypedesc="Diesel Fuel" sourcetypeid="51" sourcetypename="Refuse T ruck"/> <onroadvehicleselection fueltypeid="2" fueltypedesc="Diesel Fuel" sourcetypeid="43" sourcetypename="School Bus"/> <onroadvehicleselection fueltypeid="2" fueltypedesc="Diesel Fuel" sourcetypeid="53" sourcetypename="Si ngle Unit Long

- haul Truck"/> <onroadvehicleselection fueltypeid="2" fueltypedesc="Diesel Fuel" sourcetypeid="52" sourcetypename="Single Unit Short

- haul Truck"/> <onroadvehicleselection fueltypeid="2" fueltypedesc ="Diesel Fuel" sourcetypeid="42" sourcetypename="Transit Bus"/> <onroadvehicleselection fueltypeid="1" fueltypedesc="Gasoline" sourcetypeid="62" sourcetypename="Combination Long

- haul Truck"/> <onroadvehicleselection fueltype id="1" fueltypedesc="Gasoline" sourcetypeid="61" sourcetypename="Combination Short

- haul Truck"/> <onroadvehicleselection fueltypeid="1" fueltypedesc="Gasoline" sourcetypeid="41" sourcetypename="Intercity Bus"/>

<onroadvehicl eselection fueltypeid="1" fueltypedesc="Gasoline" sourcetypeid="32" sourcetypename="Light Commercial Truck"/> <onroadvehicleselection fueltypeid="1" fueltypedesc="Gasoline" sourcetypeid="54" sourcetypename="Motor Home"/>

<on roadvehicleselection fueltypeid="1" fueltypedesc="Gasoline" sourcetypeid="11" sourcetypename="Motorcycle"/> <onroadvehicleselection fueltypeid="1" fueltypedesc="Gasoline" sourcetypeid="21" sourcetypename="Passenger Car"/>

<o nroadvehicleselection fueltypeid="1" fueltypedesc="Gasoline" sourcetypeid="31" sourcetypename="Passenger Truck"/> <onroadvehicleselection fueltypeid="1" fueltypedesc="Gasoline" sourcetypeid="51" sourcetypename="Refuse Truck"/> <onroadvehicleselection fueltypeid="1" fueltypedesc="Gasoline" sourcetypeid="43" sourcetypename="School Bus"/> <onroadvehicleselection fueltypeid="1" fueltypedesc="Gasoline" sourcetypeid="53" sourcetypename="Single Unit Long

- haul Truck"/ > <onroadvehicleselection fueltypeid="1" fueltypedesc="Gasoline" sourcetypeid="52" sourcetypename="Single Unit Short

- haul Truck"/> <onroadvehicleselection fueltypeid="1" fueltypedesc="Gasoline" sourcetypeid="42" sourcetypena me="Transit Bus"/>
</onroadvehicleselections>

<offroadvehicleselections> </offroadvehicleselections>

<offroadvehiclesccs> </offroadvehiclesccs>
<roadtypes>

<roadtype roadtypeid="1" roadtypenam e="Off

- Network"/> <roadtype roadtypeid="2" roadtypename="Rural Restricted Access"/> <roadtype roadtypeid="3" roadtypename="Rural Unrestricted Access"/> <roadtype roadtypeid="4" roadtypename="Urban Restricted Access"/> <roadtype roadtypeid="5" roadtypename="Urban Unrestricted Access"/> </roadtypes>

</filters> <databaseselection servername="localhost" databasename="42069_2018_07_05_JulyWkd_mi"/> <agedistribution>Appendix C

- 3 2 <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<parts> <sourceTypeAgeDistribution>

(Specify Age Distribution data file name for county being run)

<filename>C: \ PAMOVES \ MOVESInputs \ AgeDistribution \ 10Reg_RepCty \ 2018 \ 42027_2018_SourceTypeAgeDistribution.csv</filename> </sourceTypeAgeDistribution> </parts> </agedistribution>

<avgspeeddistribution>

<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<parts> <avgSpeedDistribution>

(Specify Average Speed Distribution data file name for county being run

– As prepared by PPSUITE post processor)

<filename>C: \ PAMOVES \ Out \ PA_2018_JulyWkd_Inv_SIPGrw \ \ 42069_2018_07_05_JulyWkd \ CDM \ avgSpeedDistribution. csv</filename> </avgSpeedDistribution> </parts> </avgspeeddistribution>

<imcoverage>

<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<parts> <imcoverage>

(Specify I/M Parameters file name for county being run)

<filename>C: \ PAMOVES \ MOVESInputs \ IM \ 42000_2018_IMCoverage.csv</filename> </imcoverage> </parts> </imcoverage>

<fuel> <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<parts> <FuelSupply> (Specify Fuel Supply data file name for county being run)

<filename>C: \ PAMOVES \ MOVESInputs \ Fuel \ MOVES2010a \ 42000_2012_FuelSupply.csv</filename> </FuelSupply>

<FuelFormulation> (Specify Fuel Fo rmulation data file name for county being run)

<filename>C: \ PAMOVES \ MOVESInputs \ Fuel \ 42000_FuelFormulation_MOVES2010a.csv</filename> </FuelFormulation> </parts>
</fuel>

< zonemonthhour>

<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<parts>

<zoneMonthHour>

(Specify Meteorology data file name for county being run)

<filename>C: \ PAMOVES \ MOVESInputs \ Meteorology \ 2008 \ 42069_2008_met.csv</filename>
</zoneMonthHour> </parts>
</zonemonthhour>

<roadtypedistribution>

<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<parts> <roadTypeDistribution>

(Specify Road Type Distribution data file name for county being run

– As prepared by PPSUITE post process or)

<filename>C: \ PAMOVES \ Out \ PA_2018_JulyWkd_Inv_SIPGrw \ \ 42069_2018_07_05_JulyWkd \ CDM \ roadTypeDistribution.csv</filename> </roadTypeDistribution> </parts> </roadtypedistribution>

<sourcetypepopulation>

<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<parts> <sourceTypeYear>

(Specify Vehicle Population dat a file name for county being run)Appendix C

- 3 3 <filename>C: \ PAMOVES \ Out \ PA_2018_JulyWkd_Inv_SIPGrw \ \ 42069_2018_07_05_JulyWkd \ CDM \ SourceTypePopulation.csv</filename> </sourceTypeYear> </parts> </sourcetypepopulation>

<rampfraction>

<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<parts> <roadType>

(Specify Ramp Fractions data file name for county being run

– As prepared by PPSUITE post processor)

<filename>C: \ PAMOVES \ MOVESInputs \ RampFraction \ rampfraction_defaults.csv</filename> </roadType> </parts> </rampfraction>

<vehicletypevmt>

<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<parts> (Specify Annual VMT and VMT Fractions file names for county being run

– As prepared by PPSUITE post processor)

<hpmsVTypeYear>

<filename>C: \ PAMOVES \ Out \ PA_2018_JulyWkd_Inv_SIPGrw \ \ 42069_2018_07_05_JulyWkd \ CDM \ hpmsVTypeYear.csv </filename> </hpmsVTypeYear>

<monthvmtfraction>

<filename>C: \ PAMOVES \ MOVESInputs \ MonthDayHourFractions \ 2018_MonthFraction \ 42069_2018_MonthVMTFraction.cs v</filename>
</monthvmtfraction> <dayvmtfraction>

<filename>C: \ PAMOVES \ MOVESInputs \ MonthDayHourFractions \ 2018_DayFraction \ 42069_2018_dayvmtfraction.csv< /filename> </dayvmtfraction>

<hourvmtfraction>

<filename>C: \ PAMOVES \ Out \ PA_2018_JulyWkd_Inv_SIPGrw \ \ 42069_2018_07_05_JulyWkd \ CDM \ hourvmtfraction.csv</fi lename> </hourvmtfraction> </parts> </vehicletypevmt>

</importer>
</moves>



### Sample mrs file format

<runspec> <description><![CDATA[MOVES2010 RunSpec Created by CENTRAL4 Scenario: LACK 2018 JULWKD JulyWkd Emission Inventory with user's data]]></description>
<modelscale value="INV"/> <modeldomain value="SINGLE"/> <geographicselections> (Specify County to be run) <geographicselection type="COUNTY" key="42069" description="PENNSYLVANIA

- Lackawanna County"/> </geographicselections> <timespan> <year key="2018"/>
<month id="07"/> <day id="5"/>

<beginhour id="1"/> <endhour id="24"/>
<aggregateBy key= "Hour"/> </timespan>

<onroadvehicleselections>

<onroadvehicleselection fueltypeid="3" fueltypedesc="Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)" sourcetypeid="11" sourcetypename="Motorcyc le"/> <onroadvehicleselection fueltypeid="3" fueltypedesc ="Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)" sourcetypeid="21" sourcetypename="Passenger Car"/> <onroadvehicleselection fueltypeid="3" fueltypedesc="Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)" sourcetypeid="31" sourcetypename="Passenge r Truck"/> <onroadvehicleselection fueltypeid="3 " fueltypedesc="Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)" sourcetypeid="32" sourcetypename="Light Commercial Truck"/> <onroadvehicleselection fueltypeid="2" fueltypedesc="Diesel Fuel" sourcetypeid="11" sourcetypename="Motorcycle"/> <onroadvehicleselection fueltypeid=" 2" fueltypedesc="Diesel Fuel" sourcetypeid="21" sourcetypename="Passenger Car"/> <onroadvehicleselection fueltypeid="2" fueltypedesc="Diesel Fuel" sourcetypeid="31" sourcetypename="Passenger Truck"/>Appendix C

- 3 4 <onroadvehicleselection fueltypeid="2" fueltypedesc="Die sel Fuel" sourcetypeid="32" sourcetypename="Light Commercial Truck"/> <onroadvehicleselection fueltypeid="1" fueltypedesc="Gasoline" sourcetypeid="11" sourcetypename="Motorcycle"/> <onroadvehicleselection fueltypeid="1" fueltypedesc="Gasoline" sourcetypeid ="21" sourcetypename="Passenger Car"/> <onroadvehicleselection fueltypeid="1" fueltypedesc="Gasoline" sourcetypeid="31" sourcetypename="Passenger Truck"/> <onroadvehicleselection fueltypeid="1" fueltypedesc="Gasoline" sourcetypeid="32" sourcetypename="Ligh t Commercial Truck"/>

<onroadvehicleselection fueltypeid="3" fueltypedesc="Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)" sourcetypeid="41" sourcetypename="Intercit y Bus"/> <onroadvehicleselection fueltypeid="3" fueltypedesc="Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)" sourcetypeid="42 " sourcetypename="Transit Bus"/> <onroadvehicleselection fueltypeid="3" fueltypedesc="Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)" sourcetypeid="43" sourcetypename="School B us"/> <onroadvehicleselection fueltypeid="2" fueltypedesc="Diesel Fuel" sourcetypeid="41" sourcety pename="Intercity Bus"/> <onroadvehicleselection fueltypeid="2" fueltypedesc="Diesel Fuel" sourcetypeid="42" sourcetypename="Transit Bus"/> <onroadvehicleselection fueltypeid="2" fueltypedesc="Diesel Fuel" sourcetypeid="43" sourcetypename="School Bus"/>

<o nroadvehicleselection fueltypeid="1" fueltypedesc="Gasoline" sourcetypeid="41" sourcetypename="Intercity Bus"/> <onroadvehicleselection fueltypeid="1" fueltypedesc="Gasoline" sourcetypeid="42" sourcetypename="Transit Bus"/> <onroadvehicleselection fueltype id="1" fueltypedesc="Gasoline" sourcetypeid="43" sourcetypename="School Bus"/>

<onroadvehicleselection fueltypeid="3" fueltypedesc="Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)" sourcetypeid="51" sourcetypename="Refuse T ruck"/> <onroadvehicleselection fueltypeid="3" fuel typedesc="Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)" sourcetypeid="52" sourcetypename="Single Unit Short

- haul Truck"/> <onroadvehicleselection fueltypeid="3" fueltypedesc="Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)" sourcetypeid="53" sourcetypename="Single U nit Long

- haul Truck"/>

< onroadvehicleselection fueltypeid="3" fueltypedesc="Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)" sourcetypeid="54" sourcetypename="Motor Hom e"/> <onroadvehicleselection fueltypeid="3" fueltypedesc="Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)" sourcetypeid="61" sourcetypename="Combinat i on Short

- haul Truck"/> <onroadvehicleselection fueltypeid="3" fueltypedesc="Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)" sourcetypeid="62" sourcetypename="Combinat ion Long

- haul Truck"/> <onroadvehicleselection fueltypeid="2" fueltypedesc="Diesel Fuel" sourcetypeid="51" s ourcetypename="Refuse Truck"/> <onroadvehicleselection fueltypeid="2" fueltypedesc="Diesel Fuel" sourcetypeid="52" sourcetypename="Single Unit Short

- haul Truck"/> <onroadvehicleselection fueltypeid="2" fueltypedesc="Diesel Fuel" sourcetypeid="53" sourcetyp ename="Single Unit Long

- haul Truck"/> <onroadvehicleselection fueltypeid="2" fueltypedesc="Diesel Fuel" sourcetypeid="54" sourcetypename="Motor Home"/> <onroadvehicleselection fueltypeid="2" fueltypedesc="Diesel Fuel" sourcetypeid="61" sourcetypename="Comb ination Short

- haul Truck"/> <onroadvehicleselection fueltypeid="2" fueltypedesc="Diesel Fuel" sourcetypeid="62" sourcetypename="Combination Long

- haul Truck"/> <onroadvehicleselection fueltypeid="1" fueltypedesc="Gasoline" sourcetypeid="51" sourcetypename=" Refuse Truck"/> <onroadvehicleselection fueltypeid="1" fueltypedesc="Gasoline" sourcetypeid="52" sourcetypename="Single Unit Short

- haul Truck"/> <onroadvehicleselection fueltypeid="1" fueltypedesc="Gasoline" sourcetypeid="53" sourcetypename="Single Unit Lo ng

- haul Truck"/> <onroadvehicleselection fueltypeid="1" fueltypedesc="Gasoline" sourcetypeid="54" sourcetypename="Motor Home"/> <onroadvehicleselection fueltypeid="1" fueltypedesc="Gasoline" sourcetypeid="61" sourcetypename="Combination Short

- haul Truck"/> <onroadvehicleselection fueltypeid="1" fueltypedesc="Gasoline" sourcetypeid="62" sourcetypename="Combination Long

- haul Truck"/>
</onroadvehicleselections>

<offroadvehicleselections> </offroadvehicleselections>

<offroadvehiclesccs> </offroadvehiclesccs>
<roadtypes> <roadtype roadtypeid="1" roadtypename="Off

- Network"/> <roadtype roadtypeid="2" roadtypename="Rural Restricted Access"/> <roadtype roadtypeid="3" roadtypename="Rural Unrestricted Access"/ > <roadtype roadtypeid="4" roadtypename="Urban Restricted Access"/> <roadtype roadtypeid="5" roadtypename="Urban Unrestricted Access"/> </roadtypes> <pollutantprocessassociations> <pollutantprocessassociation pollutantkey="3" pollutantname="Oxides of Nitrogen" processkey="1" processname="Running Exhaust"/> <pollutantprocessassociation pollutantkey="3" pollutantname="Oxides of Nitrogen" processkey="2" processname="Start Exhaust"/> <pollutantprocessassociation pollutantkey="3" po llutantname="Oxides of Nitrogen" processkey="15" processname="Crankcase Running Exhaust"/> <pollutantprocessassociation pollutantkey="3" pollutantname="Oxides of Nitrogen" processkey="16" processname="Crankcase Start Exhaust"/> <pollutantprocessassociation pollutantkey="3" pollutantname="Oxides of Nitrogen" processkey="17" processname="Crankcase Extended Idle Exhaust"/> <pollutantprocessassociation pollutantkey="3" pollutantname="Oxides of Nitrogen" processkey="90" processname="Extended Idle E xhaust"/>
<pol lutantprocessassociation pollutantkey="79" pollutantname="Non

- Methane Hydrocarbons" processkey="1" processname="Running Exhaust"/> <pollutantprocessassociation pollutantkey="79" pollutantname="Non

- Methane Hydrocarbons" processkey="2" processname="Start Exh aust"/> <pollutantprocessassociation pollutantkey="79" pollutantname="Non

- Methane Hydrocarbons" processkey="11" processname="Evap Permeation"/> <pollutantprocessassociation pollutantkey="79" pollutantname="Non

- Methane Hydrocarbons" processkey="12" processn ame="Evap Fuel Vapor Venting"/> <pollutantprocessassociation pollutantkey="79" pollutantname="Non

- Methane Hydrocarbons" processkey="13" processname="Evap Fuel Leaks"/> <pollutantprocessassociation pollutantkey="79" pollutantname="Non

- Methane Hydrocarbons" processkey="15" processname="Crankcase Running Exhaust"/> <pollutantprocessassociation pollutantkey="79" pollutantname="Non

- Methane Hydrocarbons" processkey="16" processname="Crankcase Start Exhaust"/> <pollutantprocessassociation pollutantkey="79" polluta ntname="Non

- Methane Hydrocarbons" processkey="17" processname="Crankcase Extended Idle Exhaust"/> <pollutantprocessassociation pollutantkey="79" pollutantname="Non

- Methane Hydrocarbons" processkey="90" processname="Extended Idle Exhaust"/>
<pollutantproces sassociation pollutantkey="1" pollutantname="Total Gaseous Hydrocarbons" processkey="1" processname="Running Exhaust"/> <pollutantprocessassociation pollutantkey="1" pollutantname="Total Gaseous Hydrocarbons" processkey="2" processname="Start Ex haust"/>

<p ollutantprocessassociation pollutantkey="1" pollutantname="Total Gaseous Hydrocarbons" processkey="11" processname="Evap Perm eation"/> <pollutantprocessassociation pollutantkey="1" pollutantname="Total Gaseous Hydrocarbons" processkey="12" processname="Eva p Fuel Vapor Venting"/> <pollutantprocessassociation pollutantkey="1" pollutantname="Total Gaseous Hydrocarbons" processkey="13" processname="Evap Fu el Leaks"/> <pollutantprocessassociation pollutantkey="1" pollutantname="Total Gaseous Hydrocarbons" proces skey="15" processname="Crankcase Running Exhaust"/>Appendix C

- 3 5 <pollutantprocessassociation pollutantkey="1" pollutantname="Total Gaseous Hydrocarbons" processkey="16" processname="Crankca se Start Exhaust"/> <pollutantprocessassociation pollutantkey="1" pollutantname ="Total Gaseous Hydrocarbons" processkey="17" processname="Crankcase Extended Idle Exhaust"/> <pollutantprocessassociation pollutantkey="1" pollutantname="Total Gaseous Hydrocarbons" processkey="90" processname="Extende d Idle Exhaust"/>
<pollutantprocessas sociation pollutantkey="87" pollutantname="Volatile Organic Compounds" processkey="1" processname="Running Exhaust"/> <pollutantprocessassociation pollutantkey="87" pollutantname="Volatile Organic Compounds" processkey="2" processname="Start E xhaust"/>

<po llutantprocessassociation pollutantkey="87" pollutantname="Volatile Organic Compounds" processkey="11" processname="Evap Perm eation"/> <pollutantprocessassociation pollutantkey="87" pollutantname="Volatile Organic Compounds" processkey="12" processname=" Evap Fuel Vapor Venting"/> <pollutantprocessassociation pollutantkey="87" pollutantname="Volatile Organic Compounds" processkey="13" processname="Evap F uel Leaks"/> <pollutantprocessassociation pollutantkey="87" pollutantname="Volatile Organic Compounds" p rocesskey="15" processname="Crankcase Running Exhaust"/> <pollutantprocessassociation pollutantkey="87" pollutantname="Volatile Organic Compounds" processkey="16" processname="Crankc ase Start Exhaust"/> <pollutantprocessassociation pollutantkey="87" pollut antname="Volatile Organic Compounds" processkey="17" processname="Crankcase Extended Idle Exhaust"/> <pollutantprocessassociation pollutantkey="87" pollutantname="Volatile Organic Compounds" processkey="90" processname="Extend ed Idle Exhaust"/>

</pol lutantprocessassociations>

<databaseselections> <databaseselection servername="localhost" databasename="early_NLEV" description=""/> <databaseselection servername="localhost" databasename="calevii08" description=""/>
</databaseselections>

<i nputdatabase servername="" databasename="" description=""/> <uncertaintyparameters uncertaintymodeenabled="false" numberofrunspersimulation="0" numberofsimulations="0"/> <geographicoutputdetail description="COUNTY"/> <outputemissionsbreakdownsele ction> <modelyear selected="false"/> <fueltype selected="false"/> <emissionprocess selected="true"/>

<onroadoffroad selected="true"/> <roadtype selected="true"/> <sourceusetype selected="true"/>

<movesvehicletype selected="false"/>

<onr oadscc selected="false"/>

<offroadscc selected="false"/> <estimateuncertainty selected="false" numberOfIterations="2" keepSampledData="false" keepIterations="false"/>
<sector selected="false"/> <engtechid selected="fals e"/> <hpclass selected="false"/> </outputemissionsbreakdownselection> (Specify output database file name for county being run) <outputdatabase servername="localhost" databasename="42069_2018_07_05_JulyWkd_mo" description=""/ >> <outputtimestep value="Hour"/> <outputvmtdata value="true"/> <outputsho value="true"/> <outputsh value="true"/> <outputshp value="true"/> <outputshidling value="true"/> <outputstarts value="true"/> <outputpopulation va lue="true"/> (Specify input database file name for county being run) <scaleinputdatabase servername="localhost" databasename="42069_2018_07_05_JulyWkd_mi" description=""/> <pmsize value="0"/>
<outputfactors>

<timefactor s selected="true" units="Hours"/> <distancefactors selected="false" units="Miles"/> <massfactors selected="false" units="Grams" energyunits="Million BTU"/> </outputfactors>

<savedata> </savedata>

<donotexecute> </donotexecute> <generatordatabase shouldsave="false" servername="" databasename="" description=""/> <donotperformfinalaggregation selected="false"/> <lookuptableflags scenarioid="" truncateoutput="false" truncateactivity="false"/>

< internalcontrolstrategies> <internalcontrolstrategy classname="gov.epa.otaq.moves.master.implementation.ghg.internalcontrolstrategies.rateofprogress.Rat eOfProgressStrategy"><![CDATA[

useParameters No

]]></internalcontrolstrategy>
</internalcontrolstr ategies> </runspec>