Final - Section 5 - Page 1 of 49

SECTION 5 ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION

5.1 Purpose of Section

EPA requires states with moderate ozone nonattainment areas to prepare and adopt SIP revisions 

demonstrating attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard using photochemical grid modeling and 

weight-of-evidence (WOE) analyses. States with moderate nonattainment areas are required to 

attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by June 15, 2010. However, because the June 15, 2010 

deadline occurs in the middle of the ozone season, according to EPA modeling guidance, 

modeled attainment must be based on the ozone season preceding 2010. Therefore, the target 

year for attainment monitoring is calendar year 2009. 

The following attainment demonstration demonstrates that, as a result of reductions in ozone 

precursor emissions in Massachusetts and upwind of Massachusetts, EMA and WMA (Figure 

AD1) will attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by 2009. The attainment demonstration is based 

upon the regional ozone attainment planning process undertaken by the OTC and OTC states to 

develop a SIP-quality ozone modeling platform and to prepare candidate control strategies for 

ozone attainment demonstrations.

5.2 Ozone Conceptual Model 

5.2.1 Conceptual Description for Ozone Episodes in Massachusetts

The Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM), on behalf of the OTC, 

produced a comprehensive conceptual description of the meteorological processes underlying the 

formation of ozone episodes. The NESCAUM report (NESCAUM, 2006) was intended as a 

reference for SIP attainment demonstrations and is contained in Appendix A. State-specific 

information for Massachusetts is presented below. 

5.2.2 Geographical Considerations

Massachusetts, at about 42 degrees north latitude, lies closer to the mean position of the polar 

front than do states in the Ozone Transport Region1(OTR) to the south of Massachusetts. This 

gives Massachusetts (and areas to its north) more frequent cooling and cleansing cold frontal 

passages than do areas to its south, with the consequence being fewer and shorter ozone 

episodes, though not necessarily weaker.

Massachusetts, though it does contribute to pollutant levels in New Hampshire and Maine, is 

considered to be a downwind state, being a recipient of ozone and precursors from much of the 

northeast corridor including Baltimore, Washington D.C., Philadelphia, New Jersey, and New 

York City. Stagnation, which occasionally results in elevated ozone in southern states, is not 

much of a factor in Massachusetts’ episodes. Exceedances in Massachusetts are almost always 

 

1 The Northeast Ozone Transport Region (OTR) comprises Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maine, 

Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and 

northern Virginia. The OTC was created under the CAA to address ozone transport issues within the OTR. 
Final - Section 5 - Page 2 of 49

due to local emissions combined with elevated ozone and precursor transported from upwind 

areas.

Figure AD1: Eastern and Western Massachusetts Non-Attainment Areas

FRANKLIN

HAMPSHIRE

HAMPDEN

BE RKSHIRE

WORCESTER

MIDDLESEX

ESSEX

PLYM OUTH

BRISTOL

NORF OLK

NANTUCKET

DUKES

SU FFO LK

BAR NSTABL E

WMA Non-Attainment Area Counties EMA Non-Attainment Area Counties

Berkshire Barnstable Nantucket 

Bristol County Norfolk Franklin

Hamden Dukes Plymouth 

Hampshire Middlesex Worcester

Essex Suffolk
Final - Section 5 - Page 3 of 49

5.2.3 Transport

Global scale circulations, while not a direct cause of Massachusetts ozone episodes, govern the 

location and strength of synoptic scale features, such as high and low pressure systems and 

fronts, which are normally associated with ozone episodes. Global systems ultimately control 

the duration of weather patterns and how often they recur, thus determining the severity of an 

ozone season. When a summertime air mass spends lengthy residence time over the eastern U.S. 

and this pattern becomes recurrent, Massachusetts is likely to experience a severe ozone season. 

Mesoscale features can influence the spatial pattern of ozone development in Massachusetts. Sea 

breezes will often draw cleaner air onshore, thus lowering ozone concentrations, but they

sometimes have the opposite effect. If a plume of ozone lies offshore, such circulations can 

bring polluted air onto the land, causing a rapid rise in ozone readings. Lee troughs, induced by

mountain ranges, such as the Appalachians, align the southwesterly airflow with the mountains, 

resulting in more highly concentrated streams of pollution entering Massachusetts’s airways. 

Low-level nocturnal jets are relative newcomers in our understanding of ozone transport. This 

rapid transit mechanism can move pollution long distances from southwest to northeast to spread 

ozone episodes hundreds of miles overnight.

Smaller microscale circulations include the whorls and eddies that transfer heat and energy

vertically. This transfer mechanism often shuts down in the evening when the earth cools and 

temperature inversions form. Ozone trapped near the ground gets destroyed through chemical 

transformation and deposition. But ozone aloft remains relatively undepleted and mixes back to 

the surface the following morning when heating-induced eddies grow and erode the inversion. 

This mechanism is basic to the diurnal rise and fall of surface ozone values.

5.2.4 Primary Meteorological Regimes for Massachusetts 

Two primary synoptic meteorological patterns typically trigger severe ozone episodes in 

Massachusetts, and result in episodes having markedly different ozone signatures. The first 

synoptic type affects the immediate south coast and Cape Cod and is controlled by the Atlantic 

oceanic anticyclone (high pressure area), which extends westward well into interior eastern U.S. 

This results in westerly to west-northwesterly surface winds over Massachusetts, with pollution 

transport from the New York and New Jersey area eastward across Long Island Sound, bringing 

ozone and precursors to coastal Connecticut, Rhode Island and Massachusetts. The westerly 

flow also blocks the plume’s northward penetration, keeping the rest of the state’s air relatively 

clean. A good example of this episode type is shown in Figure AD2, with (on the left) a distinct 

ribbon of high ozone along the New England south coast with (on the right) the westerly surface 

winds that forced the plume seaward. Also, note the thin strip of moderate ozone along Maine’s 

coast and the southerly airflow just offshore. This strongly suggests an air trajectory from 

eastern Massachusetts to the Maine coast. 

The second synoptic type occurs when the Atlantic anticyclone has a more northeast-southwest 

orientation (as opposed to the west – east orientation in the previous example) with less 

extension into interior eastern U.S. This pattern generates a more south-southwesterly wind 

across Massachusetts, which carries pollutants from the New York City area northeastward into 
Final - Section 5 - Page 4 of 49

Figure AD2: July 7, 2002 Ozone and Isobar Maps

LEFT: EPA ozone mapping showing peak 8-hr values on June 7, 1999. Colors range from green 

(good air quality) to maroon (very unhealthy.) RIGHT: Surface isobars (sea-level pressure) and 

wind vectors at 1PM EST, June 7, 1999. (NOAA Air Resources Lab) 

Figure AD3: July 31, 2002 Ozone and Isobar Maps

LEFT: EPA ozone mapping showing peak 8-hr values on July 31, 1999. Colors range from 

green (good air quality) to red (unhealthy.) RIGHT: Surface isobars (sea-level pressure) and 

wind vectors at 1PM EST, July 31, 1999 (NOAA Air Resources Lab)
Final - Section 5 - Page 5 of 49

western and central Massachusetts. This flow keeps the main pollutant plume west of Cape Cod 

and the south coast, where the southerly breezes draw in cleaner marine air. In this case, the 

ozone gradient is reversed from the first episode type discussed above. Here, the south coast and 

Cape Cod and Islands have relatively low ozone, with elevated values across the interior of the 

state. A good example of this second flow pattern appears in Figure AD3, showing clean air

along the south coast extending inland with higher ozone over more western interior sections. 

The surface flow with marine air drawn inland along south coastal locales can be seen on the 

right side of Figure AD3.

These two meteorological regimes occurred many times during 2002 and resulted in elevated 

ozone levels in many portions of Massachusetts. This indicated that the 2002 ozone season was 

appropriate for ozone attainment demonstration modeling in Masssachusetts. The 2002 ozone 

season also experienced a significant number of ozone exceedance days in many other portions

of the eastern U. S. 

5.3 OTC Modeling Protocol 

5.3.1 Modeling Protocol (2002)

In 2002 the Ozone Transport Commission embarked on the task of developing a SIP modeling 

system for exercising photochemical grid models to assess the impact of candidate ozone control 

strategies in the OTR. EPA’s Community Multi-scale Air Quality Modeling System (CMAQ) 

was selected for attainment demonstrations in the OTC states. Air quality staff from the OTC 

states subsequently prepared a modeling protocol for attainment demonstrations in the OTR. The 

modeling protocol, entitled “Modeling Protocol for the OTC SIP Quality Modeling System For 

Assessment of the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard in the Ozone Transport 

Region”, was endorsed by OTC Commissioner at the November 12-13, 2003 Fall meeting. 

5.3.2 Modeling Protocol (2006)

The modeling protocol, now dated December 31, 2006, has been modified several times since 

then to incorporate CMAQ model modifications, boundary condition estimates and emission 

inventory improvements. The New York Department of Environmental Conservation (NY 

DEC), under the direction of the OTC Modeling Committee, agreed to be the lead agency for 

developing and using the SIP quality ozone modeling system as specified in the modeling 

protocol. The subject protocol, which describes the modeling procedures and databases to be 

used for SIP attainment demonstrations in the OTR, is contained in Appendix B.

5.4 Review of 2002 Ozone Episodes

5.4.1 Episode Selection Criteria

Ozone-based research has shown that model performance evaluations and the model response to

emission reductions need to consider relatively long time periods. In order to examine the 

response to ozone control strategies, EPA recommends that episode days should be 

meteorologically representative of typical high ozone exceedance days and so severe that any
Final - Section 5 - Page 6 of 49

control strategies predicted to attain the ozone NAAQS for that episode day would also result in 

attainment for all other exceedance days (EPA, 2007). Time periods to be modeled should 

display increasing ozone concentrations over time, followed by a ramp-down period to cleaner 

conditions to allow for a more complete evaluation of model performance under a variety of 

meteorological conditions.

5.4.2 Episode Selection Procedure

Because of the large areal extent of the OTR modeling domain, the OTC Modeling Committee 

decided to model the entire 5-month ozone season in order to investigate numerous ozone 

episodes and to provide for better assessment of simulated pollutant fields. The 2002 ozone 

season was selected since a significant number of exceedance days were recorded across the 

eastern U. S. that year. A multi-year review (1997-2003) of elevated ozone days in the OTR 

indicted that associated meteorological regimes during high ozone days in 2002 were for the 

most part very similar to those found to occur in other years. The multi-year review, prepared by 

Environ (Environ, 2005) is contained in Appendix C. Based on this work, the OTC Modeling 

Committee is confident that the 2002 season is representative for purposes of photochemical 

modeling for ozone SIP attainment demonstrations.

5.5 Modeling Domain 

5.5.1 Description

The OTR modeling domain is displayed in Figure AD4. The OTR modeling domain is 

embedded in the national grid that was adopted by the five U.S. Regional Haze Regional 

Planning Organizations (RPOs) for photochemical grid modeling. Individual RPOs are shown in 

Figure AD5. 

The OTR modeling domain was designed to both capture the effects of emissions transported

into the OTR and to test the effectiveness of 2009 control strategies in the OTR states. OTR 

states consist of Connecticut, Delaware, Washington D.C., Maryland, Maine, Massachusetts, 

New Jersey, New York, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Virginia. 

Non-OTR states in the OTR modeling domain consist of Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Iowa, 

Louisiana, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, 

South Caroline, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin. The horizontal grid resolution is 12 km and 

there are 172 grids in the east-west and 172 grids in north-south direction. Details of the 

modeling system grid setup are contained in Appendix D.

5.5.2 Horizontal Grid Size

Following EPA guidance and as noted above, a 12 km grid resolution was used for the domain. 

Details of the horizontal grid layers are contained in Appendix D.

5.5.3 Number of Vertical Layers 

Although the definition of the vertical structure can be adopted on a one-to-one basis with the 

meteorological model (which is 29 layers), it was decided not to do so. Given the available 
Final - Section 5 - Page 7 of 49

Figure AD4: OTR Photochemical Grid Modeling Domain (Eastern Modeling Domain)

computational resources and runtime needs, it was decided to limit the number of vertical layers 

in the photochemical model to 22, with the lowest 16 layers (where most of the ozone chemistry

takes place) set one-to-one with those of the meteorological model. Details of vertical grid 

layers are contained in Appendix D.

5.6 Photochemical Grid Modeling System

5.6.1 Photochemical Grid Modeling System

EPA’s Community Multi-scale Air Quality Modeling System (CMAQ) was selected for ozone 

attainment demonstrations in the OTR because it addresses multiple pollutants and different

spatial scales (http://www.epa.gov/asmdnerl/CMAQ/index.html). The CMAQ platform is also 

being used for regional haze applications in the OTR and for PM2. 5 attainment demonstrations 

(for those jurisdictions within the OTR designated as non-attainment for the PM2.5). The CMAQ 

framework is an advanced computational platform that provides a sophisticated and powerful 

modeling environment for science and regulatory communities. CMAQ has a "one atmosphere"

perspective; it was specifically designed to approach air quality as a whole by including state-ofthe-science capabilities to address multiple air quality issues, including tropospheric ozone, fine

particles, toxics, acid deposition, and visibility degradation. The target grid resolutions and
Final - Section 5 - Page 8 of 49

Figure AD5: Regional Haze Regional planning Organizations (RPOs)

domain sizes for CMAQ can range spatially and temporally over several orders of magnitude. In 

addition, CMAQ also has temporal flexibility; simulations can be performed for long-term 

(annual to multi-year) pollutant climatologies as well as short term (weeks to months) to simulate 

transport of precursor emissions from localized sources.

5.6.2 CMAQ Modeling System Source Codes

The CMAQ modeling system contains three types of modeling components: a meteorological 

modeling system (MM5) for the description of atmospheric states and motions; an emission 

model (SMOKE) for man-made and natural emissions that are injected into the atmosphere; and 

a chemistry-transport modeling system (CMAQ) for simulation of the chemical transformation 

and fate. Because CMAQ is designed to handle scale-dependent meteorological formulations and 
Final - Section 5 - Page 9 of 49

a large amount of system flexibility, CMAQ's governing equations are expressed in a generalized 

coordinate system. The generalized coordinate system determines the necessary grid and 

coordinate transformations, and it can accommodate various vertical coordinates and map 

projections. The SMOKE and CMAQ codes are available at http://www.cmascenter.org/ and 

MM5 codes can be obtained at http://www.mmm.ucar.edu/mm5/

5..3 CMAQ Model Setup for the OTR Domain

The CMAQ Model (Version 4.5.1) was used to predict ozone concentrations in the OTR 

modeling domain. The CMAQ model configuration and the MM5/SMOKE/CMAQ modeling 

system grid specifications employed by the NY DEC are presented in Appendix D.

5.7 Meteorological Modeling System

5.7.1 MM5 Meteorological Model

The Fifth-Generation Pennsylvania State University/NCAR mesoscale model, referred to as 

MM5, was used by the University of Maryland (UMD) to generate meteorological fields for the 

OTR modeling domain. MM5 is a limited-area, non-hydrostatic, terrain-following sigmacoordinate model designed to simulate mesoscale atmospheric circulation. MM5 codes can be 

obtained at http://www.mmm.ucar.edu/mm5/. The set of options used by UMD for running 

MM5 (Version 3.6) in consultation with NY DEC are listed in Appendix E.

5.7.2 MM5 Meteorological Fields

The National Weather Service NCEP ETA 40 km resolution-forecasting model was employed to 

initialize the MM5 model and to provide outer edge boundary conditions for the MM5 model. 

To minimize model error, the model applied four-dimensional data assimilation nudging 

techniques employing National Weather Service surface wind and upper air data (Zheng and 

Zheng, 2004). The model was applied in a Lambert conformal map projection over two-way

nested domains. The coarse grid (36 km) domain and the fine grid (12 km) domain are shown in 

Figure AD6. MM5 was used to produce hourly meteorological fields for the calendar year 2002. 

Since there are a variety of options that can be exercised with MM5, initial testing was 

performed for a high ozone event of 2002 with commonly used default options as well as with 

modified boundary layer schemes (Zhang and Zheng 2004). Based on this work, a modified 

Blackadar scheme was employed in order to produce more accurate diurnal cycles of surface 

winds and temperatures. A description of the preparation of MM5 meteorological fields for the 

OTR modeling domain is contained in Appendix F. 

5.7.3 MM5 Model Performance

NY DEC and UMD tested several MM5 configurations before settling on one that included a 

modification to the Blackadar planetary boundary scheme in order to obtain an accurate 

rendering of three-dimensional meteorological fields over the OTR modeling domain. This work 

was coordinated through the OTC Modeling Committee. 
Final - Section 5 - Page 10 of 49

Figure AD6: MM5 Modeling Domains (36 km and 12 km)

After MM5 hourly meteorological fields were prepared, the simulated meteorological fields for 

2002 ozone season (May 1 to September 30) were compared to National Weather Service (NWS) 

and CASTNet surface temperature, wind speed, and humidity observations. CASTNet is the 

nation’s primary source of rural ground-level ozone measurements and associated meteorological 

data. Comparisons with CASTNet data provide a more independent assessment of the MM5 

model since CASTNet data, unlike NWS data, is not used to in the MM5 applicationto improve 

model performance (model nudging). MM5 results were also compared with wind profiler data 

and cloud data derived from satellite images to diagnose if the MM5 simulation is yielding the 

right type of dynamics in the vertical. These analyses (Appendix F) indicate that the performance 

of MM5 is reasonable across the OTR both at the surface and in the vertical, thereby providing 

confidence in the use of MM5 results for the CMAQ simulations. 

5.8 Biogenic emissions

5.8.1 BEIS Modeling System

Biogenic emissions of VOCs, NOx and CO from natural sources for the time period from 

January 1, 2002 – December 31, 2002 were calculated by the NY DEC using the Biogenic 

Emissions Inventory System (BEIS version 3.12) integrated within SMOKE2.1. The procedures 

used to calculate biogenic emissions are contained in Appendix G.
Final - Section 5 - Page 11 of 49

5.8.2 OTR Modeling Domain Biogenic Emissions 

NY DEC used gridded land use data and emissions factors to produce gridded normalized 

biogenic emissions for 34 species/compounds in the OTR modeling domain. The gridded land 

use file utilized by NY DEC included the fractional coverage of 230 different land use types for 

each of the 12-km grid cells in the OTR modeling domain. MM5/MCIP meteorological 

variables were then used to compute hour-specific, gridded biogenic emissions, which were then 

converted to CO, NO, and the Carbon Bond IV (CB-IV) VOC species utilized in CMAQ Model. 

5.9 Boundary and Initial Conditions

5.9.1 Generation of Boundary Conditions

NY DEC prepared boundary conditions for the OTR 12 km domain by performing a CMAQ 

simulation for a continental U.S. grid with a 36 km grid spacing. The simulation utilized the 

2002 emissions data provided from the five U.S. RPOs and the 2002 MM5 meteorological fields 

developed by the UMD (Section 7). Clean initial conditions were employed, and boundary

conditions for the continental USA simulation were extracted from a simulation of the GEOSCHEM global chemical model. The interface program used to extract 36 km boundary conditions 

from the GEOS-CHEM global model was developed by University of Houston (Moon and 

Byun, 2004). The CMAQ 36km simulation ran from December 15, 2001 to December 31, 2002 

with the first 15 days in December 2001 as ramp up period. The boundary conditions simulation 

is described in more detail in Appendix H.

5.9.2 OTR Modeling Domain Boundary Conditions 

The hourly boundary fields for the 12km CMAQ domain were obtained by using a boundary

condition program (BCON) to extract the 3-D concentration fields from the NY DEC continental 

CMAQ run at the boundaries of the OTC 12 km modeling domain. Boundary conditions were 

obtained for the ozone season simulation period (May 1 through September 30) with the first 14 

days of May set as a ramp-up period to minimize the propagation of the boundary fields into the 

areas of concern. Clean initial conditions were employed at the start of the ramp-up period. 

5.10 CMAQ Emission Files for 2002

5.10.1 Regional Planning Organization Annual Emission Inventories for 2002

The OTR modeling domain (previously shown on Figure AD4) contains states from 4 of the 5 U. 

S. RPOs: Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU), Central Regional Air Planning 

Association (CENRAP), Midwest Regional Planning Organization (MRPO) and the Visibility

Improvement State and Tribal Association of the Southwest (VISTAS). These RPOs were 

established by EPA to support regional haze planning activities, including the development of 

coordinated multi-purpose emission inventories. Each RPO has prepared detailed emission 

inventories for calendar year 2002 that are being used for ozone, PM2.5 and regional haze SIP 

attainment demonstrations. RPO boundaries were previously shown in Figure AD5.
Final - Section 5 - Page 12 of 49

5.10.2 MANE-VU Annual Emission Inventory for 2002

The OTR states, except for Virginia, are members of the MANE-VU RPO (Virginia is in the 

VISTAS RPO). The Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association (MARAMA) directed 

the preparation of the 2002 MANE-VU emission inventory. The MANE-VU states consist of 

Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New 

Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont. A detailed 

technical support document describing the development of 2002 MANE-VU emission inventory

is contained in Appendix I. 

The 2002 MANE-VU emission inventory was based upon point, area, on-road, and non-road 

emission inventory data submitted by MANE-VU states to EPA in 2004 as a requirement of the 

Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule. Under contract to MARAMA, E.H. Pechan & 

Associates (Pechan) collected this information and ran EPA format and content quality assurance 

programs and other checks to identify format and data content issues. Data gaps were filled in 

accordance with a Quality Assurance Project Plan prepared for this project (MANE-VU, 2004a).

After making corrections and filling data gaps, emission files for sulfur dioxide (SO2), oxides of 

nitrogen (NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOC), carbon monoxide (CO), ammonia (NH3) and 

particles with aerodynamic diameters less than or equal to a nominal 10 and 2.5 micrometers 

(primary PM10 and PM2.5) were prepared in National Emissions Inventory Input Format (NIF 

3.0) and placed on the MARAMA ftp site.

Table AD1: MANE-VU 2002 Anthropogenic Emissions (Ton/Year)

 

2002 Version 3 

Base Case CO NOX VOC NH3 SO2 PM10 PM2_5 PMC

Connecticut 992201 125208 162492 8598 32077 27061 15795 11266

Delaware 273433 58764 41120 14376 79868 15214 7931 7284

District of Columbia 101372 15389 14893 415 2939 2889 1276 1613

Maine 759882 94932 166501 11060 39362 64103 28458 35645

Maryland 1905406 283387 265220 31712 315251 72234 34805 37428

Massachusetts 1838763 276530 294703 25737 164112 89984 40667 49317

New Hampshire 594257 67326 111333 3678 55295 25796 19479 6316

New Jersey 2276006 303053 378877 24931 91273 47021 29350 17671

New York 5223096 655774 921593 83801 448322 229391 90977 138413

Pennsylvania 4448357 806061 594355 91842 1077658 228459 82467 145992

Rhode Island 312263 29418 57200 1789 8022 5058 2486 2571

Vermont 351716 28290 50461 10608 6022 21218 8330 12888

Total 19076752 2744133 3058749 308548 2320202 828427 362022 466405
Final - Section 5 - Page 13 of 49

Several versions of the emission inventory were prepared by Pechan to address corrections, 

improvements and ongoing state-of-the-art changes (for example, the non-road inventory was 

completely redone in Version 3 due to EPA modifications to the NONROAD2005 model). The 

most current version of the MANE-VU emission inventory (Version 3) was used for OTR state 

attainment demonstrations. MANE-VU state emission totals are shown in Table AD1. 

5.10.3 Emission files for the OTR Domain

CMAQ-ready emission files for each RPO in the OTR domain (MANE-VU, CENRAP, MRPO, 

and VISTAS) were prepared by NY DEC. Emission files for portions of Canada in the OTR 

domain were also prepared by NY DEC. Emission processing procedures are summarized below 

and described in more detail in Appendix J.

5.10.3.1 MANE-VU Emission Files for 2002

Point, area, and non-road source emissions for MANE-VU states (MANE-VU Version 3 

emission inventory) were obtained from the MARAMA ftp site and mobile emissions

were obtained from the NESCAUM ftp site. NY DEC processed these emission files with 

SMOKE2.2 to prepare CMAQ-ready hourly emission input files

5.10.3.2 CENRAP Emission Files for 2002

CENRAP states in the OTR modeling domain consist of Arkansas, Iowa, Louisiana, 

Minnesota, and Missouri. Point, area, mobile and non-road source emissions for 

CENRAP states (CENRAP Version BaseB emission inventory) were obtained from the 

CENRAP ftp site by NY DEC and processed with SMOKE2.2 to prepare CMAQ-ready 

hourly emission input files. 

5.10.3.3 MRPO Emission Files for 2002

MRPO states in the OTR modeling domain consist of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan Ohio, 

and Wisconsin. Point, area, mobile and non-road emissions for MRPO states were 

generated by Alpine Geophysics through a contract from MARAMA to convert the 

MRPO BaseK emission inventory to IDA format. The files were then obtained from the 

MARAMA ftp site by NY DEC and processed with SMOKE2.2 to prepare CMAQ-ready 

hourly emission input files.

5.10.3.4 VISTAS Emission Files for 2002

VISTAS states in the OTR modeling domain consist of Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, 

North Carolina, South Caroline, Tennessee and Virginia. Point, area, mobile and nonroad emission files for VISTAS states (VISTAS BaseG emission inventory) were 

obtained from the Alpine Geophysics ftp site by NY DEC and processed with 

SMOKE2.2 to prepare CMAQ-ready hourly emission input files.
Final - Section 5 - Page 14 of 49

5.10.3.5 Canadian Emission Files for 2002

Canadian non-road and mobile source emission files were obtained from EPA and 

processed with SMOKE2.1 by NY DEC. Non-EGU and EGU point source emissions 

were obtained from Canadian National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI) database. NY 

DEC inserted SCC code estimates (NPRI has no SCC codes) and then processed the 

emission files with SMOKE2.2 to prepare CMAQ-ready hourly emission input files. 

5.11 New OTR Control Measures for 2009

5.11.1 Potential Beyond On the Way (BOTW) Control Measures 

Preliminary ozone modeling efforts (EPA, 2004) to support the proposed Clean Air Interstate Air 

Quality Rule (CAIR) indicated that additional controls beyond federal and state CAA control 

measures would be needed to attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in several portions of the OTR. 

Accordingly, OTC staff and member states formed several OTC workgroups to identify and 

evaluate potential control measures. Control measures were identified through published sources 

such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Control Technique Guidelines, 

STAPPA/ALAPCO Menu of Options documents, the AirControlNET database, emission control 

initiatives in member states, state/regional consultations, and stakeholder input. OTC 

workgroups compiled and reviewed a list of approximately 1,000 candidate control measures 

from which 30 control measures were selected for detailed analyses. 

5.11.2 Final OTC Beyond On the Way (BOTW) Control Measures

The OTC workgroups discussed the candidate control measures during a series of conference 

calls and workshops from the spring of 2004 through the autumn of 2006. OTC workgroups 

collected and evaluated information regarding emission benefits, cost-effectiveness, and 

implementation issues, and stakeholders were provided opportunity to review and provide input. 

The procedures used to develop and evaluate these control measures (MACTEC, 2007b) are 

contained in Appendix K. 

Based on this information, OTC Commissioners recommended that States consider emission 

reductions from the following source categories: Consumer Products, Portable Fuel Containers, 

Adhesives and Sealants Application, Diesel Engine Chip Reflash, Cutback and Emulsified 

Asphalt Paving, Asphalt Production Plants, Cement Kilns, Glass Furnaces, Industrial, 

Commercial, and Institutional (ICI) Boilers and Regional Fuels. These control measures are 

collectively referred to as beyond on the way (BOTW) control measures.

As part of its 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration SIP, MassDEP either has, or expects to 

adopt, regulations to reduce emissions from the following BOTW control measures: Consumer 

Products, Adhesives and Sealants and Asphalt Paving. In addition, MassDEP either has, or 

intends to adopt regulations reducing emissions from Solvent Metal Degreasing and from

Architectual and Industrial Maintenance(AIM) coatings. (These control measures are described 
Final - Section 5 - Page 15 of 49

in Section 3, Control Measures, or Section 6 RACT. The anticipated effective dates and 

estimated reductions from these measures are also discussed.) 

5.12 CMAQ Emission Files for 2009 with OTC BOTW Control Measures

5.12.1 Regional Planning Organization Annual Emission Inventories for 2009

The CENRAP, MRPO, VISTAS and MANE-VU RPOs prepared future year emission 

inventories for 2009 by applying growth and control measures to the 2002 base year emission 

inventories. The control measures reflected all control programs that are already on the way and 

in effect by 2009. These emission inventories, referred to as “on the way” emission inventories, 

reflect NOx SIP Call and CAIR requirements (http://www.epa.gov/interstateairquality/), federal 

on-road and off-road fuels, federal motor vehicle standards and state LEV (low emission vehicle) 

programs, federal MACT rules, 2001 OTC model rules for consumer products, architectural 

coatings, distributed generation and any other state-specific rules in effect by 2009. The interRPO work group utilized the Integrated Planning Model (IPM) to develop state and unit-level 

EGU emissions reflecting EPA’s Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) in the CENRAP, MRPO, 

VISTAS and MANE-VU RPOs (ICF, 2005). 

5.12.2 MANEVU Annual Emission Inventory with BOTW Control Measures for 2009

The Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association (MARAMA) contracted MACTEC to 

prepare 2009 emissions for non-EGU point sources, area sources and non-road sources that 

reflected control measures that were already on the way and in effect by 2009. MACTEC in 

consultation with MANE-VU states developed the necessary growth and control factors and 

applied them to the 2002 MANE-VU emission inventory (Version 3) previously described in 

Section 10. Details of this work effort are contained in Appendix L (MACTEC, 2007a). Mobile 

source emissions were prepared by VA DEQ and NESCAUM, using MOBILE 6 input files and 

projected 2009 VMTs supplied by the MANE-VU states. 

MACTEC then calculated “beyond on the way” (BOTW) emission reductions reflecting the new 

OTC 2006 model rules for non-EGU point sources and several area source categories in the OTR 

states (previously described in Section 5.11). The BOTW control measures were developed 

because preliminary ozone modeling efforts indicated additional controls would be needed to 

attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in portions of the OTR. Emission reduction calculations are 

presented in Appendix K (MACTEC, 2007b). State totals for the MANE-VU 2009 emission 

inventory reflecting BOTW control measures are shown in Table AD2. BOTW emission 

reductions were incorporated into the 2009 MANE-VU 2009 emission inventory and all 

emission files were placed on the MARAMA ftp site

5.12.3 Emission files for the OTR Domain

CMAQ-ready emission files for 2009 for each RPO in the OTR modeling domain (MANE-VU, 

CENRAP, MRPO, and VISTAS) were prepared or obtained by NY DEC. Emission files for 

portions of Canada in the OTR domain were also prepared by NY DEC. Emission processing 

procedures are summarized below and described in more detail Appendix M.
Final - Section 5 - Page 16 of 49

Table AD2: MANE-VU 2009 Anthropogenic Emissions with BOTW Controls (Ton/Yr)

2009 Version 3 

BOTW CO NOX VOC NH3 SO2 PM10 PM2_5 PMC

Connecticut 751975 82139 122353 9255 22796 26481 15037 11443

Delaware 231392 49658 32109 14695 42569 15372 7694 7679

District of Columbia 67904 10433 10403 436 2297 2006 1124 882

Maine 579671 60201 141619 12974 38737 64881 27633 37247

Maryland 1373959 147710 205097 38971 114046 80496 39550 40946

Massachusetts 1290133 180391 229386 26513 64733 93839 42428 51411

New Hampshire 443286 44339 94330 4266 18597 26087 19511 6577

New Jersey 1778637 185314 285559 27935 49535 46183 28753 17430

New York 3730881 456457 710567 100682 325621 242237 98945 143293

Pennsylvania 3422688 518109 477042 113344 403150 259116 107315 151801

Rhode Island 240906 21900 44612 2144 8359 5410 2608 2802

Vermont 236142 17793 43063 13038 5966 22103 8099 14004

Total 14147574 1774443 2396138 364252 1096404 884212 398696 485516

5.12.3.1 MANE-VU Emission Files for 2009

Non-EGU point source and area source emissions for MANE-VU states (2009 MANEVU Version 3 emission inventory) reflecting BOTW control measures were obtained 

from the MARAMA ftp site by NY DEC and processed with SMOKE2.2 to prepare 

CMAQ-ready emission input files. Mobile source emissions for MANE-VU states were 

obtained from the MARAMA ftp site by NY DEC and processed with SMOKE2.2 to 

prepare CMAQ-ready emission input files. Non-road source emissions (2009 MANEVU Version 3 emission inventory) were obtained from the MARAMA ftp site by VA 

DEQ and processed with SMOKE2.2 to prepare CMAQ-ready emission input files. EGU 

emissions (IPM2.1.9) were obtained from ICF (ICF, 2005) by VA DEQ and processed

with SMOKE2.2 to prepare CMAQ-ready hourly emission input files.

5.12.3.2 CENRAP Emission files for 2009

Non-EGU point, area, mobile and non-road emissions for CENRAP states in the OTR 

domain (2009 CENRAP BaseB emission inventory) were obtained from the CENRAP ftp 

site by VA DEQ and processed with SMOKE2.2 to prepare CMAQ-ready emission input 

files for the 2009 simulation. EGU emissions (IPM2.1.9) were obtained from ICF (ICF, 
Final - Section 5 - Page 17 of 49

2005) by VA DEQ and processed with SMOKE2.2 to prepare CMAQ-ready hourly 

emission input files.

5.12.3.3 MRPO Emission files for 2009

Area and non-road emissions for MRPO states in the OTR domain (2009 MRPO BaseK 

emission inventory) were obtained from the MRPO by NY DEC and processed with 

SMOKE2.2 to prepare CMAQ-ready emission files for the 2009 simulation. Non-EGU 

and mobile emissions were obtained from the 2009 MRPO BaseK emission inventory by

VA DEQ and processed with SMOKE2.2 to prepare CMAQ-ready emission input files. 

EGU emissions (IPM2.1.9) were obtained from ICF (ICF, 2005) by VA DEQ and 

processed with SMOKE2.2 to prepare CMAQ-ready hourly emission input files.

5.12.3.4 VISTAS Emission Files for 2009 

Non-EGU point, area, mobile and non-road emission files for VISTAS states in the OTR 

domain (2009 VISTAS BaseG emission inventory) were obtained from the Alpine 

Geophysics ftp site by VA DEQ and processed with SMOKE2.2 to prepare CMAQ-ready 

emission input files for the 2009 simulation. VISTAS EGU emissions were obtained 

from ICF (ICF, 2005) by VA DEQ and processed with SMOKE2.2 to prepare CMAQready hourly emission input files. 

5.12.3.5 Canadian Emission Files for 2009

NY DE obtained area, non-road and mobile source emission files for 2010 from EPA and 

obtained EGU point source emissions for 2010 from Environment Canada. These were 

considered to be a reasonable surrogate for 2009. Non-EGU point source emissions for 

2002 (Section 10.3) were used as a surrogate for 2009. NY DEC processed these 

Canadian emission files with SMOKE2.2 to prepare CMAQ-ready hourly emission input 

files. 

5.13 Quality Assurance of CMAQ Databases

All air quality, emissions, and meteorological data were reviewed to ensure completeness, 

accuracy, and consistency before proceeding with modeling. Any errors, missing data or

inconsistencies were addressed using standard practices. All modeling was benchmarked 

through the duplication of a set of standard modeling results including benchmark runs with five 

modeling centers in the OTR (New York Department of Environmental Conservation, University 

of Maryland, NESCAUM, Rutgers University, and Virginia Department of Environment 

Quality).

Quality assurance activities were carried out for the various emissions, meteorological,

and photochemical modeling components of the modeling study. Emissions inventories obtained
Final - Section 5 - Page 18 of 49

from all RPOs (CENRAP, MANE-VU, MWRPO and VISTEAS) were examined to check for 

errors in the emissions estimates. When such errors were discovered, the problems in the input 

data files were corrected.

The MM5 meteorological and CMAQ air quality model inputs and outputs were plotted and

examined by NY DEC to ensure accurate representation of the observed data in the model-ready 

fields, and temporal and spatial consistency and reasonableness. Both MM5 and CMAQ 

underwent operational and scientific evaluations by NYDEC and the OTC Modeling Committee 

to facilitate the quality assurance review of meteorological and air quality modeling procedures. 

5.14 CMAQ Model Simulation for 2002 Base Case 

5.14.1 CMAQ Model 2002 Application

The CMAQ 2002 base case simulation was performed by NY DEC using a one-way nesting 

approach for the 12 km OTR modeling domain. The OTR modeling domain was previously 

described in Section 4. CMAQ (version 4.5.1) was used with CB-IV chemistry, the aerosol 

module for PM2.5 and the Regional Air Deposition Model (RADM) cloud scheme. The 

simulation ran from May 1 to September 30, with the first 14 days of May used as a ramp-up 

period to minimize the propagation of boundary fields into areas of concern. The CMAQ results 

used for the performance evaluation were from May 15 through September 30. Details of the 

CMAQ setup and application are listed in Appendix N.

5.14.2 CMAQ Input Files for 2002

5.14.2.1 Emission Files for 2002 simulation

The CMAQ-ready hourly emission files described in Sub-Section 10 for all RPO states 

and Canadian Provinces in the OTR modeling domain were used for the 2002 CMAQ

base case simulation. As described in Section 8, NY DEC used the BEIS model to 

prepare gridded normalized biogenic emission files for CO, NO, and the CB-IV VOC 

species for the 2002 simulation.

5.14.2.2 Boundary and Initial Conditions for 2002 simulation

As described in Sub-Section 9, hourly boundary fields for the 12km CMAQ domain were 

obtained by NY DEC using the BCON program to extract the 3-D concentration fields 

from the NY DEC continental USA CMAQ run at the four edges of the OTR modeling 

domain. Clean initial conditions were employed. 

5.14.2.3 Meteorological Files for 2002 simulation

The meteorological data for the 2002 simulation were based on the MM5 modeling 

described in Sub-Section 7. The MM5 fields for the May 1 to September 30 MM5 

simulation were processed with Meteorology Chemistry Interface Processor (MCIP 
Final - Section 5 - Page 19 of 49

Version 3.0) obtained from the CMAS Modeling Center (http://www.cmascenter.org) in 

order to provide CMAQ model-ready hourly meteorological input files. 

5.14.2.4 Photolysis Rates

Photolysis rate lookup tables were generated by NY DEC for each day using CMAQ’s 

Photolysis Rates Processor (JPROC) software (http://www.cmascenter.org). Daily ozone 

column measurements from NASA’s Earthprobe Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer 

(TOMS) instrument (ftp://toms.gsfc.nasa.gov/pub/eptoms/data/ozone/Y2002/) were 

downloaded and used as input to the JPROC processing software.

5.14.3 CMAQ Output Files

Predicted hourly ozone concentrations for each ozone monitoring station location in all OTR 

states are listed in Appendix O. Daily ozone maps for the 2002 ozone season are contained in 

Appendix P. All input and output files for the 2002 Base Case CMAQ simulation for the OTR 

modeling domain are listed in Appendix U. Files are available in electronic format from NY 

DEC for use with the SMOKE/CMAQ system. Please contact Gopal Sistla at 518-402-8402 data 

file requests. 

5.15 Performance Evaluation of 2002 Simulation

5.15.1 NY DEC Performance Evaluation for OTR Modeling Domain 

NY DEC conducted a detailed performance evaluation of the OTC CMAQ modeling platform 

simulation for the 2002 ozone season (Appendix Q). The CMAQ simulation ran from May 1 to 

September 30; May 1 through May 14 was the ramp up period to minimize effects of boundary

conditions and the results for May 15 though September 30 were used for the performance 

evaluation. Air quality predictions for O3, CO, NO, NO2, SO2, C2H4, C5H8, HCHO, PM2.5 and 

several regional haze aerosol species were compared to measurements in every grid cell where 

air quality data were available. Hourly ozone measurements from 234 monitors were available 

to assess CMAQ model performance in the OTR.

A variety of model performance metrics for each of these pollutants - observed average, 

predicted average, correlation coefficient (R2), normalized mean error, root mean square error 

(RMSE), mean absolute gross error (MAGE), mean normalized gross error (MNGE), mean bias 

(MB), mean normalized bias (MNB), mean fractionalized bias (MFB), normalized mean bias 

(NMB), along with temporal plots and daily ozone maps were prepared in order to help assess 

model performance. In general, the observed and predicted composite average ozone 

concentrations track well, although there was fairly substantial under-prediction during the midAugust period. Model performance was better in the vicinity of urban areas and along the 

northeastern corridor, compared to the performance in rural areas where the model tended to 

under-predict daily maximum concentrations. A complete set of model performance statistics 

for all OTR monitoring locations is contained in Appendix R.

5.15.2 CMAQ Spatial Performance in New England States
Final - Section 5 - Page 20 of 49

In assessing spatial performance of the CMAQ model, two elements are critical: (1) the model’s 

ability to replicate the general spatial pattern of ozone across most of the domain and, in 

particular, the New England region, and (2) whether the model can reproduce concentration 

gradients often observed along and within a few miles of the New England coast. A review of 

side-by-side maps of observed and predicted peak ozone values for the 2002 ozone season 

indicate the CMAQ model is doing a fairly good job of replicating spatial patterns and 

concentration gradients. A complete set of daily maps is contained in Appendix P.

Figures AD7-AD10 reveal good consistency between predicted and observed daily peak 8-hour 

ozone values. The simulations in Figure AD7 and AD8, for example, capture the narrow strip of 

elevated ozone from around Maryland northeastward to southern New England. The CMAQ 

model reproduced the splotchy areas of high ozone from the Midwest down across Tennessee 

(Figure AD8), as well as the clean areas near the Carolina coasts. In Figure AD9, not only are 

the New England plume and broad Midwest region of high ozone captured, but the area of 

relative minimum ozone across Pennsylvania and New York is also replicated.

In addition, and perhaps most importantly for New England, it appears that the model correctly

handles the effect of slight wind trajectory differences on ozone patterns across the southern New 

England coast. Figure AD9 shows that the CMAQ model correctly predicted high ozone values 

across southern New England, along with a clean area on the south coast caused by marine air 

blowing onshore. A reverse of that pattern is shown in Figure AD10, in which south coastal 

New England has elevated ozone while values in interior southern New England are low. This 

typical westerly (as opposed to southwesterly) flow scenario draws polluted air from the New 

York City/New Jersey areas eastward along the New England south coast. Air reaching interior 

sections of New England had earlier crossed central New York and thus arrived fairly clean. That 

the model discerned these two episode types and reproduced the north-south gradient is 

encouraging, and gives confidence that the CMAQ model can replicate daily maximum 8-hour 

ozone concentrations in New England. 

Figure AD7: Maximum 8-Hour Values on August 8, 2002
Final - Section 5 - Page 21 of 49

Figure AD8: Maximum 8-Hour Values on August 8, 2002

Figure AD9: Maximum 8-Hour Values on June 21, 2002

 
Final - Section 5 - Page 22 of 49

Figure AD10: Maximum 8-Hour Values on July 18, 2002

Figure AD11: Hourly Ozone Values for 2002 Ozone Season

Observed and Predicted averages

208 SLAMS/NAMS sites; 40 ppb threshold

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

200205152002052320020531200206082002061620020624200207022002071020020718200207262002080320020811200208192002082720020904200209122002092020020928

p

p

b

obs avg, ppb

CMAQ avg, ppb
Final - Section 5 - Page 23 of 49

Finally, the CMAQ model appears to do a reasonable job of be simulating ground level ozone 

diurnal buildup and decay. Figure AD11 is a time series of observed and modeled peak 8-hour 

ozone values averaged over the domain for the entire modeling period (NYDEC, 2006). 

Although an under prediction is evident, it is consistent, and the predictions do track the 

observations well. The model’s under prediction of ozone is not a big concern since CMAQ 

modeling results are to be used in a relative sense, and because the under-prediction is consistent 

over the modeling period and across the modeling domain.

5.15.3 CMAQ Selected Model Metrics for New England States

EPA recommends that several statistical metrics be developed for air quality modeling (EPA, 

2007). Two metrics that are most often used to assess performance are mean normalized gross 

error (MNGE) and the mean normalized bias (MNB). The mean normalized gross error provides

an overall assessment of model performance and can be interpreted as precision, and the mean 

normalized bias parameter measures a model's ability to reproduce observed spatial and temporal 

patterns, and can be interpreted as accuracy. EPA suggests a mean normalized gross error 

(MNGE) of less than 35% above a threshold of 40-60 ppb and a mean normalized bias (MNB) of 

less than ±15% as a reasonable test for acceptable model performance. The mean normalized 

gross error (MNGE) and the mean normalized bias (MNB) for maximum daily 8-hour 

concentrations at or above 60 ppb at Massachusetts ozone monitors for the 2002 CMAQ 

simulation are shown in Table AD3. 

Table AD3: Mean Normalized Gross Error and Mean Normalized Bias for MA Ozone Monitors

State AIRS-ID Location Observed ppb CMAQ ppb MNGE % MNB %

MA 250010002 Truro 76.3 82.8 14.0 9.1

MA 250034002 Adams 73.6 61.2 16.4 -16.0

MA 250051002 Fairhaven 74.3 74.6 11.5 1.6

MA 250090005 Lawrence 80.0 72.3 14.6 -8.0

MA 250092006 Lynn 80.8 71.6 13.7 -10.7

MA 250094004 Newbury 79.4 87.6 14.7 10.3

MA 250130003 Agawam 76.6 67.1 15.1 -11.7

MA 250130008 Chicopee 76.4 65.2 15.3 -14.0

MA 250150103 Amherst 73.8 65.6 12.9 -10.9

MA 250154002 Ware 76.0 66.7 14.9 -11.7

MA 250171102 Stow 76.3 66.2 13.7 -12.8

MA 250213003 Milton 79.6 68.3 15.4 -13.7

MA 250250041 Boston (Long I) 76.7 76.1 17.1 0.2

MA 250250042 Boston (Harris) 72.4 65.8 12.9 -8.4

MA 250270015 Worcester 82.7 65.9 19.8 -19.8

AVE 14.8 -7.8
Final - Section 5 - Page 24 of 49

Mean normalized gross error was well below the EPA 35% criteria at all Massachusetts ozone 

monitors. Mean normalized bias was slightly above the ±15% criteria at the Adams and the 

Worcester monitors (-16% and -19.8 %). This was not considered to be a significant concern 

since the 2002 design values for these two monitors, 83 ppb and 84 ppb respectively, are already 

below the ozone NAAQS (Table AD9, Section 17). 

The mean normalized gross error (MNGE) and the mean normalized bias (MNB) for maximum 

daily 8-hour concentrations at or above 60 ppb at all other New England state ozone monitors are 

listed in Tables AD4-AD8. The other New England state ozone monitors meet the MNGE 

criteria of 35%. The MNB values are above the ±15% criteria at several ozone monitoring 

locations in Vermont and New Hampshire. This under-prediction in Vermont and New 

Hampshire is not considered to be a significant concern since the 2002 design values at these 

monitors (Table AD13 and Table AD14) are already close to the ozone NAAQS. In addition, 

CMAQ modeling results are being used in a relative way which helps minimize the underprediction of peak ozone concentrations.

Table AD4: Mean Normalized Gross Error and Mean Normalized Bias for RI Ozone Monitors

State AIRS-ID Location Observed ppb CMAQ ppb MNGE % MNB %

RI 440030002 Alton Jones 77.9 75.7 10.5 -1.8

RI 440071010 Francis School 77.6 74.0 10.8 -4.3

RI 440090007 EPA Lab 76.9 83.3 14.9 9.4

AVE 12.1 1.1

Table AD5: Mean Normalized Gross Error and Mean Normalized Bias for CT Ozone Monitors

State AIRS-ID Location Observed ppb CMAQ ppb MNGE % MNB %

CT 090010017 Greenwich 78.2 77.8 13.8 0.3

CT 090011123 Danbury 80.9 73.4 13.4 -8.7

CT 090013007 Stratford 80.8 80.0 17.1 -0.1

CT 090019003 Westport 80.7 78.9 12.2 -1.8

CT 090031003 E. Hartford 77.8 78.6 13.8 2.3

CT 090050005 Cornwall 78.8 64.5 20.2 -17.8

CT 090070007 Middletown 80.5 77.9 10.7 -3.7

CT 090093002 Madison 83.1 83.8 14.5 1.7

CT 090099005 Hamden 79.4 78.0 13.0 -1.0

CT 090110008 Groton 75.5 94.4 30.3 28.1

CT 090131001 Stafford 78.2 71.1 12.2 -8.7

AVE 15.6 -0.9
Final - Section 5 - Page 25 of 49

Table AD6: Mean Normalized Gross Error and Mean Normalized Bias for NH Ozone Monitors

State AIRS-ID Location Observed ppb CMAQ ppb MNGE % MNB %

NH 330012004 Laconia 70.1 52.7 24.6 -24.6

NH 330031002 Conway 67.5 52.8 21.8 -21.3

NH 330050007 Keene 75.9 64.5 15.9 -14.5

NH 330074001 Mt Washington top 72.3 50.5 30.0 -30.0

NH 330074002 Mt Washington base 66.7 57.0 17.4 -14.5

NH 330074003 Pittsburg 68.7 54.7 20.5 -20.5

NH 330090008 Haverhill 68.0 52.8 22.1 -22.1

NH 330110020 Manchester 74.5 62.9 15.5 -15.0

NH 330111010 Nashua 76.1 66.0 13.9 -12.3

NH 330115001 Peterborough 80.9 60.3 24.7 -24.7

NH 330130007 Concord 74.2 58.5 20.9 -20.7

NH 330150012 Rye 78.2 69.6 13.4 -11.1

NH 330150013 999 73.9 61.9 16.7 -15.3

NH 330150015 Portsmouth 79.1 72.4 9.7 -8.5

NH 330173002 Rochester 74.7 64.0 15.5 -14.0

NH 330190003 Claremont 72.1 55.9 22.2 -22.2

AVE 19.0 -18.2

Table AD7: Mean Normalized Gross Error and Mean Normalized Bias for VT Ozone Monitors

State AIRS-ID Location Observed ppb CMAQ ppb MNGE % MNB %

VT 500030004 Bennington 70.9 59.2 16.5 -15.7

VT 500070007 Underhill 74.8 56.1 24.2 -24.2

AVE 20.3 -19.9
Final - Section 5 - Page 26 of 49

Table AD8: Mean Normalized Gross Error and Mean Normalized Bias for ME Ozone Monitors

State AIRS-ID Location Observed ppb CMAQ ppb MNGE % MNB %

ME 230052003 Cape Elizabeth 76.0 72.4 13.6 -3.1

ME 230090102 ANP Cadillac M 79.0 70.3 12.8 -10.7

ME 230090103 ANP McFarland 76.4 69.4 11.6 -8.5

ME 230090301 Castine 72.3 73.7 10.2 2.8

ME 230112005 Gardiner Pray 77.3 65.4 17.2 -14.8

ME 230130004 Port Clyde 73.1 77.1 15.6 5.6

ME 230173001 North Lovell 67.6 51.8 24.0 -24.0

ME 230194008 Holden Rider B 74.1 58.7 21.1 -20.3

ME 230230004 Georgetown 75.6 83.4 12.5 11.0

ME 230310038 West Buxton 76.8 62.1 19.0 -19.0

ME 230313002 Kittery 82.3 71.6 15.9 -11.8

ME 230312002 Kennebunkport 80.3 70.1 13.8 -12.3

ME 239010001 Scotia Prince Ferry 73.0 64.7 17.8 -11.6

AVE 15.8 -9.0

5.16 CMAQ Model Simulation for 2009 Control Strategy

5.16.1 CMAQ Model 2009 Application

The CMAQ 2009 base case simulation was performed by NY DEC in the same manner as the 

CMAQ 2002 base case simulation. The simulation period ran from May 1 to September 30, with 

the first 14 days of May as a ramp-up period to minimize the propagation of the boundary fields 

into areas of concern. The actual CMAQ results for the CMAQ control strategy evaluation were 

from May 15 through September 30. 

5.16.2 CMAQ Input Files for 2009.

5.16.2.1 Emission Files for 2009 simulation

The CMAQ 2009 control strategy simulation employed the 2009 CMAQ-ready hourly

emission files described in Sub-Section 12 for RPO states and Canadian Provinces in the 

OTR modeling domain. These emission files reflect “beyond on the way” (BOTW) 

controls in all OTR states and “on the way controls” (OTW) controls in CENRAP, 

MRPO and VISTAS states in the OTR modeling domain. The 2002 hourly biogenic 
Final - Section 5 - Page 27 of 49

were also used for 2009 CMAQ simulations since significant change in land use would 

not be expected to occur between 2002 and 2009.

5.16.2.2 Boundary and Initial Conditions for 2009 simulation

The 2002 hourly boundary condition files (Section 14) were used for the 2009 future year 

CMAQ simulation. This was considered to be a reasonable and conservative approach 

since air pollution levels and emissions are expected to be lower in 2009.

5.16.2.3 Meteorological Files for 2009 simulation

The 2002 hourly meteorological files (Section 14) were used for the 2009 simulation.

5.16.2.4 Photolysis Rates

The photolysis rate tables generated for 2002 (Section 14) were used for 2009 simulation. 

5.16.3 CMAQ Output Files

All input and output files for 2009 BOTW CMAQ simulation for the OTR modeling domain are 

listed in Appendix S. Files are available in electronic format for the 12km domain from 

NYSDEC for use with the SMOKE/CMAQ system. Please contact NY DEC Gopal Sitla at 518-

402-8402) for data file requests. 

5.17 Predicted Design Values for 2009 

5.17.1 Design Values for 2002 Base Case 

Design values at each monitoring site were calculated in accordance with 40 CFR Part 50.10, 

Appendix I. The design value for a three-year period of time is calculated as the 3-year average 

of the fourth highest monitored daily 8-hour maximum value. For example, the design value for 

the 2000-2002 periods is the average of the fourth highest monitored daily 8-hour maximum 

values in 2000, 2001 and 2002. 

For the modeled attainment test, EPA guidance (EPA, 2007) recommends averaging three design 

values that straddle the baseline inventory year (the baseline inventory year is 2002). Therefore, 

the 2002 design value for the attainment demonstration is the average of the “2002 design value” 

(determined from 2000-2002 observations), the “2003 design value” (determined from 2001-

2003 observations), and the “2004 design value” (determined from 2002-2004 observations). 

The 2002 design value (DVC) was calculated in ppb, and carried to 1 significant digit. The 

2002 design values for Massachusetts ozone monitors are listed in Table 9 and the 2002 design 

values for the other New England states are shown in Table 10-14. The design values for all 

other ozone monitors in the OTR are listed in Appendix T.

5.17.2 Relative Response Factor for 2009 (RRF)
Final - Section 5 - Page 28 of 49

In order to minimize the under-prediction or over-prediction of peak ozone concentrations, EPA 

recommends that photochemical grid models be used in a relative way for modeled attainment 

demonstrations (EPA, 2007). Instead of using the absolute modeled results for 2009, EPA 

recommends that the change in predicted ozone concentrations between 2002 and 2009 be used 

for the attainment demonstration. EPA recommends that the 2009 design value be determined 

by multiplying the 2002 design value by a quantity referred to as a relative response factor 

(RRF). The RRF is the ratio of the 2009 ozone prediction divided by the 2002 ozone prediction.

The EPA guidance requires that an average daily RRF be determined for each monitor using the 

CMAQ model results from grid cells that are at and near a monitor with near being defined as a 3 

by 3 grid array centered on the monitoring station location. For each day, the maximum 

predicted 2002 base case concentration and the maximum predicted 2009 BOTW emission 

scenario concentration are selected from the 3 X 3 grid array surrounding for each monitor. 

Because photochemical models are less responsive to emission reductions on days of lower 

ozone concentrations, EPA guidance recommends applying screening criteria minimize using 

low ozone days when calculating RRFs (EPA, 2007). At least 10 days above 85 ppb are required 

to calculate the RRF at each monitoring location; if 10 days above 85 ppb are not available, EPA 

guidance allows for a smaller number of days at lower ozone concentrations. The minimum 

criteria is 5 days at or above 70 ppb for calculating a meaningful average daily RRF value. 

The detailed criteria for selecting high ozone days and calculating RRFs (to 3 significant digits) 

are described in Appendix T. 

The 2009 relative response factors (RRFs) calculated for each Massachusetts ozone monitor for 

the 2009 BOTW emission scenario are listed in Table AD9, and the 2009 RRFs for all other New 

England states are shown in Table AD10-AD14. The RRFs for each ozone monitor in the OTR 

are contained in Appendix U.

5.17.3 Design Values for 2009 

The 2009 future case design value (DVF) for the BOTW emission scenario was determined by 

multiplying the 2002 DVC for each monitor by the 2009 relative response factor (RRF) 

determined for each monitor. After the DVF was calculated, the DVF was truncated at the 

decimal point and then compared to the ozone 8-hour NAAQS. A truncated value at or below 84 

ppb is considered to be a demonstration of modeled attainment (EPA, 2007). 

The 2009 DVFs for Massachusetts monitors are shown in Table AD9. The highest predicted 

2009 DVF is 82 ppb (at both Lynn and Milton), below the modeled attainment test of 84 ppb. 

The 2009 DVFs for other New England states are shown in Table AD10-AD14. The highest 

2009 DVFs in New Hampshire, Maine and Vermont, areas that are subject to transport of ozone 

and ozone precursors from Massachusetts, are 74 ppb, 79 ppb and 70 ppb, well below the 

modeled attainment test of 84 ppb. The 2009 DVFs for all ozone monitors in the OTR for the 

2009 BOTW emission scenario are contained in Appendix U. 
Final - Section 5 - Page 29 of 49

Table AD9: 2009 Design Values (DVF) in Massachusetts for 2009 BOTW Emission Scenario

State AIRS-ID Location DVC RRF 2009 DVF 2009 

MA 250010002 Truro 92.0 0.877 80

MA 250034002 Adams 83.3 0.877 73

MA 250051002 Fairhaven 91.0 0.878 79

MA 250090005 Lawrence 70.0 0.880 61

MA 250092006 Lynn 90.0 0.916 82

MA 250094004 Newbury 86.0 0.882 75

MA 250130003 Agawam 83.0 0.873 72

MA 250130008 Chicopee 92.0 0.872 80

MA 250150103 Amherst 74.7 0.874 65

MA 250154002 Ware 86.3 0.873 75

MA 250171102 Stow 85.7 0.870 74

MA 250213003 Milton 91.0 0.911 82

MA 250250041 Boston (Long I) 88.7 0.909 80

MA 250250042 Boston (Harris) 73.0 0.908 66

MA 250270015 Worcester 84.0 0.863 72

Table AD10: 2009 Design Values (DVF) in New Hampshire for 2009 BOTW Emission Scenario

State AIRS-ID Location DVC RRF 2009 DVF 2009 

NH 330012004 Laconia 76.5 below criteria below criteria

NH 330031002 Conway 67.0 below criteria below criteria

NH 330050007 Keene 74.3 0.865 64

NH 330090008 Haverhill 70.3 below criteria below criteria

NH 330111010 Nashua 86.0 0.867 74

NH 330115001 Peterborough 84.0 0.873 73

NH 330130007 Concord 74.7 below criteria below criteria

NH 330150012 Rye 83.5 0.869 72

NH 330150013 Rockingham 80.0 0.858 68

NH 330150015 Portsmouth 68.0 0.869 59

NH 330173002 Rochester 78.5 0.860 67

NH 330190003 Claremont 74.3 below criteria below criteria
Final - Section 5 - Page 30 of 49

Table AD11: 2009 Design Values (DVF) in Connecticut for 2009 BOTW Emission Scenario

State AIRS-ID Location DVC RRF 2009 DVF 2009 

CT 090010017 Greenwich 95.7 0.913 87

CT 090011123 Danbury 95.7 0.897 85

CT 090013007 Stratford 98.3 0.919 90

CT 090019003 Westport 94.0 0.909 85

CT 090031003 E. Hartford 88.0 0.876 77

CT 090050005 Cornwall 89.0 0.870 77

CT 090070007 Middletown 95.7 0.888 84

CT 090093002 Madison 98.3 0.905 88

CT 090099005 Hamden 93.3 0.912 85

CT 090110008 Groton 90.0 0.879 79

CT 090131001 Stafford 92.3 0.867 80
Final - Section 5 - Page 31 of 49

Table AD12: 2009 Design Values (DVF) in Maine for 2009 BOTW Emission Scenario

State AIRS-ID Location DVC RRF 2009 DVF 2009 

ME 230038001 Ashland135 64.0 below criteria below criteria

ME 230052003 Cape Elizabeth 84.3 0.873 73

ME 230090102 ANP Cadillac M 91.7 0.869 79

ME 230090103 ANP McFarland 83.7 0.871 72

ME 230090301 Castine 75.0 0.879 65

ME 230112005 Gardiner Pray 78.0 0.869 67

ME 230130004 Port Clyde 83.7 0.871 72

ME 230173001 North Lovell 60.7 below criteria below criteria

ME 230194007 Howland 66.7 below criteria below criteria

ME 230194008 Holden Rider B 79.0 below criteria below criteria

ME 230310038 West Buxton 75.0 0.860 64

ME 230312002 Kennebunkport 88.3 0.875 77

ME 230313002 Kittery 85.3 0.869 74

Table AD13: 2009 Design Values (DVF) in Vermont for 2009 BOTW Emission Scenario

State AIRS-ID Location DVC RRF 2009 DVF 2009 

VT 500030004 Bennington 79.7 0.883 70

VT 500070007 Underhill 77.0 below criteria below criteria

Table AD14: 2009 Design Values (DVF) in Rhode Island for 2009 BOTW Emission Scenario

State AIRS-ID Location DVC RRF 2009 DVF 2009 

RI 440030002 West Greenwich 93.3 0.862 80

RI 440071010 Providence 89.7 0.868 77

RI 440090007 Narragansett 93.3 0.876 81
Final - Section 5 - Page 32 of 49

5.18 Estimating Design Values at Unmonitored Locations

5.18.1 Massachusetts Ozone Monitoring Network 

Based on our understanding of ozone formation, transport, and destruction, MassDEP considers 

Massachusetts’ network of ozone monitors to be adequate for measuring the highest ozone 

values occurring in the state. The Massachusetts ozone network used for determining 2002 and 

2009 design values is shown in Figure AD12.

Generally, ozone production via chemical transformation occurs some distance downwind of 

areas containing significant precursor emissions. What happens still farther downwind depends 

on the number and size of precursor emission sources in that area. If it lacks such sources, ozone 

will eventually be depleted because of its high reactivity (provided transport is over land). It 

would then follow that, in areas where ozone levels drop off, additional monitoring would be 

unnecessary. 

The primary source of ozone in Massachusetts is the stream of pollution from upwind states to 

our southwest. While Massachusetts contributes to this stream, it typically measures lower 

concentrations than does Connecticut, which lies closer to the area of highest emissions. There is 

further depletion of ozone moving northward from Chicopee and Ware to Amherst. This is due 

to fewer “fresh” (non-transport) emissions in that area that might otherwise stimulate ozone 

production. 

It is that area, to the north of Amherst across the northern tier of the state, from the Charlemont 

area eastward to Groton, which has no ozone monitor. But because of the area’s low population 

density and lack of significant industry, MassDEP is confident that ozone readings are relatively 

low here, and that additional monitoring coverage is unnecessary. 

5.18.2 Future Year Design Values at Unmonitored Locations

Since VOC and NOx emissions are trending lower in Massachusetts and elsewhere, MassDEP is 

confident that using design values from the 2002 network to construct future year design values 

provides a reasonable estimate of maximum predicted design values in Massachusetts for 2009 

and beyond.
Final - Section 5 - Page 33 of 49

Figure AD12: Massachusetts Ozone Monitors for 2002

5.19 Weight of Evidence 

EPA modeling guidance provides that a state include in its attainment demonstration additional 

evidence to support its modeling analysis and to better assess the likelihood of attainment. EPA 

will review all of the evidence and make its determination as to the likelihood that the area will 

attain the ozone standard in the attainment year based on the entire “weight of evidence”(WOE). 

A WOE analysis must be included in the attainment demonstration when the modeling is deemed 

“inconclusive”. EPA’s guidance establishes the “inconclusive” range for 8-hour ozone 

modeling results at 82 ppb through 87 ppb for the required attainment year. The predicted design 

values for monitors in EMA and WMA are shown in Table AD17. The highest 2009-modeled 

design values are in Lynn and Milton at 82 ppb; all other modeled design values in EMA and 

WMA are below 82 ppb. 

5.19.1 Air Quality Trends 

Figures AD13 and AD14 display ozone design values from 2002-2007. For comparison, the 

predicted design values for the 2009 BOTW emission scenario were inserted on the chart. The 

graphs suggest that EMA is on track to meet the ozone NAAQS (85 ppb) by 2009. Since 2002, 

the trend appears to be continuing downward. For WMA, there is no clear trend in monitored 

data but ,.other factors discussed in this Section support the expectation that WMA will attain in 

2009. If it does not, as discussed in Section 1, Introduction, MassDEP is confident that in 2009 

WMA will be eligible to seek an extension of its attainment year.

Adams

Agawam

Chicopee

Ware

Amherst

Stow

Worcester

Fairhaven

Truro

Boston

Lynn

Lawrence Newbury

Milton
Final - Section 5 - Page 34 of 49

Figure AD13: Design Value Trends in Eastern Massachusetts

Eastern MA Design Values Based on Monitored Data Compared to 

Predicted Design Values For 2009

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Truro

Fairhaven

Martha's V.

Lynn

New bury

Stow

Blue Hill

Long Is.

Roxbury

Figure AD14: Design Value Trends in Western Massachusetts

Western MA Design Values Compared with

Predicted 2009 Design Values 

50.0

55.0

60.0

65.0

70.0

75.0

80.0

85.0

90.0

95.0

100.0

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Adams

Chicopee

Amherst

Ware

Worcester
Final - Section 5 - Page 35 of 49

5.19.2 Emission Trends 

The principal precursors for ozone are NOX and VOCs. Substantial NOX and VOC emission 

reductions will take place between 2002 and 2009 in the OTR. Most of these reductions are 

associated with the NOx SIP Call, CAIR, federal on-road and off-road fuels, federal motor 

vehicle standards and state LEV (low emission Vehicle) programs, federal MACT rules, 2001 

OTC model rules for consumer products, architectural coatings, distributed generation and many 

state-specific rules in effect by 2009. In addition to these reductions, new 2006 OTC 

recommended control measures previously discussed in Section 11 (BOTW emission scenario) 

will provide for additional reductions by 2009. Finally, on-road and off-road federal motor 

vehicle control measures will provide substantial additional reductions between 2009 and 2012.

MANE-VU state emission inventory totals for 2002, 2009 and 2012 are shown in Table AD15. 

NO2 and VOC emissions for MANE-VU states (which includes all of OTR states except for 

Virginia) trend downward between 2002 and 2012. As shown on Table AD15, Massachusetts 

annual NOx and VOC emissions are estimated to go down by 35% and 22%, respectively, 

between 2002 and 2009. Massachusetts NOx and VOC emissions in 2002, 2009 and 2012 are 

graphically displayed in Figure AD15. Similar emission reductions are taking place in states 

upwind of Massachusetts. NOX and VOC emissions in Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York 

and New Jersey are estimated to go down by 33% and 23%, respectively, between 2002 and 

2009. NOx and VOC emissions in 2002, 2009 and 2012 for Connecticut, Rhode Island, New 

York and New Jersey are graphically displayed in Figure AD16.

5.19.3 Extra Ozone Reductions

The percent ozone reductions needed for modeled attainment (84 ppb) are shown in Table AD16 

along with the percent reduction actually predicted at each monitor location for the 2009 BOTW 

emission scenario. The percent reductions from BOTW controls are substantially more than that 

needed to attain the ozone NAAQS. For example, the percent reduction for the 2009 BOTW 

scenario at the Milton monitor is 8.9%, approximately 15 percent more than that needed to attain 

84 ppb. The extra ozone reductions predicted for Massachusetts indicate that Massachusetts can 

attain the ozone NAAQS by 2009 with a small margin of safety. 

5.19.4 2012 Future Year Simulation

In addition to the 2009 BOTW scenario, the NY DEC also performed a CMAQ run using BOTW 

emissions for 2012. The purpose of the run was to estimate the effects of NOx and VOC 

reductions associated with on-road and off-road Federal Motor Vehicle controls scheduled to be 

in effect by 2012. 

The results of the 2012 run were encouraging, particularly for Massachusetts. As shown in 

Table AD17, design values were predicted to be 3-5 ppb lower at Massachusetts ozone monitors 

by 2012. The highest predicted design value was 79 ppb (at both Lynn and Milton), well below 

the modeled attainment test of 84 ppb. The 2012 design values for all monitors in the OTR for 

the 2012 BOTW emission scenario are contained in Appendix T. 
Final - Section 5 - Page 36 of 49

Table AD15: MANE-VU Anthropogenic Emissions in Tons/Year for 2002, 2009 and 2012)

2002 CO NOX VOC NH3 SO2 PM10 PM2_5 PMC

Connecticut 992201 125208 162492 8598 32077 27061 15795 11266

Delaware 273433 58764 41120 14376 79868 15214 7931 7284

District of Columbia 101372 15389 14893 415 2939 2889 1276 1613

Maine 759882 94932 166501 11060 39362 64103 28458 35645

Maryland 1905406 283387 265220 31712 315251 72234 34805 37428

Massachusetts 1838763 276530 294703 25737 164112 89984 40667 49317

New Hampshire 594257 67326 111333 3678 55295 25796 19479 6316

New Jersey 2276006 303053 378877 24931 91273 47021 29350 17671

New York 5223096 655774 921593 83801 448322 229391 90977 138413

Pennsylvania 4448357 806061 594355 91842 1077658 228459 82467 145992

Rhode Island 312263 29418 57200 1789 8022 5058 2486 2571

Vermont 351716 28290 50461 10608 6022 21218 8330 12888

Total 19076752 2744133 3058749 308548 2320202 828427 362022 466405

2009 CO NOX VOC NH3 SO2 PM10 PM2_5 PMC

Connecticut 751975 82139 122353 9255 22796 26481 15037 11443

Delaware 231392 49658 32109 14695 42569 15372 7694 7679

District of Columbia 67904 10433 10403 436 2297 2006 1124 882

Maine 579671 60201 141619 12974 38737 64881 27633 37247

Maryland 1373959 147710 205097 38971 114046 80496 39550 40946

Massachusetts 1290133 180391 229386 26513 64733 93839 42428 51411

New Hampshire 443286 44339 94330 4266 18597 26087 19511 6577

New Jersey 1778637 185314 285559 27935 49535 46183 28753 17430

New York 3730881 456457 710567 100682 325621 242237 98945 143293

Pennsylvania 3422688 518109 477042 113344 403150 259116 107315 151801

Rhode Island 240906 21900 44612 2144 8359 5410 2608 2802

Vermont 236142 17793 43063 13038 5966 22103 8099 14004

Total 14147574 1774443 2396138 364252 1096404 884212 398696 485516

2012 CO NOX VOC NH3 SO2 PM10 PM2_5 PMC

Connecticut 716977 70344 113054 9144 22782 25280 14543 11516

Delaware 217500 45374 28928 14764 46425 12993 7807 7583

District of Columbia 63117 8713 9282 444 1079 1951 1056 896

Maine 545508 52012 135942 13688 29498 64502 26653 38060

Maryland 1434921 126588 189071 41735 102051 74010 39364 41825

Massachusetts 1236508 153735 213427 26552 45138 90182 41579 51925

New Hampshire 419134 38130 89589 4480 18534 24088 19399 6737

New Jersey 1717360 157134 260638 28984 47989 41630 28016 17120

New York 3588481 382581 665562 107242 238667 223662 91306 144133

Pennsylvania 3244603 450213 446570 121446 338335 225539 101838 151963

Rhode Island 230659 19093 40867 2239 4460 5089 2365 2862

Vermont 226049 15010 41333 13938 5964 22500 8025 14505

Total 13640817 1518927 2234263 384654 900922 811427 381952 489125
Final - Section 5 - Page 37 of 49

 Figure AD15: Emissions in MA for 2002, 2009 and 2012 BOTW Emission Scenarios

VOC and NOX Emissions in Tons/Year in MA

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

2002 2009 2012

VOC

NOx

Figure AD16: Emissions in CT, RI, NY and NJ for BOTW Emission Scenarios

VOC and NOX Emissions in Tons/Year in CT, RI, NY and 

NJ

0

200000

400000

600000

800000

1000000

1200000

1400000

1600000

2002 2009 2012

VOC

NOx
Final - Section 5 - Page 38 of 49

Table AD16: Percent Ozone Reductions at MA Ozone Monitors

Monitor DVC 2002 DVF 2009 

% Reduction to 

Attain 84 ppb

% Reduction from 

BOTW

Truro 92.0 80.0 8.7 12.3

Adams 83.3 73.0 12.3

Fairhaven 91.0 79.0 7.7 12.2

Lawrence 70.0 61.0 - 12.0

Lynn 90.0 82.0 6.7 8.4

Newbury 86.0 75.0 2.3 11.8

Agawam 83.0 72.0 - 12.7

Chicopee 92.0 80.0 8.7 12.8

Amherst 74.7 65.0 - 12.6

Ware 86.3 75.0 2.7 12.7

Stow 85.7 74.0 2.0 13.0

Milton 91.0 82.0 7.7 8.9

Boston (Long I) 88.7 80.0 5.3 9.1

Boston (Harris) 73.0 66.0 - 9.2

Worcester 84.0 72.0 - 13.7
Final - Section 5 - Page 39 of 49

Table AD17: Design Values in Massachusetts for 2009 and 2012 BOTW Emissions

AIRS-ID Monitor 2002 Base 2009 BOTW 2012 BOTW 

250010002 Truro 92 80 75

250034002 Adams 83.3 73 68

250051002 Fairhaven 91 79 75

250090005 Lawrence 70 61 58

250092006 Lynn 90 82 79

250094004 Newbury 86 75 71

250130003 Agawam 83 72 68

250130008 Chicopee 92 80 75

250150103 Amherst 74.7 65 61

250154002 Ware 86.3 75 70

250171102 Stow 85.7 74 70

250213003 Milton 91 82 79

250250041 Boston (Long I) 88.7 80 77

250250042 Boston (Harris) 73 66 63

250270015 Worcester 84 72 67
Final - Section 5 - Page 40 of 49

Figure AD17: NO2 Reductions by Sector between 2009 and 2012

NOX in Tons/Year for BOTW Scenario

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

Mobile Area Nonroad EGU Point Nonfossil 

2009

2012

Figure AD18: VOC Reductions by Sector between 2009 and 2012

VOC in Tons/Year for BOTW Scenario

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

Mobile Area Nonroad EGU Point Nonfossil 

2009

2012

The results of the 2012 run are not surprising in light of the substantial emission reductions that 

can be deduced from Table AD15. For example, a reduction of more than 14% (255,516 tons per 

year) in MANE-VU NOx emissions will take place between 2009 and 2012. As shown on 
Final - Section 5 - Page 41 of 49

Figure AD17 and Figure AD18, the bulk of these NOx and VOC reductions are associated with 

on-road and off-road on-road Federal Motor Vehicle control measures in effect by 2012. These 

additional emission reductions will provide a substantial safety net of approximately 5 ppb in 

2012 at the highest ozone monitors in Massachusetts.

5.19.5 Elevated Ozone Episodes in 2007

August 30, 2007

The Chicopee ozone monitor in WMA registered its 4th highest 8-hour ozone value for the 2007 

ozone season, 98 ppb, on August 30. This unusually high reading for so late in the season could 

be attributed to an unusual weather pattern that day and to smoke from distant forest fires. 

Typically ozone buildups in WMA occur under a southwesterly flow regime in which polluted 

air gets transported along the northeast corridor before entering MA. (Figure AD19) While 

pollutant transport did exist on 8/30/07, other factors likely caused concentrations to reach even 

higher. Figure AD20 points to a zone of converging air over western New England. In Figure 

AD21, the pressure field indicates a trough of low pressure over western and northern New 

England. It is this trough that induced air to converge. When air converges, pollutants are apt to 

build to higher levels than they otherwise would. In addition, wind speeds shown in Figure 

AD22 are near calm within the area of the trough. This suggests that the air converged onto 

WMA and then went nowhere, allowing ozone concentrations to build further.

The second factor is the presence of smoke from distant forest fires, a not uncommon occurrence 

during the summer months, but one that is thought to augment ozone production when smoke is 

highly concentrated. The satellite image in Figure AD23 below shows the presence of a smoke 

plume covering portions of WMA into NY. This is corroborated by PM2.5 measurements at the 

ground shown in Table AD18, which indicate that hourly values, mainly at WMA monitors, 

jumped up, clearly the result of the smoke plume.
Final - Section 5 - Page 42 of 49

Figure AD19 – Synoptic Pattern for 

Typical Ozone Episode

Figure AD20- Streamline Analysis on 8/30/07
Final - Section 5 - Page 43 of 49

Figure AD21 – Synoptic Pattern on 8/30/07

Figure AD22 – Wind Speeds 8/30/07 at 11 AM EDT
Final - Section 5 - Page 44 of 49

Figure AD23 – Satellite Photo 8/30/07 
Final - Section 5 - Page 45 of 49

Table AD18 – PM2.5 CONCENTRATIONS 

8/30/07

Site Name 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Fall River 3.1 3.3 5.2 4.1 4.4 4.9 5.3 9.1 10.8 11.8 15.3 16.3 11.5 12 12.6 12.5 12.9 14.2 15.3 19.5 10.7 10.4 8.1 8.3

Boston -

North End 5.8 10.2 8 7.1 8.5 7.8 9.1 10.3 12.2 22.8 17.2 25.3 20.7 16.2 19.2 16.1 19.4 16.4 19.4 17.7 17.2 17.8 17.7 17

Haverhill 16.2 17.6 11.6 13 12.5 15.7 14.1 22.6 20.9 23.6 31 34.2 37.3 38.6 35.7 25.7 14 13.7 13.1 16.7 13.5 12.1 8.8 9.9

Pittsfield 38.3 42.1 32.6 32.1 36.8 42.6 32.6 35.4 44.4 26 24.7 26.3 30.3 32.3 33.7 34 33.9 33.3 35.4 30.7 42.2 39 29.2 27.1

E. Milton -

Blue Hill 7.9 5.6 6 4.9 3.5 7.6 9.4 8.4 9.8 12.1 15.3 17.9 13.3 13.1 15.9 12.4 10.8 11.4 10.2 8.9 10.8 10.4 11 14.8

Springfield 11.3 10.3 9.5 5.5 3.5 5.8 10.9 10.7 10.7 13.2 23.7 31.6 41 37.6 40.9 43.9 46.2 46.1 37 39.8 27.8 25.6 21.8 16.5

Worcester 7.4 8.8 11.3 12.6 10.2 8.7 8.1 11.2 18.2 26.2 27.3 26.8 31.1 38.5 25.6 31 28.1 28.9 29.1 26.8 25.4 17.9 19.4 19.1

WARE 15.5 14 20 6.6 17 11.9 13.9 17.6 16.9 16 30.1 36.6 48.4 45.2 37.7 41 40.2 43.8 45.6 35.2 35.3 37.8 27.2 29.1

LYNN 8.9 12.2 11.2 9.5 15.5 9 9.6 10.1 12.2 25.7 17 18.8 14.7 20.6 17.5 11 16.9 16.4 12.5 12.9 13.1 19.9 11.3 24.1

Boston -

Roxbury 9.8 10.9 11.1 8 8 9.4 10.1 10.9 12.8 21 23 14.7 25.1 22.1 19.5 18.3 13.5 14.5 14.6 16.5 22.7 23.1 13.5 18.7

August 3, 2007

The third-highest monitored reading (102 ppb) at the Chicopee monitor in 2007 was recorded on 

August 3. Meteorological conditions on that date were conducive to the production of abundant 

ground level ozone in WMA. The synoptic pattern (Figure AD19, above) featured a Bermuda 

High well east of the Carolinas, surface temperatures generally reached the mid 90s (Figure 

AD23), and surface winds were southwesterly (Figure AD24). However, also likely contributing 

to ozone formation that day was smoke from distant forest fires, as revealed in the satellite photo 

below (Figure AD25) and Table AD18. While there are no means of quantifying the 

contribution of smoke to ozone production, it is possible that absent this smoke, ozone 

concentrations on this date would have been lower. 
Final - Section 5 - Page 46 of 49

Figure AD24 – Max Temperatures 8/3/07

(from 8pm 8/2/07 – 8pm 8/3/07)

Figure AD25 – Wind Vectors 8/3/07 11 EDT
Final - Section 5 - Page 47 of 49

Figure AD26 – Satellite Photo 8/3/07

Table AD18 – PM 2.5 Concentrations 8/3/07

Site Name 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

WARE 37.4 35.6 34 36.9 32.3 32.128.938.740.537.146.948.650.252 40.743 53 40.250.425.5 31.834.8

Boston -

Roxbury 37.2 30.5 35.8 37.3 35.5 36.439.141.438.243

E. Milton -

Blue Hill 25.7 27.9 21.5 26.8 28.1 27.129.131.433.733.933.135.532.834 26.937.536.434.134.527.928.526.9 17.521.4

Springfield 27.7 29.4 36 28.3 29.4 37.735.335 32.234 40.542.139.936.935 40.542.144.641.932.233.3-98023 17.4

Haverhill 25.9 27 28.5 23.5 32.3 29.735 27.631.736.434.140.837.635 24.332 30.241.141.438.539.825.2 32.429.8

Fall River 39.8 37.2 40.5 32.7 36.9 25.727.922.526.438 34.642.629.942.639.228.830.424.221.922.917.312 21 10.8

LYNN 27.2 27.8 32 31.3 34.6 30.731.340 36.937.136.134.635.237 31.933.139.844 41.533.239.626 28.927.1

Worcester 17.7 22.4 19.2 32 25 33.632.333.536.440.424.427.325.332 37.138.744 37.735.632.828.531 16.918.5

PITTSFIELD23.5 26.9 19.3 19.7 20.8 23.218 26.731.132.854.833.543.450.649.950 50 50 50 22.142.547.9 45.749

Boston -

North End 31.7 39.2 28.4 26.3 29.9 32.739.443.443.241.238.134.941.229.533.934.946.947.244.341.538.128.9 28.425.5
Final - Section 5 - Page 48 of 49

5.20 Conclusions

The Massachusetts attainment demonstration demonstrates that reductions in ozone precursor 

emissions in Massachusetts and upwind of Massachusetts will result in statewide attainment of 

the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by 2009. The attainment demonstration was based on SIP-quality

CMAQ ozone modeling results for 2002 and 2009. The attainment demonstration consisted of 

choosing a base year (2002) to test model performance and then rerunning the model using a 

future year emission scenario (2009) in order to determine the predicted reductions in ozone 

calculate levels in and downwind of Massachusetts.

The 2002 ozone season was selected as the base year for OTR attainment demonstrations 

because a significant number of exceedance days were recorded that year over the eastern United 

States. A multi-year review of elevated ozone days in the OTR indicted that meteorological 

regimes associated with high ozone levels also occurred during 2002. In other words, 2002 

meteorology contained a good set of meteorological conditions for testing the effectiveness of 

ozone control strategies. The 2002 CMAQ model run results indicated that the CMAQ model 

was performing adequately and was acceptable for simulating future year emission scenarios in 

and downwind of Massachusetts.

In 2006, all states in the OTR modeling domain prepared future year emission inventories for 

2009 by applying growth and control measures to 2002 base year emission inventories. The 

control measures reflected controls programs that were already on the way and in effect by 2009. 

These emission inventories, referred to as “on the way” emission inventories, reflect the NOx 

SIP Call and CAIR requirements, federal on-road and off-road fuels, federal motor vehicle 

standards and state LEV (Low Emission Vehicle) programs, 2001 OTC model rules for 

consumer products, architectural coatings, distributed generation and any other state-specific 

rules in effect by 2009. In addition, OTC states prepared a “beyond on the way” (BOTW) 

emission inventory for selected non-EGUs and area sources in the OTR. The BOTW emissions 

reflect new OTC 2006 model rules for several source categories in OTR states. The BOTW 

control measures were developed because preliminary ozone modeling efforts indicated 

additional controls would be needed to attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in portions of the OTR. 

The CMAQ model was run using emission input files prepared for the 2009 emission scenario 

(“on the way” emissions throughout the OTR modeling domain and “beyond on the way” control 

measures in OTC states). The 2009 and 2002 modeling results were then compared to determine 

the percent reduction in ozone levels between 2002 and 2009. The percent reduction was applied 

to the 2002 ozone design value at each ozone monitoring location in the OTR in order to 

calculate a design value for 2009. The maximum 2009 design value in Massachusetts was 82 

ppb, indicating that Massachusetts will attain the ozone NAAQS (85 ppb) with “on the way” 

control measures throughout the OTR modeling domain and “beyond on the way” control 

measures in OTC states.

Ozone precursor trends indicate that EMA and WMA will attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

Emission reductions by 2009 appear to be slightly more than needed to attain the NAAQS in 
Final - Section 5 - Page 49 of 49

Massachusetts. A 2012 CMAQ modeling run by NY DEC also indicated that additional 

reductions, primarily due to Federal Motor Vehicle control measures, will lower maximum 

design values in Massachusetts to 79 ppb, a significant safety net in the event that 2009 

monitored design values are still above the ozone NAAQS.

Based upon ozone modeling results, ozone air quality trends and ozone precursor trends, 

MassDEP expects that the EMA will attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by 2009 and that, while 

WMA may attain by 2009, if it does not, it will be eligible for a 1-year extension of the 2009 

attainment date.