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) anal ys es. 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 ye ar for attainment monitoring is calendar year 2009. The following attainment demonstration demonstrates that, as a result of reductions in ozone precursor emiss ions 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 devel op 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 Region 1 (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 s horter 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 corri dor 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) c om prises 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

F R A N K L I N

H A M P S H I R E

H A M P D E N B E R K S H I R E W O R C E S T E R M I D D L E S E X ES S E X

P L YM O U T H B R I S T O L NO R F O L K

N A N T U C K E T D U K E S S U F F O L K

B A R N S T A B L E

WMA Non - Attainment Area Counties EMA Non - Attainment Area Counties Berkshire Barnstable Nantucket Bristol County Norfolk Franklin Hamden Dukes Ply mouth Hampshire Middlesex Worcester Essex SuffolkFinal - Section 5 - Page 3 of 49

5.2.3 Transport Global scale circulations, while not a direct cause of Massachusetts ozone episodes, g overn the location and strength of sy noptic scale features, such as high and low pressure s ys tems 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 southwesterl y airflow with the mountains, resulting in more highl y 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 o vernight. Smaller microscale circulations include the whorls and eddies that transfer heat and energy verticall y. This transfer mechanism often shuts down in the evening when the earth cools and temperature inversions form. Ozone trapped near the ground gets destro ye d through chemical transformation and deposition. But ozone aloft remains relativel y 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

s ynoptic meteorological patterns typically trigger severe ozone episodes in Massachusetts, and result in episodes having markedly different o zone signatures. The first sy noptic 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 - no rthwesterl y 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 westerl y flow also bl ocks the plume’s northward penetration, keeping the rest of the state’s air relativel y clean. A good example of this episode ty pe 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 westerl y surface winds that forced the plume seaward. Also, note the thin strip of moderate ozone along Maine’s coast and the southerl y airflow just offshore. This strongl y suggests an air trajectory from eastern Massachusetts to the Maine coast. The second s ynoptic 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 - southwesterl y wind across Massachusetts, which carries pollutants from the New York City area northeastward intoFinal - 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 .) RI GHT : 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 southerl y breezes draw in cleaner marine air. In this case, the ozone gradient is reversed from the first episode ty pe discussed above. Here, the south coast and Ca pe Cod and Islands have relativel y 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 wes tern 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

p ortions 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 ph otochemical grid models to assess the impact of candidate ozone control strategies in the OTR. EPA’s Community Multi - scale Air Quality

Modeling S ys tem (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 S ys tem For Assessment of the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard in the Ozon e 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 modif ications, 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 qu ality ozone modeling s ys tem 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 Ep isodes 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 relativel y long time periods. In order to examine the response to ozone control strategies, EPA recommends that episode days should be meteorologicall y representative of typical high ozone exceedance days and so severe that anyFinal - 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 o f 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 day s were recorded across the eastern U. S. that ye ar. 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 - ye ar review, prepared b y Environ (Environ, 2005) is contained in Appendix C. Based o n 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 b y 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, Penns yl vania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Virginia. Non - OTR states in the OTR modeling domain consist of Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Iowa, Louisiana, Il linois, 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 o f the modeling s ys tem 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 L ayers 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 availableFinal - Section 5 - Page 7 of 49

Figure AD4: OTR Photochemical Grid Mo deling 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 ch emistry 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 S ys tem 5.6.1 Photochemical Grid Modeling S ys tem 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/inde x.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 - sci ence capabilities to address multiple air quality issues, including tropospheric ozone, fine particles, toxics, acid deposition, and visibility degradation. The target grid resolutions andFinal - Section 5 - Page 8 of 49 Figure AD5: Regional Haze Regional planning Organizations (RPOs)

domain sizes for CMAQ can range spatiall y and temporally over several orders of magnitude. In addition, CMAQ also has temporal flexibility ; simulations can be performed for long - term (annual to multi - ye ar) pollutant climato logies as well as short term (weeks to months) to simulate transport of precursor emissions from localized sources. 5.6.2 CMAQ Modeling Sy stem Source Codes The CMAQ modeling s ystem contains three types of modeling components: a meteorological modeling s ys tem (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 s ys tem (CMAQ) for simulation of the chemical transformation and fate. Because CMAQ is designed to handle scale - dependent meteorological formulations andFinal - Section 5 - Page 9 of 49

a large amount of system flexibility, CMAQ's governing equations are expressed in a generalized coordinate s ys tem. The generalized coordinate s ys tem 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 b y 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 mode l, referred to as MM5, was used b y the University of Maryland (UMD) to generate meteorological fields for the OTR modeling domain. MM5 is a limited - area, non - hydrostatic, terrain - following sigma coordinate model designed to simulate mesoscale atmospheric circulation. MM5 codes can be obtained at http://www.mmm.ucar.edu/mm5/ . The set of options used b y UMD for running MM5 (Version 3.6) in consultation with NY DEC are listed in Appendix E. 5.7.2 MM5 Meteorolog ical Fields The National Weather Service NCEP ETA 40 km resolution - forecasting model was emplo yed 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 emplo ying 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 hourl y 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 humi dity 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 dyn amics 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, thereb y providing confidence in the use of MM5 results for the CMAQ simulations. 5.8 Biogenic emi ssions 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

S ys tem (BE IS version 3.12) int egrated 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 emissio ns 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 ty pes 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 Conditi ons 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 b y the UMD (Section 7). Clean initial conditions were emplo ye d, and boundary conditions for the continental USA simulation were extracted from a simulation of the GEOS CHEM 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 By un, 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 p eriod. The boundary conditions simulation is described in more detail in Appendix H. 5.9.2 OTR Modeling Domain Boundary Conditions The hourl y boundary fields for the 12km CMAQ domain were obtained b y 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 (previousl y 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 emissio n 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 Emis sion Inventory for 2002 The OTR states, except for Virginia, are members of the MANE - VU RPO (Virginia is in the VI STAS 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, Penns ylvania, Rhode I sland, 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 Emi ssions 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 (SO 2 ), oxides of nitrogen (NO x), volatile organic compounds (VOC), carbon monoxi de (CO), ammonia (NH 3) and particles with aerodynam ic diameters less than or equal to a nominal 10 and 2.5 micrometers (primary PM 10 and PM 2.5 ) 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 I sland 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 466405Final - 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 D omain CMAQ - ready emission files for each RPO in the OTR domain (MANE - VU, CENRAP, MRPO, and VISTAS) were prepared b y NY DEC. Emission files for portions of Canada in the OTR domain were also prepared by NY DEC. Emission processing procedures are summariz ed 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 hourl y 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 emiss ion 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 b y 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 VI STAS Emission Files for 2002 VI STAS 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 (VI STAS BaseG emission inventory) were obtained from the Alpine Geophys ics ftp site b y NY DEC and processed with SMOKE2.2 to prepare CMAQ - ready hourl y 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 (NPRIhas no SCC codes) and then processed the emission file s 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 Inter state 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. Accordingl y, OTC staff and member states formed several OTC wor kgroups 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 AirContro lNET 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 anal ys es. 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 measure s (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 (I CI) Boilers and Regional Fuels. These control measures are collectively

refer red 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 describedFinal - Section 5 - Page 15 of 49

in Sec tion 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, VI STAS and MANE - VU RPOs prepared future year emission inventories for 2009 b y applying growth and control measures to the 2002 base year emission inventories. The control measures reflected all control pro grams 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, VI STAS and MANE - VU RPOs (I CF, 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 (Versio n 3) previously

described in Section 10. Details of this work effort are contained in Appendix L(MACTEC, 2007a). Mobile source emissions were prepared b y VA DEQ and NESCAUM, using MOBILE 6 input files and projected 2009 VMTs supplied by the MANE - VU stat es. 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 (previousl y described in Section 5.11). The BOTW control mea sures 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 b y 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 I sland 240906 21900 44612 2144 8359 5410 2608 2802 Vermo nt 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 MANE VU 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 obt ained 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 MANE VU 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 I CF (I CF, 2005) by VA DEQ and processed with SMOKE2.2 to prepare CMAQ - ready hourl y 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 I CF (ICF,Final - Section 5 - Page 17 of 49

2005) by VA DEQ and processed with SMOKE2.2 to prepare CMAQ - ready hourl y emission input files. 5.12.3.3 MRPO Emission files for 2009 Area and non - road emissions for MRPO states in the OTR domain (200 9 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 D EQ and processed with SMOKE2.2 to prepare CMAQ - ready emission input files. EGU emissions (IPM2.1.9) were obtained from I CF (ICF, 2005) by VA DEQ and processed with SMOKE2.2 to prepare CMAQ - ready hourl y emission input files. 5.12.3.4 VI STAS Emission Files for 2009 Non - EGU point, area, mobile and non - road emission files for VISTAS states in the OTR domain (2009 VI STAS BaseG emission inventory) were obtained from the Alpine Geophys ics ftp site b y VA DEQ and processed with SMOKE2.2 to prepare CMAQ - ready emi ssion input files for the 2009 simulation. VI STAS EGU emissions were obtained from I CF (I CF, 2005) by

VA DEQ and processed with SMOKE2.2 to prepare CMAQ ready hourl y 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) we re used as a surrogate for 2009. NY DEC processed these Canadian emission files with SMOKE2.2 to prepare CMAQ - ready hourl y 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 obtainedFinal - 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 mode ling domain was previousl y described in Section 4. CMAQ (version 4.5.1) was used with CB - IVchemistry , the aerosol module for PM 2.5 and the Regional Air Deposition Model (RADM) cloud scheme. The simulation ran from May 1 to September 30, with the first 1 4 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 hourl y 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 - IVVOC 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. C lean initial conditions were emplo yed. 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 simulati on were processed with Meteorology Chemistry

Interface Processor ( MCIPFinal - 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 hourl y 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 sy stem. Please contact Gopal Sistla at 518 - 402 - 8402 data f ile 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 O 3 , CO, NO, NO2, SO2, C 2 H 4 , C 5 H 8 , HCHO, PM 2.5 and several regional haze aerosol species were compared to measurements in every grid cell where air quality

data were available. Hourl y ozone measurements from 234 monitors were available to assess C MAQ 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 mid August 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 dail y 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 StatesFinal - Section 5 - Page 2 0 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 fairl y 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 Penns ylvania 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 correctl y 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 ty pical westerl y (as opposed to southwesterl y) 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 Engl and had earlier crossed central New York and thus arrived fairl y 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 ozo ne concentrations in New England.

Figure AD7: Maximum 8 - Hour Values on August 8, 2002Final - 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, 2002Final - Section 5 - Page 22 of 49 Figure AD10: Maximum 8 - Hour Values on July 18, 2002

Figure AD11: Hourl y Ozone Values for 2002 Ozone Season

**Ob ser**  **ved and**  **Pr edi**  **ct ed**  **aver ages**  **208 SLA**  **MS /N**  **AM S**  **si te**  **s; 4**  **0 ppb**  **th re**  **shol d** 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

2002 0515 2002 0523 2002 0531 2002 0608 2002 0616 2002 0624 2002 0702 2002 0710 2002 0718 2002 0726 2002 0803 2002 0811 2002 0819 2002 0827 2002 0904 2002 0912 2002 0920 2002 0928**p p** **b** obs a vg , p pb

CM AQ a vg , p pbFinal - 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 abi lity 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 reason able 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 Tabl e 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 1 6.4 - 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 2501300 08 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 (Lo ng 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 - 7.8Final - 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 respectivel y, 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 Table s 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 no t 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 underp rediction of peak ozone concentrations. Table AD4: Mean Normalized Gross Error and Mean Normalized Bias for RIOzone Monitors State AIRS - ID Location Observed ppb CMAQ ppb MNGE % MNB % RI 440030002 Alton Jones 77.9 75.7 10.5 - 1.8 RI 440 071010 Francis School 77.6 74.0 10.8 - 4.3 RI 440090007 EPA L ab 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 090 131001 Stafford 78.2 71.1 12.2 - 8.7 AVE 15.6 - 0.9Final - 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 - 19.9Final - 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 1 3.6 - 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 M E 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 23031200 2 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 perf ormed 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 VI STAS states in the OTR modeling domain **.** The 2002 hourly biogenicFinal - 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 hourl y boundary condition files (Section 14) were used for the 2009 future ye ar 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 hourl y 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 sy stem. 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 - ye ar period of time is calculated as the 3 - ye ar 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 dail y 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 observatio ns). 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 1 0 - 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 photo chemical 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 200 2 ozone prediction. The EPA guidance requires that an average dail y 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 st ation 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 l ess 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 day s 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 (D VF) for the BOTW emission scenario was determined b y multiplying the 2002 DVC for each monitor b y 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 Ly nn 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 V alues (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 2500 90005 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 criteri a 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 criteriaFinal - 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 80Final - 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 Ashland1 35 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 B uxton 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 81Final - 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 200 2 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 siz e 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 monito ring 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 ty picall y 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 relativel y low here, and that additional monitoring coverage is unnecessary . 5.18.2 Future Year Design Values at Unmonitored L ocations 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 anal ys is 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 Ly

nn 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. **Ad ams** 

**Ag awam**  **Chicopee Ware**  **Am herst**  **Stow Worcester** 

**Fa irhaven**  **Truro**

**Boston Ly**  **nn Lawrence**  **Newbury**

**Milton**Final - Section 5 - Page 34 of 49 Figure AD13: Design Value Trends in Eastern Massachusetts

**Ea st**  **er n**  **MA De**  **sign Va**  **lues Base**  **d on**  **M onit**  **or ed** **Data C om**  **pa re**  **d to** 

**Pre di**  **cte d**  **De sig**  **n Va**  **lues Fo**  **r 2 009** 

40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 10 0.0

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Tr ur o Fa ir hav en Ma rt ha's V . Ly nn New b ury Stow Blu e H ill Long Is. Roxb ury Figure AD14: Design Value Trends in Western Massachusetts

**Wes te**  **rn M** 

**A De sign**  **Va lues**  **Co mp**  **are d wi**  **th Pre**  **di cte**  **d 2009**  **De sign**  **Va lue**  **s**

50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0 70.0 75.0 80.0 85.0 90.0 95.0 10 0.0

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Ad am s Ch ic opee Amher st War e Wor ce st erFinal - 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 b y 2009. Finally, on - road and off - road federal motor vehicle control measures will provide substantial additional reductions between 200 9 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 b y 35% and 22%, respectively, between 2002 and 2009. Massachusetts NOx and VOC emissions in 2002, 2009 and 2012 are graphicall y displayed in Figure AD15. Similar emission reduction s 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%, respectivel y, between 2002 and 2009. NOx and VOC emissions in 2002, 2009 and 2012 f or Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York and New Jersey

are graphicall y 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 act uall y 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 th e 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 Mo tor 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 Ly nn 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 o f 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 16411 2 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 3620 22 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 22 97 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 40 3150 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 C O 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 489125Final - Section 5 - Page 37 of 49

Figure AD15: Emissions in MA for 2002, 2009 and 2012 B OTW 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 NOxFinal - Section 5 - Page 38 of 49 Table AD16: Percent Ozone Reductions at MA Ozone Monitors

**Monitor DVC 2002**  **DVF 2009 % Re**  **duction 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 - 13.7Final - 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 67Final - Section 5 - Page 40 of 49 Figure AD17: NO2 Reductions by Sector between 2009 and 2012 **NO X in Tons** 

**/Y ear**  **f or**  **BO TW**  **Sc en**  **ar io** 

0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000

Mo bi le Ar ea No nr oad EG U Po in t No nf os si l 2009 2012

Figure AD18: VOC Reductions by Sector between 2009 and 2012 **VO C**  **in T**  **ons**

**/Y ear**  **f or**  **BO TW**  **Sc en**  **ar io** 

0 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 1,600,000

Mo bi le Ar ea No nr oad EG U Po int No nf os si l 2009 2012

The results of the 2012 run are not surprising in light of the substantial emission reductions that can be de duced from Table AD15. For example, a reduction of more than 14% (255,516 tons per ye ar) in MANE - VU NOx emissions will take place between 2009 and 2012. As shown onFinal - 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 b y 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 4 th 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. Ty pically ozone buildups in WMA occur under a southwesterl y flow regime in which polluted air gets transported along the northeast corridor before entering MA. (Figure AD19) While po llutant 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 w estern and northern New England. Itis 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 th e 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 o ne that is thought to augment ozone production when smoke is highl y concentrated. The satellite image in Figure AD23 below shows the presence of a smoke plume covering portions of WMA into NY. This is corroborated b y PM2.5 measurements at the ground shown in Table AD18, which indicate that hourly values, mainly

at WMA monitors, jumped up, clearl y the result of the smoke plume.Final - Section 5 - Page 42 of 49 Figure AD19

– Sy

noptic Pattern for Ty pical Ozone Episode

Figure AD20 - Streamline Analysis on 8/30/07Final - Section 5 - Page 43 of 49 Figure AD21

– Sy

noptic Pattern on 8/30/07

Figure AD22

– Wind Speeds 8/30/07 at 11 AM EDTFinal - Section 5 - Page 44 of 49 Figure AD23

– Satellite Photo 8/30/07Final - 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 1 2.6 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 1 2.2 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 readin g (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 s ynoptic pattern (Figure AD19, above) featured a Bermuda High well eas t of the Carolinas, surface temperatures generall y reached the mid 90s (Figure AD23), and surface winds were southwesterl y (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 EDTFinal - 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 32.1 28.9 38.7 40.5 37.1 46.9 48.6 50.2 52 40.7 43 53 40.2 50.4 25.5 31.8 34.8 Boston - Roxbury 37.2 30.5 35.8 37.3 35.5 36.4 39.1 41.4 38.2 43 E. Milt on - Blue Hill 25.7 27.9 21.5 26.8 28.1 27.1 29.1 31.4 33.7 33.9 33.1 35.5 32.8 34 26.9 37.5 36.4 34.1 34.5 27.9 28.5 26.9 17.5 21.4 Springfield 27.7 29.4 36 28.3 29.4 37.7 35.3 35 32.2 34 40.5 42.1 39.9 36.9 35 40.5 42.1 44.6 41.9 32.2 33.3 - 980 23 17.4 Haverhill 25.9 27 28.5 23.5 32.3 29.7 35 27.6 31.7 36.4 34.1 40.8 37.6 35 24.3 32 30.2 41.1 41.4 38.5 39.8 25.2 32.4 29.8 Fall River 39.8 37.2 40.5 32.7 36.9 25.7 27.9 22.5 26.4 38 34.6 42.6 29.9 42.6 39.2 28.8 30.4 24.2 21.9 22.9 17.3 12 21 10.8 LYNN 2 7.2 27.8 32 31.3 34.6 30.7 31.3 40 36.9 37.1 36.1 34.6 35.2 37 31.9 33.1 39.8 44 41.5 33.2 39.6 26 28.9 27.1 Wo rcester 17.7 22.4 19.2 32 25 33.6 32.3 33.5 36.4 40.4 24.4 27.3 25.3 32 37.1 38.7 44 37.7 35.6 32.8 28.5 31 16.9 18.5 PITTSFIELD 23.5 26.9 19.3 19.7 20.8 23.2 18 26.7 31.1 32.8 54.8 33.5 43.4 50.6 49.9 50 50 50 50 22.1 42.5 47.9 45.7 49 Boston - North End 31.7 39.2 28.4 26.3 29.9 32.7 39.4 43.4 43.2 41.2 38.1 34.9 41.2 29.5 33.9 34.9 46.9 47.2 44.3 41.5 38.1 28.9 28.4 25.5Final - 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 ye ar (2002) to test model performance and then rerunning the model using a future ye ar 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 eas tern 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 appl ying 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 b y 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 b y 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 state s). 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 slightl y more than needed to attain the NAAQS inFinal - Section 5 - Page 49 of 49

Massachusetts. A 2012 CMAQ modeling run b y NY D EC also indicated that additional reductions, primaril y 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 b y 2009 and that, while WMA may

attain b y 2009, if it does not, it will be eligible for a 1 - ye ar extension of the 2009 attainment date.