Development of the Point Source 

Emission Inventory for 2007 

in the SESARM Region 

(Version 1.8) 

Prepared for: 

John Hornback 

Executive Director, Southeastern States Air Resource Managers, Inc. 

526 Forest Parkway, Suite F 

Forest Park, GA 30297-6140. 

(404) 361-4000, FAX (404) 361-2411 

hornback@metro4-sesarm.org

 

January 26, 2011 

MACTEC Project No. 6066-09-0326.02 

Contract Agreement CONTRACT #: S-2009-06-02 

Submitted by 

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 

404 SW 140th Terrace 

Newberry, FL 32669-3000 

(352) 333-6617, FAX (352) 333-6622 

wrbarnard@mactec.com

______________________ ______________________ 

Edward Sabo William R. Barnard 

Principal Senior Principal
Development of Point Source Emission Inventory for 2007 January 26, 2011 

Page i 

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 

Table of Contents 

1.0 ANNUAL 2007 INVENTORY FOR POINT SOURCES .......................................................... 1

1.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1 

1.2 INITIAL DATA SOURCES AND QA REVIEW .................................................................... 3 

1.2.1 State Submittals and Conversion into a NIF Database ............................................. 3

1.2.1.1 Alabama ................................................................................................................ 6 

1.2.1.2 Alabama – Jefferson County ................................................................................. 7 

1.2.1.3 Florida ................................................................................................................... 7 

1.2.1.4 Georgia .................................................................................................................. 7 

1.2.1.5 Kentucky ................................................................................................................ 8 

1.2.1.6 Kentucky – Jefferson County................................................................................. 8 

1.2.1.7 Mississippi ............................................................................................................. 8 

1.2.1.8 North Carolina ....................................................................................................... 9 

1.2.1.9 North Carolina – Buncombe County .................................................................... 10 

1.2.1.10 North Carolina – Forsyth County ..................................................................... 10 

1.2.1.11 North Carolina – Mecklenburg County ............................................................ 11 

1.2.1.12 South Carolina ................................................................................................. 12 

1.2.1.13 Tennessee ....................................................................................................... 13 

1.2.1.14 Tennessee – Davidson County ....................................................................... 13 

1.2.1.15 Tennessee – Hamilton County ........................................................................ 13 

1.2.1.16 Tennessee – Knox County .............................................................................. 14 

1.2.1.17 Tennessee – Shelby County ........................................................................... 14 

1.2.1.18 Virginia ............................................................................................................. 14 

1.2.1.19 West Virginia ................................................................................................... 14 

1.3 EPA CAMD HOURLY EMISSION DATA ......................................................................... 15 

1.4 PM AUGMENTATION ..................................................................................................... 17 

1.4.1 Initial QA and Remediation of PM Pollutants .......................................................... 20

1.4.2 Updating of PM Factor Ratios ................................................................................. 20

1.4.3 PM Emission Calculations ....................................................................................... 21

1.4.4 PM Emission Results .............................................................................................. 22

1.5 EMISSION RELEASE POINT QA CHECKS .................................................................... 24 

1.5.1 QA Checks and Gap-Filling for Location Coordinates ............................................. 24

1.5.2 QA Checks and Gap-Filling for Emission Release Parameters .............................. 25

1.6 STATE REVIEW OF INITIAL VERSION .......................................................................... 29 

1.6.1 Alabama .................................................................................................................. 29

1.6.2 Alabama – Jefferson County ................................................................................... 29

1.6.3 Florida ..................................................................................................................... 29

1.6.4 Georgia .................................................................................................................... 30

1.6.5 Kentucky .................................................................................................................. 32
Development of Point Source Emission Inventory for 2007 January 26, 2011 

Page ii 

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 

1.6.6 Kentucky – Jefferson County .................................................................................. 33

1.6.7 Mississippi ............................................................................................................... 33

1.6.8 North Carolina ......................................................................................................... 34

1.6.9 North Carolina – Buncombe County ........................................................................ 34

1.6.10 North Carolina – Forsyth County ......................................................................... 34

1.6.11 North Carolina – Mecklenburg County ................................................................ 35

1.6.12 South Carolina ..................................................................................................... 35

1.6.13 Tennessee ........................................................................................................... 36

1.6.14 Tennessee – Davidson County ........................................................................... 37

1.6.15 Tennessee – Hamilton County ............................................................................ 37

1.6.16 Tennessee – Knox County .................................................................................. 37

1.6.17 Tennessee – Shelby County ............................................................................... 38

1.6.18 Virginia ................................................................................................................ 38

1.6.19 West Virginia ....................................................................................................... 38

1.7 STAKEHOLDER REVIEW .............................................................................................. 39 

1.7.1 Alabama .................................................................................................................. 39

1.7.2 Florida ..................................................................................................................... 39

1.7.3 Georgia .................................................................................................................... 40

1.7.4 Kentucky .................................................................................................................. 40

1.7.5 North Carolina ......................................................................................................... 40

1.7.6 Tennessee ............................................................................................................... 40

1.8 IDENTIFICATION OF EGU AND NONEGU POINT SOURCES ...................................... 41 

1.9 FINAL S/L AGENCY QA REVIEW ................................................................................... 42 

1.9.1 Kentucky .................................................................................................................. 42

1.9.2 North Carolina ......................................................................................................... 42

1.9.3 North Carolina – Forsyth County ............................................................................. 43

1.9.4 South Carolina ......................................................................................................... 43

1.9.5 Virginia .................................................................................................................... 43

1.9.6 West Virginia ........................................................................................................... 43

1.10 2007 POINT SOURCE EMISSION SUMMARY ........................................................... 43 

1.11 DATA FILES ................................................................................................................ 52 

1.12 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 53
Development of Point Source Emission Inventory for 2007 January 26, 2011 

Page iii 

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 

List of Exhibits 

Exhibit 1 – Summary of Initial Point Source Submittals 

Exhibit 2 – PM Compound Descriptions 

Exhibit 3 – PM Compounds Reported in Initial State Submittals 

Exhibit 4 – PM Cases and Steps Required to Augment PM Emissions 

Exhibit 5 – Comparison of PM Emissions from the Initial S/L Data Submittals and Version 1.1 of 

the SEMAP 2007 Point Source Inventory 

Exhibit 6 – Stack Parameter Data Replacement Matrix 

Exhibit 7 – 2002 and 2007 Point Source CO Emissions by State 

Exhibit 8 – 2007 Point Source CO Emissions by Category 

Exhibit 9 – 2002 and 2007 Point Source NH3 Emissions by State 

Exhibit 10 – 2007 Point Source NH3 Emissions by Category 

Exhibit 11 – 2002 and 2007 Point Source NOx Emissions by State 

Exhibit 12 – 2007 Point Source NOx Emissions by Category 

Exhibit 13 – 2002 and 2007 Point Source PM10-PRI Emissions by State 

Exhibit 14 – 2007 Point Source PM10-PRI Emissions by Category 

Exhibit 15 – 2002 and 2007 Point Source PM25-PRI Emissions by State 

Exhibit 16 – 2007 Point Source PM25-PRI Emissions by Category 

Exhibit 17 – 2002 and 2007 Point Source SO2 Emissions by State 

Exhibit 18 – 2007 Point Source SO2 Emissions by Category 

Exhibit 19 – 2002 and 2007 Point Source VOC Emissions by State 

Exhibit 20 – 2007 Point Source VOC Emissions by Category 
Development of Point Source Emission Inventory for 2007 January 26, 2011 

Page iv 

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 

Acronyms and Abbreviations 

Acronym Description 

CAMD Clean Air Markets Division of EPA 

CAP Criteria Air Pollutant 

CEM Continuous Emission Monitoring System 

CE Control Equipment (NIF table) 

CERR Consolidated Emission Reporting Rule 

CO Carbon Monoxide 

EGU Electric Generating Unit 

EM Emission (NIF table) 

EP Emission Process (NIF table) 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ER Emission Release (NIF table) 

EU Emission Unit (NIF table) 

LATLON Latitude / Longitude 

MANE-VU Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union 

MARAMA Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NEI National Emission Inventory 

NH3 Ammonia 

NIF3.0 National Emission Inventory Input Format Version 3.0 

nonEGU Non Electric Generating Unit 

NOx Oxides of Nitrogen 

PE Period (NIF table) 

PM Particulate Matter 

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

PM-FIL Primary PM, Filterable portion only 

PM-PRI Primary PM, includes filterables and condensables 

PM-PRI= PM-FIL + PM-CON 

PM10-FIL Primary PM10, Filterable portion only 

PM10-PRI Primary PM10, includes filterables and condensables, 

PM10- PRI = PM0-FIL + PM-CON 

PM25-FIL Primary PM2.5, Filterable portion only 

PM25-PRI Primary PM2.5, includes filterables and condensables 

PM25-PRI= PM25-FIL + PM-CON 
Development of Point Source Emission Inventory for 2007 January 26, 2011 

Page v 

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 

Acronym Description 

QA Quality Assurance 

QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan 

SCC Source Classification Code 

SEMAP Southeastern Modeling, Analysis, and Planning 

SESARM Southeastern State Air Resource Managers, Inc. 

SMOKE Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions (modeling system) 

SI Site (NIF Table) 

SIC Standard Industrial Classification code 

SIP State Implementation Plan 

S/L State/Local 

SO2 Sulfur Dioxide 

TR Transaction (NIF Table) 

TSD Technical Support Document 

UTM Universal TransMercator 

VISTAS Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the Southeast 

VOC Volatile Organic Compounds 
Development of Point Source Emission Inventory for 2007 January 26, 2011 

Page 1 

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 

1.0 ANNUAL 2007 INVENTORY FOR POINT SOURCES 

1.1 INTRODUCTION 

In 2009, the Southeastern State Air Resource Managers, Inc. (SESARM) initiated a new 

Southeastern Modeling, Analysis, and Planning (SEMAP) project. The SEMAP project 

addresses the next phase of ozone, fine particle, and regional haze assessment obligations 

through funding from two grants awarded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA). 

This technical support document (TSD) explains the data sources, methods, and results for 

preparing the 2007 criteria air pollutant (CAP) and ammonia (NH3) emission inventory for 

point sources for the Southeastern U.S. The region includes Alabama, Florida, Georgia, 

Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West 

Virginia. In general, point sources in this inventory are sources classified as major sources 

under the Title V permitting program and sources required to submit hourly emissions data 

to EPA under various Clean Air Act programs. Some State and local agencies included 

smaller sources in the point source inventory. The inventory includes annual emissions for 

sulfur dioxide (SO2), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOC), 

carbon monoxide (CO), ammonia (NH3), and five components of particulate matter (PM). 

The inventory also includes particulate matter (PM) emissions, categorized as filterable, 

condensable, or total. Filterable emissions are generally considered to be the particles that 

are trapped by the glass fiber filter in the front half of a Reference Method 5 or Method 17 

sampling train. Vapors and particles less than 0.3 microns pass through the filter. 

Condensable particulate matter is material that is emitted in the vapor state which later 

condenses to form homogeneous and/or heterogeneous aerosol particles. The PM species 

in the inventory are categorized as: all filterable and condensable particles with an 

aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 and 2.5 micrometers (i.e., PM10-

PRI and PM25-PRI); filterable particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 

a nominal 10 and 2.5 micrometers (i.e., PM10-FIL and PM25-FIL); and condensable 

particles (PM-CON). Note that PM10-PRI equals the sum of PM10-FIL and PM-CON, 

and PM25-PRI equals the sum of PM25-FIL and PM-CON. 

The EPA has provided guidance on developing emission inventories to be used with 

models and other analyses for demonstrating attainment of air quality goals for ozone, fine 

particles, and regional haze (EPA 2005, EPA 2007). According to the EPA guidance, 

there are potentially two different base year emissions inventories. One is the base case 

inventory which represents the actual emissions for the meteorological period that is being 

modeled. This inventory is generally used for model performance evaluations. The 
Development of Point Source Emission Inventory for 2007 January 26, 2011 

Page 2 

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 

second potential base year inventory is called the baseline inventory, which is generally 

used as the basis for projecting emissions to the future. The base case inventory may 

include day specific information (e.g. hourly continuous emission monitoring data for 

point sources) that USEPA considers not appropriate for using in future year projections. 

Therefore, the baseline inventory may need to replace the day specific emissions with 

average or “typical” emissions (for certain types of sources). For the 2007 SEMAP 

inventory, the base case and baseline inventories are one in the same. 

The inventory went through several rounds of quality assurance (QA) reviews by State and 

local (S/L) agencies, as well as a review by stakeholders. Numerous corrections and 

improvements were made to the inventory. Updated versions of the inventory were 

released throughout the inventory development process to facilitate S/L agency and 

stakeholder review. The following summarizes the different versions of the inventory: 

 Version 1.1, released April 2010. S/L agency submittals were compiled into this 

initial version of the inventory, emissions for units reporting to EPA’s Clean Air 

Markets Division (CAMD) were analyzed, and the PM emissions were augmented 

to provide a complete set of PM species. Sections 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4 of this report 

describe the work done to prepare Version 1.1. 

 Version 1.2, not released. This version was used internally and included updates to 

stack parameters as described in Section 1.5 of this report. 

 Version 1.3, released May 18, 2010. This version contained the updates and 

corrections to the inventory specified by S/L agencies as described in Section 1.6. 

This version was released for Stakeholder review. 

 Version 1.4, not released. This version was used internally and included updates to 

classify units into electric generating units (EGUs) and nonEGUs according to the 

classification scheme discussed in Section 1.7. It also included updates and 

corrections based upon stakeholder review, as well as additional review by S/L 

agencies, as described in Section 1.8. 

 Version 1.5, released September 2, 2010. This version removed extraneous or 

incomplete information that was not needed for air quality modeling, such as 

emissions of hazardous air pollutants and emissions for non-annual averaging 

times. This version was provided to SEMAP for use in preparing emission density 

maps and bubble plots that were provided to S/L agencies for final QA of source 

locations and emission values. 
Development of Point Source Emission Inventory for 2007 January 26, 2011 

Page 3 

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 

 Version 1.6, released October 20, 2010. This version included updates provided by 

S/L agencies after their review of the emission density maps and bubble plots. 

 Version 1.7, released December 7, 2010. This version included emission updates 

to two facilities in Kentucky and replaced geographic coordinates with latitude and 

longitude for all sources (in previous versions, the geographic coordinates were a 

mixture of latitude/longitude and UTM coordinates, depending on the agency). 

 Version 1.8, released January 26, 2001. This version included revisions to the 

documentation and data files to respond to comments from EPA Region 4 dated 

November 10, 2011. The main revision to the data files was to delete facilities in 

North Carolina that had permanently shutdown prior to 2007 but were inadvertently 

included in the 2007 inventory with non-zero emissions. 

State-level emission summaries of the 2007 point source inventory, referred to as Version 

1.7, are provided in Section 1.10. Final deliverables are described in Section 1.11. 

1.2 INITIAL DATA SOURCES AND QA REVIEW 

Version 1.1 of the 2007 point source inventory was developed using data submitted by 

State and local agencies in the region, as well as data the CAMD hourly emission 

monitoring database. 

1.2.1 State Submittals and Conversion into a NIF Database 

Each S/L agency collects point source data according to EPA approved procedures that are 

included in each State’s point source emission inventory quality assurance project plan 

with accompanying standard operating procedures. These plans and procedures are 

updated on a continuing basis and are available upon request. 

States were requested to submit 2007 data for those major sources that they would 

normally submit to EPA during the 3-year requirements of the Consolidated Emission 

Reporting Rule (CERR). Some S/L agencies were able to submit a complete set of data 

representing 2007. Other S/L agencies were only able to submit 2007 data for very large 

sources. In this case, inventories for other years were used to create a complete 2007 point 

source inventory. In a few other cases, the S/L agency submittal was supplemented with 

data from EPA’s 2005-based modeling platform (EPA 2009c). S/L agencies prepare point 

source emission inventory files in a variety of formats – some use the NEI Input Format 

(NIF) while others used different formats. Exhibit 1 summarizes the data sources and 

formats for the S/L agency point source submittals with additional explanatory notes 

provided in the following sections. 
Development of Point Source Emission Inventory for 2007 January 26, 2011 

Page 4 

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 

As noted in Exhibit 1, a few S/L agencies provided emissions data for a year other than 

2007. Georgia was the only State that requested that a linear projection from 2005/2008 to 

2007 be made when both 2005 and 2008 were available. There result of this interpolation 

for Georgia showed that for sources where 2007 were not available, the emissions changed 

very little between 2005 and 2007. Other S/L agencies indicated that 2005, 2006, or 2008 

emissions data should be considered representative of 2007 for modeling purposes. This 

recommendation appears to be reasonable, given the small amount of emissions associated 

with the facilities where 2007 were not available (i.e., 97 percent of the point source NOx 

emissions and 99 percent of the SO2 emissions are 2007 data). It was decided that 

spending limited resources to obtain and apply appropriate growth factors to project these 

emissions from 2005/2006/2008 to 2007 would provide an almost unnoticeable 

improvement to the SEMAP 2007 inventory. 

Also note that some S/L agencies submitted many more facilities than were included in the 

2002 VISTAS inventory, while others submitted fewer facilities. An explanation of the 

reason why the number of facilities differs between 2002 and 2007 is provided for each 

S/L agency in the following sub-sections. SESARM’s area source contractor has 

developed procedures to reconcile the point and area source inventories to both (1) ensure 

that emissions minor point sources that are included the point source inventory are not 

double counted in the area source inventory and (2) that emissions from minor point source 

sources that are not in the point source inventory are included in the area source inventory. 

After the each S/L submittal was formatted into a standard NIF database, MACTEC 

performed an initial review of the S/L inventories using EPA’s Basic Format and Content 

Checker tool (EPA 2004). The tool was used to verify the data was in the correct format, 

to check for referential integrity and duplicate record issues, and to check certain fields for 

proper valid codes and ranges. Only minor issues were identified and were resolved by 

MACTEC without the need for assistance from the S/L agencies. Following this initial QA 

review, these individual inventory files were consolidated into a single data set. Additional 

QA activities identified in the Quality Assurance Project Plan (SESARM 2009) were 

carried out and documented in the remainder of this document. 
Development of Point Source Emission Inventory for 2007 January 26, 2011 

Page 5 

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 

Exhibit 1 – Summary of Point Source Data Sources 

Agency 

# of 

Facilities in 

VISTAS 2002 

Inventory 

# of Facilities 

in SEMAP 

2007 V_1_8 

Inventory 

Submittal 

Format Data Used for 2007 Inventory 

AL 319 910 NIF ACCESS 2007 data for 328 major facilities; 

2007 data for 613 minor facilities; 

31 facilities had only HAP emissions 

and were removed from the 2007 

CAP inventory 

AL 

Jefferson 

243 237 NIF ACCESS 2007 data for 37 very large facilities; 

2005 S/L data for 237 facilities, 

which also included the 37 very 

large facilities 

FL 1,050 1,136 NIF Text 2007 data for 1,136 facilities 

GA 234 268 NIF ACCESS 2007 S/L data for 74 facilities 

2007 CAMD data for 19 facilities not 

in S/L submittal 

2008 S/L data for 109 additional 

facilities 

2005 S/L data for 66 additional 

facilities 

KY 1,581 2,306 NIF xml 2007 data for 2,780 facilities 

474 facilities had only HAP 

emissions and were removed from 

the 2007 CAP inventory 

781 facilities were included in the 

2007 SEMAP inventory but were not 

included in the 2002 VISTAS 

inventory 

KY 

Jefferson 

76 154 NIF ACCESS 2007 data for 154 facilities 

MS 640 282 NIF Text 2007 data for 46 facilities 

2005 NEI data for 236 facilities 

NC 994 1,908 ORL xls 2007 data for 2,145 facilities 

See Section 1.1.1.8 for more 

information regarding the increase in 

the number of facilities 

NC 

Buncombe 

6 65 NIF ACCESS 2007 data for 9 Title V facilities 

2006 S/L data 65 facilities, which 

also included the 9 Title V facilities 

NC 

Forsyth 

30 84 EIS ACCESS 2007/08 data for 84 facilities 

See Section 1.9.3 for discussion 

NC 

Mecklenburg 

242 221 Quasi-ORL 

xls 

2007 data for 221 facilities 

SC 802 291 NIF xml 2007 data for 291 facilities 
Development of Point Source Emission Inventory for 2007 January 26, 2011 

Page 6 

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 

Agency 

# of 

Facilities in 

VISTAS 2002 

Inventory 

# of Facilities 

in SEMAP 

2007 V_1_8 

Inventory 

Submittal 

Format Data Used for 2007 Inventory 

TN 373 232 NIF xls 2007 data for 166 Type A and other 

facilities 

2005 NEI data for 66 facilities 

TN 

Davidson 

201 205 NIF Text 2007 data for 205 facilities 

TN 

Hamilton 

220 177 Quasi-ORL 

xls 

2007 data for 177 facilities 

TN 

Knox 

11 9 NIF ACCESS 2007 data for 9facilities 

TN 

Shelby 

35 29 NIF xls 2008 S/L data for 29 facilities 

VA 762 801 NIF ACCESS 2007 data for 801 facilities 

WV 192 177 NIF ACCESS 2007 data for 177 facilities 

1.2.1.1 Alabama 

Alabama’s initial submittal contained two National Emission Inventory (NEI) Input 

Format (NIF) ACCESS database files. The first contained 2007 emissions data for 328 

major sources, while the second contained 2007 emission data for 613 minor sources. 

MACTEC merged the major source file with the minor source found and identified 10 

facilities that were in both files. We used the data from the 2007 major source file and 

deleted the data from the minor source file to ensure that there was no double counting of 

emissions for these 10 facilities. Alabama ensured that the minor source emissions that 

were included in the point source file were not double counted in the area source file. 

Another contractor reconciled the point and area source inventories and Alabama reviewed 

the results on a per category basis to ensure that double counting did not occur. 

There were numerous records flagged for out-of-range values for stack parameters or 

location coordinates, or inconsistencies between the flow rate and velocity. These cases 

are discussed later in this document. A large increase in VOC and PM emissions from 

2002 to 2007 was identified. Alabama investigated this problem and identified a serious 

problem in their data conversion process. New Emission (EM) and Control Equipment 

(CE) tables were provided in May 2010 to correct this problem. 
Development of Point Source Emission Inventory for 2007 January 26, 2011 

Page 7 

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 

1.2.1.2 Alabama – Jefferson County 

Jefferson County submitted two NIF ACCESS database files. The first contained 2007 

emissions data for 37 very large sources, while the second contained 2005 emission data 

for 237 sources. MACTEC merged the 2007 very large source file with the 2005 file and 

identified that the 37 very large facilities were in both files. We used the data from the 

2007 file and deleted the corresponding facilities from the 2005 file to ensure no double 

counting of emissions. MACTEC did not project 2005 emission data to 2007, as the 2005 

data was considered to be representative of 2007. 

Jefferson County submitted emissions data for a large number of hazardous air pollutants. 

Since these pollutants are not needed for regional ozone and fine particle modeling, they 

were stripped from the EM and CE tables. 

The EPA’s Basic Format and Content Checker identified several relational widow/orphan 

issues. These were caused by the Emission Unit ID and Emission Release Point ID being 

reversed in the EP table for some records. MACTEC made the necessary corrections to the 

NIF EP table to ensure that all NIF EM records had a match in the NIF Emission Unit 

(EU), Emission Process (EP), and EM tables. 

The flow rates provided in the NIF Emission Release (ER) table were reported in cubic 

feet per minute. The NIF specifications require that this field be reported in cubic feet per 

second. MACTEC recalculated the flow rate by dividing the flow rate provided by 

Jefferson County by 60. 

1.2.1.3 Florida 

Florida submitted NIF tables in ASCII text format with 2007 emissions data for 1,139 

facilities. There were numerous records flagged for out-of-range values for stack 

parameters or location coordinates, or inconsistencies between the flow rate and velocity 

by the EPA’s Basic Format and Content Checker. These cases are discussed later in 

Section 1.5 of this document. Otherwise the data passed all of the QA checks. 

1.2.1.4 Georgia 

Georgia submitted three NIF ACCESS database files. The first contained 2007 emissions 

data for 74 very large sources. The second file contained 2008 emission data for 109 

additional facilities. And the third file contained 2005 data for 69 additional facilities. 

MACTEC merged the three files using the 2007 data when available, the 2008 data where 

2007 data were not available, and 2005 data as a last resort. We used the data from the 

2007 file and deleted the corresponding facilities from the 2008/2005 files to ensure no 

double counting of emissions. No significant issues were identified by EPA’s Basic 
Development of Point Source Emission Inventory for 2007 January 26, 2011 

Page 8 

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 

Format and Content Checker. No projecting of 2005 emissions to 2007 or back casting of 

2008 emissions to 2007 was done during the initial processing of the submittals. See 

Section 1.6.4 for a discussion of how 2007 emissions were subsequently estimated for the 

final SEMAP inventory when only 2005 or 2008 data were available. 

1.2.1.5 Kentucky 

Kentucky submitted an xml file that was loaded into an ACCESS database with NIF tables 

with 2007 emissions data for 2,780 facilities. There were approximately 474 facilities in 

Kentucky’s submittal that had only HAP emissions (i.e., emissions were zero for all 

criteria air pollutants at the facility) and were removed from the 2007 inventory. An 

additional 781 facilities were included in the 2007 SEMAP inventory but were not 

included in the 2002 VISTAS inventory. These additional facilities in the 2007 SEMAP 

inventory were generally very small sources, and the aggregate NOx emissions from these 

781 small facilities totaled only 805 tons per year. 

The EPA’s Basic Format and Content Checker identified several relational widow issues, 

that is, there were SI, ER, EU, EP, PE and CE records with no corresponding emissions 

data in the EM file. These widow records were removed from the SI, ER, EU, EP, PE, and 

CE tables. 

The flow rates provided in the ER table were reported in cubic feet per minute. The NIF 

specifications require that this field be reported in cubic feet per second. MACTEC 

recalculated the flow rate by dividing the flow rate provided by Kentucky by 60. 

There were numerous records flagged for out-of-range values for stack parameters or 

location coordinates, or inconsistencies between the flow rate and velocity by the EPA’s 

Basic Format and Content Checker. These cases are discussed later in Section 1.5 of this 

document. 

1.2.1.6 Kentucky – Jefferson County 

Jefferson County submitted two NIF ACCESS databases containing 2007 emissions data – 

one file contained criteria air pollutants and the other file contained hazardous air 

pollutants. Only the criteria air pollutant file was processed. Jefferson County’s submittal 

passed all of checks made by the EPA’s Basic Format and Content Checker. 

1.2.1.7 Mississippi 

Mississippi submitted NIF tables in ASCII text format with 2007 emissions data for 45 

facilities. Mississippi’s submittal passed all of checks made by the EPA’s Basic Format 

and Content Checker. 
Development of Point Source Emission Inventory for 2007 January 26, 2011 

Page 9 

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 

Mississippi’s 2007 submittal was supplemented with data from EPA’s 2005-based 

modeling platform (EPA 2009c). The data were provided in SMOKE ORL format, 

converted into a NIF database, and merged with Mississippi’s submittal. We used the data 

from Mississippi’s 2007 file and deleted the corresponding facilities from the 2005 EPA 

file to ensure no double counting of emissions. Mississippi decided to include 236 

facilities from the 2005 NEI from the 2007 SEMAP inventory. At this time, MACTEC did 

not perform any projecting of 2005 data to 2007. No significant issues were identified by 

EPA’s Basic Format and Content Checker. 

1.2.1.8 North Carolina 

North Carolina submitted a SMOKE one-record-per-line (ORL) file with 2007 data for 

2,145 facilities. MACTEC converted the ORL file to a NIF database. There was no 

control information in the ORL file, so we were not able to create a NIF CE table. 

There were numerous records flagged for out-of-range values for stack parameters or 

location coordinates, or inconsistencies between the flow rate and velocity by the EPA’s 

Basic Format and Content Checker. These cases are discussed later in Section 1.5 of this 

document. Otherwise the data passed all of the QA checks. 

A large increase in VOC emissions from 2002 to 2007 was identified. North Carolina 

investigated this problem and identified a serious problem in their data conversion process. 

New EM and CE tables were provided in May 2010 to correct this problem. 

The 2007 SEMAP inventory contains many more sources than were included in the 2002 

VISTAS inventory. There are three reasons to explain the large increase in the number of 

facilities in the 2007 inventory versus the 2002 inventory: 

 There are some new permit sources added since 2002; 

 There were about 163 facilities in NC’s initial submittal that were permanently 

closed between 2002 and 2006 that were inadvertently left in the 2007 inventory 

with non-zero emissions. These facilities were removed from the 2007 SEMAP 

inventory; and 

 Most the new facilities in 2007 are due to the following reason: 2002 was the year 

NC changed the emission reporting system. From 1993 to 2002, all non-title V 

sources reported their emission once every three years (1993, 1996, 1999, and 

2002). Since 2002, NC changed the emission reporting system from once every 

three years to once every five year and each facility reports their emission the year 

their permit expired. So the 2007 point source emission inventory is much more 

inclusive compared to 2002 emission inventory, which only included the facilities 

reported during the year of 2002, not all facilities that operated in 2002. 
Development of Point Source Emission Inventory for 2007 January 26, 2011 

Page 10 

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 

1.2.1.9 North Carolina – Buncombe County 

Buncombe County submitted two NIF ACCESS database files. The first contained 2007 

emissions data for 9 Title V facilities, while the second contained 2006 emission data for 

65 facilities. MACTEC merged the 2007 Title V source file with the 2006 file and verified 

that the 9 Title V facilities were in both files. We used the data from the 2007 file for the 

Title V facilities and deleted the corresponding facilities from the 2006 file to ensure no 

double counting of emissions. We also deleted all records for Snider Tire (Facility ID 

0861) which ceased operation in 2006 and did not operate in 2007. MACTEC did not 

project the 2006 emissions to 2007, as the 2006 emissions are considered to be 

representative of 2007. 

There were several records flagged for out-of-range values for stack parameters or location 

coordinates, or inconsistencies between the flow rate and velocity by the EPA’s Basic 

Format and Content Checker. These cases are discussed later in Section 1.5 of this 

document. Otherwise the data passed all of the QA checks. 

1.2.1.10 North Carolina – Forsyth County 

Forsyth County provided 2008 data for 84 facilities in an EIS-formatted ACCESS 

database. The data is actually a mix of 2008, 2007 and previous year data, but Forsyth 

County indicated that the submittal is representative of calendar year 2007. MACTEC 

performed data reformatting a number of data augmentation steps to create reasonably 

complete NIF tables, as follows: 

 SI Table – relevant fields from the “FacilitySite” ACCESS table were mapped to 

NIF SI table fields. 

 ER Table – relevant fields from the “ReleasePoint” ACCESS table were mapped to 

NIF ER table fields. The flow rate in the “Release Point” table was in cubic feet 

per minute. The NIF specifications require that this field be reported in cubic feet 

per second. MACTEC recalculated the flow rate by dividing the flow rate provided 

by 60. There were no stack-level geographic coordinates in the “ReleasePoint 

GeographicCoordinates” ACCESS table. However, there were facility-level 

coordinates for some facilities in the “FacilitySiteGeographicCoordinates” 

ACCESS table, and these were used for all emission release points associated with 

the facility. Where a facility match could not be made, we substituted the county 

centroid for the geographic coordinates (longitude -80.24, latitude 36.114). 

 EU Table – relevant fields from the “EmissionUnit” ACCESS table were mapped 

to NIF EU table fields. 
Development of Point Source Emission Inventory for 2007 January 26, 2011 

Page 11 

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 

 EP Table – relevant fields from the “EmissionProcess” ACCESS table were 

mapped to NIF EP table fields. The emission release point identifier was obtained 

from the “ReleasePointApportionment” ACCESS table. 

 PE Table – relevant fields from the “EmissionProcess” ACCESS table were 

mapped to NIF PE table fields. 

 CE Table – no information on control equipment was provided. 

 EM Table – relevant fields from the “Emissions” ACCESS table were mapped to 

NIF ER table fields. The emission release point identifier was obtained from the 

“ReleasePointApportionment” ACCESS table. 

There were several records flagged for out-of-range values for stack parameters or location 

coordinates, or inconsistencies between the flow rate and velocity by the EPA’s Basic 

Format and Content Checker. These cases are discussed later in Section 1.5 of this 

document. Otherwise the data passed all of the QA checks. 

1.2.1.11 North Carolina – Mecklenburg County 

Mecklenburg County provided 2007 emissions data for 539 facilities in a spreadsheet that 

contained a limited number of NIF fields. MACTEC performed data reformatting and a 

number of data augmentation steps to create reasonably complete NIF tables, as follows: 

 SI Table – only the facility id# and facility name were provided; we obtained the 

SIC code from the VISTAS 2002 B&F inventory where we were able to match 

facilities. 

 ER Table – the submittal did not contain any stack parameters and the geographic 

coordinates were in NC State Planar coordinates, not UTM coordinates or 

latitude/longitude as required by the NIF specification. To fill in the geographic 

coordinates, we obtained the latitude and longitude from the VISTAS 2002 B&F 

inventory where we were able to match facilities. Where a facility match could not 

be made, we substituted the county centroid for the geographic coordinates 

(longitude -80.789, latitude 35.252). Stack parameters for the Stage I gasoline 

distribution facilities were assigned a fugitive release height of 10 feet. Stack 

parameters for all other sources will be filled in according to the gap-filling 

procedures discussed later in Section 1.5 of this document. 

 EU Table – the submittal only contained the unit description, all other EU non-key 

data elements were left blank. 
Development of Point Source Emission Inventory for 2007 January 26, 2011 

Page 12 

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 

 EP Table – the submittal only contained SCC and the process description, all other 

EP non-key data elements were left blank. 

 PE Table – we filled in the PE table with the PE key identifiers, and added the 

startdate of 20070101 and end date of 20071231. All other PE non-key data 

elements were left blank. 

 CE Table – no control information was provided, so the CE table is blank. 

 EM Table – the submittal contained annual emissions for all criteria air pollutants 

and ammonia. 

After reformatting the spreadsheet into NIF tables, we ran the EPA’s Basic Format and 

Content Checker and did not detect any QA issues other than the missing stack parameters. 

Mecklenburg County initially included 319 Stage I gasoline stations in the point source 

inventory. For consistency with other counties in North Carolina (where Stage I emissions 

are included in the area source inventory) and to avoid double counting, these gasoline 

stations were removed from the point source inventory. 

1.2.1.12 South Carolina 

South Carolina submitted an xml file that was loaded into an ACCESS database with NIF 

tables with 2007 emissions data for 293 facilities. 

The EPA’s Basic Format and Content Checker identified that certain EM records 

associated with facility ID 2320-0034 (NAN YA Plastics) were assigned to FIPS 45041 

(Florence County) while other NIF records associated with this plant were associated with 

FIPS 45089 (Williamsburg County). MACTEC changed the FIPS to 45089 for the records 

in the EM table to resolve this orphan issue. Geographic coordinates in the ER table were 

not changed. 

The flow rates provided in the ER table were reported in cubic feet per minute. The NIF 

specifications require that this field be reported in cubic feet per second. MACTEC 

recalculated the flow rate by dividing the flow rate provided by South Carolina by 60. 

South Carolina’s 2007 submittal included many fewer facilities than were in the VISTAS 

2002 inventory. South Carolina reviewed data from EPA’s 2005-based modeling platform. 

South Carolina decided that the sources that were included in the 2002 but not in the 2007 

inventory were predominantly minor sources, and that the use of EPA’s 2005 NEI data was 

not appropriate for use in the 2007 SEMAP inventory. 
Development of Point Source Emission Inventory for 2007 January 26, 2011 

Page 13 

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 

1.2.1.13 Tennessee 

Tennessee submitted two spreadsheets with NIF tables for all counties except the four local 

program counties. The first file contained 2007 emissions data for 45 very large sources 

(i.e., Type A sources), while the second contained 2007 emission data for additional 

smaller facilities. MACTEC merged the two files and checked for duplicate facilities. One 

facility – JW Aluminum (Facility ID 47113-0010) – was found in both submittals. Only 

the Type A submittal for this facility was used to avoid double counting of emissions. 

Tennessee submitted emissions data for a large number of hazardous air pollutants. Since 

these pollutants are not needed for regional ozone and fine particle modeling, they were 

stripped from the EM and CE tables. 

The EPA’s Basic Format and Content Checker identified several relational widow/orphan 

issues. MACTEC made the necessary corrections to the NIF tables to ensure that all EM 

records had a match in the EU, EP, PE and EM tables. 

Tennessee’s 2007 submittals were supplemented with data from EPA’s 2005-based 

modeling platform. These data were downloaded from EPA’s ftp site (file name: 

2005v4CAPHAP_orl_point.zip). The data were provided in SMOKE ORL format, 

converted into a NIF database, and merged with South Carolina’s submittal. We used the 

data from Tennessee’s 2007 files and deleted the corresponding facilities from the 2005 

EPA file to ensure no double counting of emissions. At this time, MACTEC did not 

perform any projecting of 2005 data to 2007. No significant issues were identified by 

EPA’s Basic Format and Content Checker. An additional 280 facilities were added during 

this augmentation process. 

1.2.1.14 Tennessee – Davidson County 

Davidson County submitted NIF tables in ASCII text format with 2007 emissions data for 

205 facilities. There were numerous records flagged for out-of-range values for stack 

parameters or location coordinates, or inconsistencies between the flow rate and velocity 

by the EPA’s Basic Format and Content Checker. These cases are discussed later in 

Section 1.5 of this document. Otherwise the data passed all of the QA checks. 

1.2.1.15 Tennessee – Hamilton County 

Hamilton County provided data representative of 2007 for 177 facilities in a spreadsheet 

that contained the NIF fields needed for regional air quality modeling. MACTEC 

performed data reformatting to create reasonably complete NIF tables. The data passed all 

of the QA checks. 
Development of Point Source Emission Inventory for 2007 January 26, 2011 

Page 14 

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 

1.2.1.16 Tennessee – Knox County 

Knox County submitted a NIF ACCESS database containing 2007 emissions data for 9 

facilities. There were a few records flagged for out-of-range values for stack parameters or 

location coordinates, or inconsistencies between the flow rate and velocity by the EPA’s 

Basic Format and Content Checker. These cases are discussed later in Section 1.5 of this 

document. Otherwise the data passed all of the QA checks. 

1.2.1.17 Tennessee – Shelby County 

Shelby County submitted a spreadsheet with NIF tables for 29 facilities with 2008 

emissions data. The 2008 was considered representative of 2007 for all sources except the 

TVA Allen Plant (Facility ID 47157-00528), for which we used the 2007 annual SO2 and 

NOx emissions as reported in EPA’s CAMD database. 

Shelby County submitted emissions data for a large number of hazardous air pollutants. 

Since these pollutants are not needed for regional ozone and fine particle modeling, they 

were stripped from the EM and CE tables. 

The EPA’s Basic Format and Content Checker identified several relational widow/orphan 

issues. MACTEC made the necessary corrections to the NIF tables to ensure that all EM 

records had a match in the EU, EP, PE and EM tables. 

1.2.1.18 Virginia 

Virginia submitted a NIF ACCESS database containing 2007 emissions data for 801 

facilities. Since Virginia is participating with MARAMA in developing a regional 

modeling inventory for the northeastern States, Virginia’s data has already undergone 

considerable QA review and updating. As part of the MARAMA inventory development 

process, Virginia provided emissions data for a number of additional distributed generation 

units. Virginia’s submittal to MARAMA was subjected to the QA and PM augmentation 

procedures described in this report. Virginia has accepted the MARAMA 2007 point 

source inventory for use in the SEMAP 2007 point source modeling inventory. 

1.2.1.19 West Virginia 

West Virginia submitted a NIF ACCESS database containing 2007 emissions data for 177 

facilities. West Virginia’s submittal passed all of checks made by the EPA’s Basic Format 

and Content Checker with the exception of some of the stack parameter values. There 

were numerous records flagged for out-of-range values for stack parameters or location 

coordinates, or inconsistencies between the flow rate and velocity by the EPA’s Basic 
Development of Point Source Emission Inventory for 2007 January 26, 2011 

Page 15 

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 

Format and Content Checker. These cases are discussed later in Section 1.5 of this 

document. 

1.3 EPA CAMD HOURLY EMISSION DATA 

The second source of data was the hourly emission data reported to EPA by facilities to 

comply with various provisions of the Clean Air Act. MACTEC downloaded the 2007 

CAMD annual inventory containing NOx and SO2 emissions, heat input data and other 

information from the CAMD web site (EPA 2009a). 

MACTEC prepared an initial crosswalk file to match facilities and units in the CAMD 

inventory to facilities and units in the 2007 SEMAP inventory. In the CAMD inventory, 

the Office of Regulatory Information Systems (ORIS) identification (ID) code identifies 

unique facilities and the unit ID identifies unique boilers and internal combustion engines 

(i.e., turbines and reciprocating engines). 

MACTEC also downloaded the 2007 CAMD hourly inventory containing hourly NOx and 

SO2 emissions and heat input data from the CAMD website (EPA 2009b). MACTEC 

summed the hourly emissions to the annual level (or 6-month level for 6-month reporting 

units) by emission unit. The summed hourly data was compared to the annual summary 

data, which matched in virtually all cases. This check was made because MARAMA is 

considering using the actual 2007 hourly data rather than average temporal profiles in the 

next round of regional air quality modeling. 

As a starting point for developing the CAMD-to-NIF crosswalk, MACTEC obtained and 

used the CAMD-to-NIF crosswalk that was developed for the VISTAS Best & Final 

inventory (VISTAS, 2007). This file was useful for matching many facilities and units. 

However, in many other cases either the CAMD unit identifier changed or the facility and 

unit identifiers in the S/L database changed. For example, the facility IDs in West 

Virginia’s 2002 VISTAS database were a 4-digit field, while the facility IDs in the 2007 

SEMAP inventory are a 5-digit field. In Kentucky, the facility IDs in the 2002 VISTAS 

database consisted of the five-digit FIPS code followed by a 5-digit facility ID, while the 

facility IDs in the 2007 SEMAP inventory consisted of only the 5-digit facility ID. In 

North Carolina, nearly all unit IDs changed between 2002 and 2007. 

MACTEC prepared an Excel Workbook file for each S/L agency with linkages between 

the CAMD identifiers and the S/L agency identifiers and a comparison between the 

CAMD annual summary emissions, the annual emissions summed from the hourly CAMD 

database, and annual emissions reported in the S/L inventory. This spreadsheet matched 

the CAMD unit-level IDs (ORISID and UNITID) with corresponding NIF table IDs (FIPS, 
Development of Point Source Emission Inventory for 2007 January 26, 2011 

Page 16 

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 

SITE ID, EU ID, EP ID, ER ID). Emissions were shown as obtained from (1) the CAMD 

unit level file, (2) the sum of the CAMD hourly emission file, and (3) the State submitted 

NIF tables. Note that the CAMD Emissions are reported at the unit level while the NIF 

emissions are reported at the Unit/Process/Stack level. 

MACTEC added three fields to the NIF EP table to facilitate the linkage to the CAMD 

database. We added fields to store the CAMD ORISID, CAMD Unit ID, and CAMD 

number of reporting months. 

MACTEC prepared a CAMD-to-NIF crosswalk spreadsheet for each State. S/L agencies 

were asked to review this list and verify that (1) the linkages are correct, (2) there are no 

large sources missing from the CAMD-to-NIF crosswalk, and (3) there are not any large 

discrepancies between the emissions reported to CAMD and the emissions reported in the 

SEMAP database. 

There are three types of possible linkages: 

 CAMD facility has no match in NIF SI facility table. The emissions from these 

facilities reported to CAMD are small, and initially accounted for about 0.5% 

of the NOx and 0.07% of the SO2 emissions in the CAMD database. 

 CAMD unit could not be matched in NIF. The emissions from these facilities 

reported to CAMD were small, accounting for about 0.9% of the NOx and 

0.007% of the SO2 emissions in the CAMD database. Most of the units that 

could not be matched at the unit level are either peaking units or industrial 

sources such as paper mills or chemical plants. In addition, there were several 

instances where multiple CAMD units match to a single NIF record (i.e., units 

are grouped in the NIF tables but reported individually in the CAMD database). 

 CAMD unit matches with a single NIF record or CAMD unit matches with 

multiple NIF records (in many cases, the NIF tables include multiple records 

for different fuel types). The emissions from these units reported to CAMD 

account for about 98.6% of the NOx and 99.9% of the SO2 emissions in the 

CAMD database. In most cases the sum of the emissions from the matching 

NIF records are generally very close to the CAMD unit level emissions; and 

S/L agencies verified that linkages were correct. 

As another QA check, MACTEC compiled a list of sources with EGU SCCs of 1-01-xxxxx and 2-01-xxx-xx in the S/L agency NIF tables that could not be linked to the CAMD 

CEM table to help resolve some of the linkage issues noted above. S/L agencies made 
Development of Point Source Emission Inventory for 2007 January 26, 2011 

Page 17 

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 

significant efforts to improve the crosswalk between the CAMD identifiers and the S/L 

agency identifiers. 

1.4 PM AUGMENTATION 

PM compounds may be reported in several forms, as identified in Exhibit 2. Exhibit 3 

provides a count of the number of annual NIF EM table records in each agency’s NIF 

Submittal by type of PM compound. The PM augmentations process gap-fills missing PM 

pollutant complements. We generated emission estimates for filterable and primary PM2.5, filterable and primary PM-10 and condensable PM if emission estimates for those 

species were missing from the S/L agency submittal .For example, if a S/L agency 

provided only PM10-PRI emissions, the PM augmentation process filled in estimates for 

PM-CON, PM10-FIL, PM25-PRI, and PM25-FIL. 

The PM augmentation process is essentially the same process used in developing the 2002 

VISTAS Best and Final inventory and is virtually identical to the EPA methodology used 

for the 2002 NEI (EPA 2006a). The steps in the PM augmentation process were as follows: 

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

 Step 2: Updating of PM factor ratios previously developed for MARAMA based on 

factors from the Factor Information and Retrieval Data System and the EPA PM 

Calculator; 

 Step 3: Implementation of the ratios developed in step 2; 

 Step 4: Presentation of PM augmentation results to S/L agencies for review and 

comment; and 

 Step 5: Updates to augmented values in cases where the S/L agency was able to 

obtain source-specific data. 
Development of Point Source Emission Inventory for 2007 January 26, 2011 

Page 18 

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 

Exhibit 2 – PM Compound Descriptions 

Pollutant 

Code Pollutant Pollutant Description 

PM-CON Primary PM 

Condensable portion 

only (all < 1 micron) 

Material that is vapor phase at stack conditions, but 

which condenses and/or reacts upon cooling and 

dilution in the ambient air to form solid or liquid PM 

immediately after discharge from the stack. 

PM-FIL Primary PM, Filterable 

portion only 

Particles that are directly emitted by a source as a solid 

or liquid at stack or release conditions and captured on 

the filter of a stack test train. 

PM-PRI Primary PM, includes 

filterables and 

condensables 

PM-PRI= 

PM-FIL + PM-CON 

Particles that enter the atmosphere as a direct 

emission from a stack or an open source. It is 

comprised of two components: Filterable PM and 

Condensable PM. 

PM10-FIL Primary PM10, 

Filterable portion only 

Particles with an aerodynamic diameter equal to or less 

than 10 micrometers that are directly emitted by a 

source as a solid or liquid at stack or release conditions 

and captured on the filter of a stack test train. 

PM10-PRI Primary PM10, 

includes filterables and 

condensables, 

PM10- PRI = 

PM0-FIL + PM-CON 

Particles with an aerodynamic diameter equal to or less 

than 10 micrometers that enter the atmosphere as a 

direct emission from a stack or an open source. It is 

comprised of two components: Filterable PM and 

Condensable PM. (As specified in § 51.15 (a)(2), 

These two PM components are the components 

measured by a stack sampling train such as EPA 

Method 5.) 

PM25-FIL Primary PM2.5, 

Filterable portion only 

Particles with an aerodynamic diameter equal to or less 

than 2.5 micrometers that are directly emitted by a 

source as a solid or liquid at stack or release conditions 

and captured on the filter of a stack test train. 

PM25-PRI Primary PM2.5, 

includes filterables and 

condensables 

PM25-PRI= 

PM25-FIL + PM-CON 

Particles with an aerodynamic diameter equal to or less 

than 2.5 micrometers that enter the atmosphere as a 

direct emission from a stack or an open source. It is 

comprised of two components: Filterable PM and 

Condensable PM. (As specified in § 51.15 (a)(2), 

These two PM components are the components 

measured by a stack sampling train such as EPA 

Method 5.) 
Development of Point Source Emission Inventory for 2007 January 26, 2011 

Page 19 

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 

Exhibit 3 – PM Compounds Reported in Initial State Submittals 

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

Agency PMCON PMFIL PMPRI PM10- 

FIL 

PM10- 

PRI 

PM25- 

FIL 

PM25- 

PRI 

AL 0 4,748 0 2,918 0 2,035 0 

AL Jefferson 0 318 0 631 0 626 0 

FL 0 3,576 0 3,672 0 0 0 

GA 0 137 2,912 0 1,869 0 1,285 

KY 0 0 29,856 0 29,859 0 99 

KY Jefferson 20 0 222 20 222 20 214 

MS1 413 56 3,073 429 3,251 429 3,251 

NC 0 0 0 0 9,120 0 5,800 

NC Buncombe 26 40 63 40 63 40 58 

NC Forsyth 12 4 408 23 381 5 210 

NC Mecklenburg 0 0 0 0 613 0 309 

SC1 1,241 409 6,645 1,439 5,992 1,422 4,224 

TN1 2,274 3,175 1,258 2,811 2,560 2,641 2,441 

TN Davidson 0 0 0 0 775 0 649 

TN Hamilton 0 0 394 0 279 0 332 

TN Knox 0 0 0 0 15 0 1 

TN Shelby 57 189 79 70 279 63 99 

VA2 5,238 0 0 5,238 5,241 5,238 5,241 

WV 167 2,138 802 1,814 737 1,586 691 

1) Includes PM records from EPA’s 2005-based modeling inventory, which have already been 

augmented by EPA 

2) Virginia’s PM augmentation was previously performed using an identical augmentation process 

during the development of the 2007 regional emission inventory for the Northeast/Mid-Atlantic 

States
Development of Point Source Emission Inventory for 2007 January 26, 2011 

Page 20 

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 

1.4.1 Initial QA and Remediation of PM Pollutants 

Prior to executing the PM augmentation process, we first reviewed the data for 

inconsistencies. If values are found to be inconsistent, they were replaced. The 

consistency checks and replacement actions are as follows: 

1. If PM10-PRI >0 and PM25-PRI > PM10-PRI (and PM10-FIL, PM25-FIL and PMCON are null or 0), then set PM25-PRI = PM10-PRI. 

2. If PM10-FIL > 0 and PM25-FIL > PM10-FIL (and PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI and PMCON are null or 0), then set PM25-FIL = PM10-FIL. 

3. If PM10-PRI >0 and PM10-FIL > PM10-PRI (and PM25-PRI, PM25-FIL and PMCON are null or 0), then set PM10-FIL = PM10-PRI. 

4. If PM25-PRI > 0 and PM25-FIL > PM25-PRI (and PM10-PRI, PM10-FIL and PMCON are null or 0), then set PM25-FIL = PM25-PRI. 

The consistency checks revealed very few occurrences of inconsistencies, and when 

inconsistencies did occur, the emission values were very small. As a result, S/L agencies 

were not asked to review this information and provide corrections because the 

inconsistencies did not involve significant emission sources. The replacement actions 

above were appropriate for an inventory used for regional air quality modeling. 

1.4.2 Updating of PM Factor Ratios 

The augmentation steps require the use of ratios developed from available emissions and 

particle size distribution data. These ratios are needed when only one PM term is available, 

and two or more terms need to be augmented. Examples of how we used the PM ratios are 

shown below: 

PM-FIL × RatioCON/FIL = PM-CON 

PM-PRI × RatioCON/PRI = PM-CON 

PM-CON × RatioFIL/CON = PM-FIL 

PM-CON × RatioPRI/CON = PM-PRI 

A table of PM compound ratios was developed utilizing the table developed for the 

MANE-VU 2002 inventory (MARAMA, 2006). This table is keyed by SCC, primary 

control device, and secondary control device and provides the ratios listed in the above 

equations. We updated this table to include SCC, primary control device, and secondary 

control device codes found in the 2007 SEMAP inventory that were not contained in the 

2002 MANE-VU inventory. 
Development of Point Source Emission Inventory for 2007 January 26, 2011 

Page 21 

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 

1.4.3 PM Emission Calculations 

The gap-filling requires that the data be analyzed and separated into cases. The cases 

determine which math steps and ratios of PM terms will be applied. Exhibit 4 shows the 

various cases and the augmentation method that was applied. 

Exhibit 4 – PM Cases and Required Steps to Augment PM Emissions 

Case PM Reported Augmentation Methodology 

1 PM25-PRI PM-CON = PM25-PRI * CON_P25 ratio 

PM25-FIL = PM25-PRI - PM-CON 

PM10-FIL = PM25-FIL * F10_F25 ratio 

PM10-PRI = PM-CON + PM10-FIL 

2 PM10-PRI PM-CON = PM10-PRI * CON_P10 ratio 

PM10-FIL = PM10-PRI - PM-CON 

PM25-FIL = PM10-FIL / F10_F25 ratio 

PM25-PRI = PM-CON + PM25-FIL 

3 PM25-PRI 

PM10-PRI 

PM-CON = PM10-PRI * CON_P10 ratio 

PM10-FIL = PM10-PRI - PM-CON 

PM25-FIL = PM25-PRI - PM-CON 

4 PM10-FIL PM-CON = PM-CON * CON_F10 ratio 

PM10-PRI = PM-CON + PM10-FIL 

PM25-FIL = PM10-FIL / F10_F25 ratio 

PM25-PRI = PM-CON + PM25-FIL 

5 PM10-FIL 

PM25-FIL 

PM-CON = PM10-FIL * CON_F10 ratio 

PM10-PRI = PM-CON + PM10-FIL 

PM25-PRI = PM-CON + PM25-FIL 

6 PM10-FIL 

PM10-PRI 

PM-CON = PM10-PRI - PM10-FIL 

PM25-FIL = PM10-FIL * F25_F10 ratio 

PM25-PRI = PM-CON + PM25-FIL 

7 PM25-FIL PM-CON = PM25-FIL * CON_F25 ratio 

PM10-FIL = PM25-FIL * F10-F25 ratio 

PM10-PRI = PM-CON + PM10-FIL 

PM25-PRI = PM-CON + PM25-FIL 

8 PM10-FIL 

PM10-PRI 

PM25-FIL 

PM25-PRI 

PM-CON = PM25-PRI - PM25-FIL 

9 PM-PRI PM-CON = PM-PRI * CON_PRI ratio 

PM-FIL = PM-PRI - PM-CON 

PM10-FIL = PM-FIL * F10_FIL ratio 

PM10-PRI = PM-CON + PM10-FIL 

PM25-FIL = PM10-FIL / F10_F25 ratio 

PM25-PRI = PM-CON + PM25-FIL 
Development of Point Source Emission Inventory for 2007 January 26, 2011 

Page 22 

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 

Case PM Reported Augmentation Methodology 

10 PM25-FIL 

PM25-PRI 

PMCON = PM25-PRI - PM25-FIL 

PM10-FIL = PM25-FIL * F10_F25 ratio 

PM10-PRI = PM-CON + PM10-FIL 

11 PM-CON 

PM10-FIL 

PM25-FIL 

PM10-PRI = PM-CON + PM10-FIL 

PM25-PRI = PM-CON + PM25-FIL 

12 PM-CON PM10-FIL = PM-CON * F10_CON ratio 

PM25-FIL = PM10-FIL * F25_F10 ratio 

PM10-PRI = PM-CON + PM10-FIL 

PM25-PRI = PM-CON + PM25-FIL 

13 PM-CON 

PM10-FIL 

PM10-PRI 

PM25-FIL = PM10-FIL / F10_F25 ratio 

PM25-PRI = PMCON + PM25-FIL 

14 PM-CON 

PM10-FIL 

PM10-PRI 

PM25-FIL 

PM25-PRI 

None required; all PM compounds present 

15 PM-CON 

PM-FIL 

PM10-FIL = PM-CON / CON_F10 ratio 

PM25-FIL = PM10-FIL / F10_F25 ratio 

PM10-PRI = PM-CON + PM10-FIL 

PM25-PRI = PM-CON + PM25-FIL 

16 PM-CON 

PM10-PRI 

PM25-PRI 

PM10-FIL = PM10-PRI - PM-CON 

PM25-FIL = PM25-PRI - PM-CON 

17 PM-FIL PM10-FIL = PM-FIL * F10_FIL ratio 

PM_CON = PM10-FIL * CON_F10 ratio 

PM25-FIL = PM10-FIL / F10_F25 ratio 

PM10-PRI = PM-CON + PM10-FIL 

PM25-PRI = PM-CON + PM25-FIL 

After completing the calculations, the data was QA checked to ensure that the calculations 

resulted in consistent values for the PM complement. On a few occasions, the mix of ratio 

value and the pollutants and values provided by the S/L agency resulted in negative values 

when FIL was back-calculated. In this case the negative FIL value was set to zero and the 

PRI value was readjusted. In a few cases the appropriate combination of ratios, SCC, and 

control efficiencies were not available to calculate the PM10-PRI and PM25-PRI values. 

In these cases, PM10-PRI and PM25-PRI were set equal. 

1.4.4 PM Emission Results 

Exhibit 5 compares the original PM emission estimates from the S/L submittals and the 

2007 SEMAP emissions estimates calculated using the above methodology. This table is 
Development of Point Source Emission Inventory for 2007 January 26, 2011 

Page 23 

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 

intended to show that we took whatever States provided in the way of PM and filled in 

gaps to add in PM-CON where emissions were missing in order to calculate PM10-PRI and 

PM2.5 -PRI for all processes to get a complete set of particulate data. A spreadsheet 

(PM State SCC Sums.xls) shows the results obtained from the PM augmentation process 

by State and SCC. 

Exhibit 5 Comparison of PM Emissions from the Initial S/L Data Submittals and 

Version 1.1 of the SEMAP 2007 Point Source Inventory 

State Database PM-CON PM10-PRI PM10-FIL PM25-PRI PM25-FIL 

AL S/L Data 0 0 57,285 0 29,173 

 SEMAP 9,511 87,779 78,268 62,878 53,367 

FL S/L Data 0 0 26,234 0 0 

 SEMAP 10,218 36,707 26,489 29,033 18,785 

GA S/L Data 0 20,066 0 9,426 0 

 SEMAP 668 27,359 26,691 19,251 18,858 

KY S/L Data 0 24,699 206 2,019 196 

 SEMAP 325 24,986 24,662 15,435 15,110 

MS S/L Data 883 18,871 5,986 11,071 1,739 

 SEMAP 1,784 18,900 17,116 11,289 9,505 

NC S/L Data 18 46,852 28 30,055 16 

 SEMAP 2,982 46,909 43,926 36,881 33,899 

SC1 S/L Data 81 30,602 910 21,488 416 

 SEMAP 909 31,904 30,995 24,235 23,326 

TN1 S/L Data 11,177 26,708 12,826 19,734 7,048 

 SEMAP 11,270 30,240 18,971 23,742 12,491 

VA2 S/L Data 4,783 19,203 14,419 14,888 10,105 

 SEMAP 4,783 19,203 14,419 14,875 10,092 

WV S/L Data 129 6,444 7,507 4,462 3,398 

 SEMAP 3,904 13,736 9,833 9,173 5,269 

1) Includes PM records from EPA’s 2005-based modeling inventory, which have already been 

augmented by EPA 

2) Virginia’s PM augmentation was previously performed using an identical augmentation process 

during the development of the 2007 inventory for the Northeast/Mid-Atlantic States
Development of Point Source Emission Inventory for 2007 January 26, 2011 

Page 24 

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 

1.5 EMISSION RELEASE POINT QA CHECKS 

Stack parameters are an important component of an emission inventory used for regional 

air quality modeling. Careful QA was required to ensure that the point source emissions 

were properly located both horizontally and vertically on the modeling grid. This section 

describes the procedures used to quality assure, augment, and where necessary, revise, 

stack parameters using standardized procedures to identify and correct stack data errors. 

These procedures were implemented within the NIF file itself, and are based on the QA 

procedures built into SMOKE that are designed to catch missing or out-of-range stack 

parameters. 

1.5.1 QA Checks and Gap-Filling for Location Coordinates 

The emission release (ER) point record is used to report the location and relevant physical 

attributes of the emission release point. Location coordinates must be reported to identify 

where emissions are released to the ambient air, via a stack or non-stack (e.g., fugitive 

release). If a non-stack, or fugitive release, coordinates may be reported for the general 

location of the emission release point. In the ER record, location data may be reported as x 

and y coordinates from either of two coordinate systems - Latitude / Longitude 

(LATLON), or Universal TransMercator (UTM). X and Y coordinates reported as Latitude 

and Longitude must be reported in the decimal degree format specified. X and Y 

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

In order to comply with the EPA data standard for Latitude/Longitude, any UTM data 

received in the SESARM files was processed by the MACTEC Team and converted to, 

and stored as Latitude Measure and Longitude Measure in decimal degrees. 

All conversions of UTM to LATLON were conducting use a spreadsheet developed by the 

University of Wisconsin - Green Bay (Dutch 2005). This spreadsheet tool allowed for 

batch conversion of UTM data to decimal degree format and was configured for WGS 84 

DATUM. While errors using this spreadsheet are typically a few meters, rarely 10 or more, 

the accuracy of the conversion is limited to the accuracy of the initial UTM data. A degree 

latitude/longitude is about 111,000 meters. Thus, to achieve roughly one-meter accuracy 

you need coordinates accurate to five decimal places. Four places will give you 10 meters 

accuracy and three will give you 100 meter accuracy. This accuracy could not be improved 

with the originally provided UTM coordinates, so all conversions should be checked for 

reasonableness. 

Once all conversions were made to LATLON decimal degrees (also the requirement of the 

SMOKE emissions processing system), reasonableness checks were conducted on each 

release point relative to county centroids and min/max coordinates associated with the 
Development of Point Source Emission Inventory for 2007 January 26, 2011 

Page 25 

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 

FIPS codes assigned to each stack. If a stack was found to exist outside of the western-, 

eastern-, northern- or southern-most boundary of the county (based on SMOKE’s county 

lat/lon file), the point was flagged for additional review. These flagged sources were then 

mapped with GIS software to determine their placement relative to the FIPS County 

associated with the stack. If a source was found to be outside of the county boundaries, it 

was further identified and reported for review by the data provider. 

1.5.2 QA Checks and Gap-Filling for Emission Release Parameters 

In preparing emissions for grid modeling, valid parameters for the physical characteristics 

of each release point (stack height, diameter, temperature, velocity, and flow) are necessary 

to correctly place facility release points and associated emissions into vertical layers for 

proper air quality modeling. Gaussian dispersion models need stack parameters to 

characterize the plume, which is needed to estimate proper concentrations from these 

models. The first step of our quality assurance involves review of the Emission Release 

Point Type. Using this type code, we used a routine to assess the validity of the stack 

parameters, to replace values if necessary, and to fill-in missing data points. This 

methodology is virtually identical to the EPA methodology used for the 2002 NEI (EPA 

2006a). 

We employed a routine that compared each emission release point parameter to a 

minimum and maximum range of values and when that parameter was missing or was 

found to exist outside of that range, we augmented the parameter. We also checked nonfugitive stack parameters for internal consistency between: 

 stack height and diameter, and 

 stack diameter, exit gas velocity, and exit gas flow rate. 

When internal consistency was not met, we provided replacement values for the 

parameters. 

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

or internally inconsistent stack parameters. 

Step 1: For fugitive emission release points, replace stack parameters 

For fugitive emission release points, we first compared the existing height against the 

following range thought to be representative of the minimum and maximum values 

allowable for most fugitive emission release points. 

 Fugitive Release Height: 0.1 to 100 ft 
Development of Point Source Emission Inventory for 2007 January 26, 2011 

Page 26 

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 

If the height was valid, we kept the height and replaced all other stack parameters with the 

defaulted values listed below. If the height was invalid, we replaced all stack parameters 

with the defaulted values. 

 Stack Height: 10 ft 

 Stack Temperature: 72 o

F 

 Stack Diameter: 0.003ft 

 Stack Velocity: 0.0003 ft/sec 

 Stack Flow: 0 cu ft/sec 

Step 2: For non-fugitive emission release points, find out-of-range or missing stack 

parameters 

For non-fugitive emission release points, we first compared existing stack parameters 

against a set of the following ranges thought to be representative of the minimum and 

maximum values allowable for most emission release points. 

 Stack Height: 0.1 to 1000 ft 

 Stack Temperature: 50 to 1,800 o

F 

 Stack Diameter: 0.1 to 50 ft 

 Stack Velocity: 0.1 to 560 ft/sec 

 Stack Flow: 0.001 to 1,100,000 ft3/sec 

First we identified missing or out-of range parameters. Then we evaluated the source 

category to determine if out-of-range parameters were plausible. If any parameter was 

missing or out-of range, the parameter was replaced using the procedures described in Step 

4. If all parameters were found to exist within the bounds of the emission release point 

ranges, we proceeded to Step 3. 

Step 3: For non-fugitive emission release points, find inconsistencies in stack parameters 

We determined any inconsistencies in stack parameters by conducting the following two 

steps. 

A. For stack diameter, we compared the stack diameter to the stack height. For 

nonfugitive emission release points, the stack height may not be less than stack 

diameter. 

B. We determined the internal consistency between diameter, velocity and flow rate 

using the following equation. 
Development of Point Source Emission Inventory for 2007 January 26, 2011 

Page 27 

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 

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

If the calculated flow and the reported flow are within 10 % of one another, then internal 

consistency was assumed to be valid. If all parameters were found to exist within the 

bounds of the emission release point ranges in Step 2, and the consistency checks (A) and 

(B) in Step 3 were satisfied, no additional steps were taken. If any parameter was missing 

or out-of range, or if the parameters failed the internal consistency tests, the parameter was 

replaced using the procedures described in Step 4. 

Step 4: Replace stack parameters for non-fugitive emission release points 

The first step in replacing stack parameters was to determine if there are problems with 

stack height or diameter. Because stack height and diameter are the physical parameters 

that are most easily measured or estimated, when there are problems with these parameters, 

then the entire set of stack parameters are deemed questionable. If either height or diameter 

were missing or out-of range, or if the stack diameter was greater than stack height, then all 

five parameters were defaulted using national default sets of physical parameter data 

contained in the 2002 NEI Stack Parameter Default file (EPA 2006b). No additional steps 

were taken once all five parameters were defaulted. 

If stack height and diameter did not need replacement, then velocity and flow rate were 

evaluated next. If velocity and flow rate were not internally consistent, we conducted QA 

on the flow rate to determine if it was reported in cubic feet per minute rather than cubic 

feet per second as required in the reporting to EPA. 

We corrected flow rates reported in cubic feet per minute to cubic feet per second and then 

evaluated the flow rate and velocity for internal consistency. If the internal consistency was 

not met for velocity, flow rate, and diameter, Exhibit 6 provides instructions on how we 

replaced missing, out-of-range values, or internally inconsistent values for velocity and 

flow rate based on different reported scenarios. Velocity and flow rate were augmented 

either by calculation or the use of national defaults. 

Finally, in cases where all five parameters were not defaulted, and velocity and flow rate 

were evaluated and replaced if necessary, temperature was evaluated. If temperature was 

missing or out-of-range, then the temperature was defaulted using national default sets of 

physical parameter data in the order presented below. 

1. SCC match 

2. Facility level SIC Code match 

3. National default for release points, if no SCC or SIC Code match is possible 
Development of Point Source Emission Inventory for 2007 January 26, 2011 

Page 28 

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 

Stack parameter QA reports were sent to all data providers. The report contained all of the 

emissions release point records submitted and identifies which parameters were defaulted 

as a result of our QA. S/L agencies were asked to review the defaulted records and revise 

the records if they do not agree with the defaulted values. 

Exhibit 6 - Stack Parameter Data Replacement Matrix (X = Data value present) 

Diameter Velocity Flow Rate Action 

X X X 1. Check that velocity is within range. 

A. If velocity is within range and flow rate does not 

meet internal consistency for diameter, velocity 

and flow rate, then: 

> Calculate flow rate using internal consistency 

formula. 

B. If velocity is not within range, then: 

> Calculate velocity using internal consistency 

formula. 

> Check that calculated velocity is within range. 

If so, then default to calculated velocity. 

> If calculated velocity is not within range, then 

default all 5 parameters using national default set. 

X - X 1. Calculate velocity using internal consistency formula. 

2. Check that calculated velocity is within range. 

A. If calculated velocity is not within range, then: 

> Default all 5 parameters using national default 

sets. 

X X - 1. Check that velocity is within range. 

A. If velocity is within range, then: 

> Calculate flow rate using internal consistency 

formula. 

B. If velocity is not within range, then: 

> Default all 5 parameters using national default 

sets. 

X - - 1. Default velocity using national default sets. 

2. Calculate flow rate using internal consistency formula.

- X X 1. Default all 5 parameters using national default sets.
Development of Point Source Emission Inventory for 2007 January 26, 2011 

Page 29 

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 

1.6 STATE REVIEW OF INITIAL VERSION 

This section describes changes made to the 2007 SEMAP point source inventory based on 

S/L agency review and comment. The following changes were incorporated to create 

Version 1.3 of the point source inventory. 

1.6.1 Alabama 

A large increase in VOC and PM emissions from 2002 to 2007 was identified during the 

review of Alabama’s initial submittal. Alabama investigated this problem and identified a 

serious problem in their data conversion process. New EM and CE tables were provided in 

May 2010 to correct this problem. The new submittals were subjected to the same QA and 

PM augmentation processes described in previous sections. 

Alabama reviewed the geographic coordinates for the 34 stacks that were flagged as being 

outside of the appropriate county boundaries. No changes were needed – the sources were 

either located off-shore (outside the county boundary) or very close to the edge of the 

county boundary. 

In response to the QA checks of stack parameters, Alabama changed the emission release 

type to “01” (fugitive sources) for 98 and accepted the default fugitive emission release 

characteristics. For another 71 stacks, Alabama changed the emission release type to “02” 

(vertical release sources) and provided corrected stack parameters. Alabama also provided 

corrections for a number of additional stacks, either by accepting the recommended 

defaults or providing corrected data. 

1.6.2 Alabama – Jefferson County 

Stack parameter changes were made for fugitive emission release points that were 

recommended for change based on the QA checks and gap filling process described in 

Section 1.5.2 of this report. 

1.6.3 Florida 

Stack parameter changes were made for fugitive emission release points that were 

recommended for change based on the QA checks and gap filling process described in 

Section 1.5.2 of this report. 

Florida updated the CAMD-to-NIF crosswalk table to link the CAMD and NIF identifiers. 

Florida updated cases where: 

 the facility/emission unit may likely have been reported as a different facility (two 

CAMD ORIS facilities were combined in Florida’s NIF SI table); 
Development of Point Source Emission Inventory for 2007 January 26, 2011 

Page 30 

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 

 the EU did not operate in 2007, which is why it was not included in Florida’s NIF 

database; or 

 typographical errors caused a mismatch between CAMD and NIF. 

MACTEC made the above updates and now all CAMD units have a match in Florida’s 

NIF database. 

1.6.4 Georgia 

Georgia specified that 2008 emissions data should be backcasted to 2007 or and 2005 

emissions data should be projected to 2007. The backcasting of 2008 emissions and 

projecting of 2005 emissions was performed in the following manner: 

 Facilities with 2007 emissions do not get changed; 

 For facilities with 2005 and 2008 emissions (but no 2007 emissions), 2007 

emissions were estimated based on a linear interpolation between facility level 

2005 and 2008 emissions on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis to calculate facility level 

2007 emissions. A scaling factor was then calculated as the ratio of reported 2008 

emissions to interpolated 2007 emissions, which was used to create to scale back 

2008 reported emissions to 2007 at the emission process level. 

 For facilities with only 2008 data (no 2007 or 2005 data available), we used the 

SIC growth factors from the VISTAS Best&Final inventory to backcast 2008 

reported emissions to 2007. The VISTAS SIC growth factors were used to 

calculate a scaling factor which was used to scale back 2008 reported emissions to 

2007 at the emission process level. 

 For facilities with only 2005 data (no 2007 or 2008 data available), we used the 

SIC growth factors from the VISTAS Best&Final inventory to project 2005 

reported emissions to 2007. The VISTAS SIC growth factors were used to 

calculate a scaling factor which was used to project 2005 reported emissions to 

2007 at the emission process level. 

After the above backcasting and projecting was performed, additional adjustments were 

made for facilities where only 2005 data were available and the facility did not operate in 

2007 or operated for only part of 2007. Facilities that did not operate in 2007 were 

removed from the NIF files. For facilities that operated for part of 2007, the 2005 

emissions were approximated for 2007 by multiply the 2005 emissions by a scaling factor 

of the number of days the facility operated in 2007 divided 365 days of full year operation. 
Development of Point Source Emission Inventory for 2007 January 26, 2011 

Page 31 

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 

Also, the end date in the NIF EM and PE tables were changed to reflect the actual date that 

the facility ceased operation. These facilities were: 

FIPS PLANTID FACILITY NAME DATE 

SHUTDOWN 

SCALING 

FACTOR 

13159 15900011 Georgia-Pacific Corp Panelboard 15-Aug-07 0.62 

13045 04500008 Southwire Co, Copper Division 7-Mar-07 0.18 

13121 12100364 Ford Motor Co Atlanta Assembly 1-Dec-07 0.92 

13121 12100004 General Shale Brick 28-Mar-07 0.24 

13175 17500047 Victor Forstmann, Inc. 1-Apr-07 0.25 

13081 08100019 Lasco Bathware 6-Nov-07 0.85 

13089 08900031 Siemens Energy & Auto 1-Sep-06 0.00 

13241 24100001 Rabun Apparel, Inc. Not operated in 

2007 0.00 

13261 26100005 Textron Automotive Company 1-Feb-07 0.08 

The following facilities reported emissions data to CAMD but were not in Georgia’s NIF 

submittal: 

FIPSST FIPSCNTY PLANTID ORISID FACILITY NAME 

13 147 14700021 70454 HARTWELL ENERGY FACILITY 

13 149 14900004 55061 TENASKA GEORGIA 

13 149 14900005 55141 HEARD COUNTY POWER LLC 

13 149 14900006 7917 CHATTAHOOCHEE ENERGY FACILITY 

13 149 14900007 7946 WANSLEY 

13 153 15300040 7348 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, ROBINS CT 

13 153 15300042 55040 MID GEORGIA COGEN 

13 157 15700034 7765 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, DAHLBERG 

13 205 20500043 7768 SOWEGA POWER LLC 

13 205 20500044 55304 BACONTON POWER 

13 207 20700030 7829 SMARR ENERGY CENTER 

13 233 23300042 7813 SEWELL CREEK ENERGY 

13 263 26300013 7916 TALBOT COUNTY ENERGY 

13 293 29300027 55267 WEST GEORGIA GENERATING CO 

13 297 29700040 7764 MPC GENERATING 

13 297 29700041 55244 DOYLE GENERATING FACILITY 

13 297 29700042 55128 WALTON COUNTY POWER LLC 

13 303 30300039 55332 WASHINGTON COUNTY 

13 303 30300040 55672 DUKE ENERGY SANDERSVILLE LLC 
Development of Point Source Emission Inventory for 2007 January 26, 2011 

Page 32 

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 

MACTEC added these facilities and their associated emission units to the NIF tables. All 

of the units are gas-fired turbines. MACTEC calculated 2007 emissions for these units in 

the following manner: 

 NOx – used the CAMD reported 2007 annual NOx emissions 

 SO2 – used the CAMD reported 2007 annual SO2 emissions 

 CO – calculated annual CO emissions using the CAMD reported 2007 annual heat 

input (mmBtu/year) and the AP-42 emission factor of 0.03 lbs/mmBtu 

 PM10-PRI – calculated annual PM10-PRI emissions using the CAMD reported 

2007 annual heat input (mmBtu/year) and the AP-42 emission factor of 0.0066 

lbs/mmBtu 

 PM25-PRI – calculated annual PM25-PRI emissions using the CAMD reported 

2007 annual heat input (mmBtu/year) and the AP-42 emission factor of 0.0066 

lbs/mmBtu 

 VOC – calculated annual VOC emissions using the CAMD reported 2007 annual 

heat input (mmBtu/year) and the AP-42 emission factor of 0.0021 lbs/mmBtu 

These calculations were reviewed and approved by Georgia. 

Stack parameter changes were made for fugitive emission release points that were 

recommended for change based on the QA checks and gap filling process described in 

Section 1.5.2 of this report. 

1.6.5 Kentucky 

Kentucky compared facility-level emissions in their State database to the emissions in the 

2007 SEMAP inventory. They identified discrepancies at two facilities: (1) NRE 

Acquisition Co LLC (211450019), which appeared to be undercounted by 25.4955 tons of 

NOx in the draft 2007 SEMAP inventory and (2) Chesapeake Applachia LLC 

(2119500252), which appeared to be undercounted by about 76.7157 tons VOC and 6.7362 

tons of CO in the SEMAP inventory. These discrepancies were identified and resolved, so 

that now the Kentucky database and the SEMAP 2007 are in agreement. 

Kentucky provided updated latitude and longitude data for 677 stacks that were identified 

as being located outside of the county boundaries. Stack parameter changes for the stack 

diameter, flow rate, and velocity were made for fugitive emission release points that were 

recommended for change based on the QA checks and gap filling process described in 

Section 1.5.2 of this report. We retained Kentucky’s values for stack height and exit gas 

temperature. 
Development of Point Source Emission Inventory for 2007 January 26, 2011 

Page 33 

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 

1.6.6 Kentucky – Jefferson County 

Jefferson County updated the coordinates of emission release points for large and mediumsized point sources. Large sources are those with Title V operating permits. Mediumsized sources are those with synthetic minor operating permits. Most of these emission 

release points will match those reported in the 2007 National Emissions Inventory (NEI). 

Many of these coordinates were digitized using a geographic information system (GIS) in 

early April 2010. Others (those showing fewer significant digits in the UTM coordinates) 

were obtained by other means, usually by interpolation on USGS 1:24 000 scale paper 

maps. Generally the ones that were corrected were those that were found to be the most 

inaccurate as seen in the GIS. The 2007 SEMAP inventory was updated with this new 

location information. 

1.6.7 Mississippi 

In preparing the initial version of the 2007 SEMAP point source inventory, MACTEC 

added facilities from EPA’s 2005 NEI that were not included in Mississippi’s 2007 

submittal. Mississippi reviewed the facilities that were added and indicated that much of 

the data for the 2005 NEI facilities was for very small sources, contained dated emissions 

data, had some double-counting of sources, contained data for airports (which are included 

in the SEMAP nonroad inventory) and did not reliably represent emissions in 2007. As a 

result, Mississippi decided to remove most of the facilities added from the 2005 NEI from 

the 2007 SEMAP inventory. The emissions from these sources will be accounted for in 

the inventories for area and nonroad sectors. 

Mississippi provided updated latitude and longitude data for 15 stacks that were identified 

as being located outside of the county boundaries. 

Mississippi approved the stack parameter changes for the stacks that were recommended 

for change based on the QA checks and gap filling process described in Section 1.5.2 of 

this report. Most of these changes affected fugitive emission sources with a emission 

release point of “9999”. These stacks were updated to change the emission release type to 

“01 – fugitive” and to use the default fugitive emission release stack parameters described 

in Section 1.5.2. 

Mississippi reviewed the CAMD-to-NIF crosswalk and updated several linkages to 

correctly map CAMD identifiers to NIF. Three facilities (BTEC New Albany ORIS 

13213, Natchez ORIS 2052, and AP Holdings Southhaven ORIS 55219) are currently shut 

down and did not operate in 2007. Choctaw Gas generation (ORIS 55634), and RRI 

Energy (ORIS 55706), are newer and were not completely represented in Mississippi’s 
Development of Point Source Emission Inventory for 2007 January 26, 2011 

Page 34 

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 

original submittal. Mississippi provided the necessary stack data for modeling for both of 

these facilities. 

1.6.8 North Carolina 

A large increase in VOC emissions from 2002 to 2007 was identified during the review of 

North Carolina’s initial submittal. North Carolina investigated this problem and identified 

a serious problem in their data conversion process. A new spreadsheet table was provided 

in May 2010 to correct this problem. MACTEC converted the spreadsheet file a NIF 

database. The new submittals were subjected to the same QA and PM augmentation 

processes described in previous sections. 

North Carolina reviewed the geographic coordinates for the stacks that were flagged as 

being outside of the appropriate county boundaries. The new submittal mentioned in the 

previous paragraph contained corrections to the flagged latitude and longitude issues. 

NC has reviewed the recommended stack replacement parameters and agreed to accept all 

of the recommendations based on the SCC code. 

In addition, Duke Energy provided additional corrections for stack parameters for 2007. 

For the Marshall Steam Plant, new FGD stacks were installed in May 2007 (combined 

stack for Units 1&2), March 2007 (Unit 3) and May 2006 (Unit 4). For other plants 

(Belews Creek, Cliffside, and G.G. Allen), new stacks will become operational after 2007. 

1.6.9 North Carolina – Buncombe County 

Buncombe County approved the stack parameter changes for the stacks that were 

recommended for change based on the QA checks and gap filling process described in 

Section 1.5.2 of this report. In a few cases, Buncombe County updated the original stack 

parameters for certain stacks and requested that the updated stack data be used. 

The geographic coordinates were inadvertently truncated (not rounded) to 1/100th of a 

degree during the compilation of the initial SEMAP inventory. This problem was 

corrected in Version 1.3. 

Buncombe County compared a sampling of the 2007 SEMAP inventory to what they had 

submitted and found them to be in agreement. 

1.6.10 North Carolina – Forsyth County 

Forsyth County reviewed the data in the SEMAP 2007 inventory and emissions data for 

the more significant processes, i.e. the highest emitting sources. The emissions for all 

pollutants except PM for the processes they reviewed matched their data. The PM 
Development of Point Source Emission Inventory for 2007 January 26, 2011 

Page 35 

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 

emissions did not match the data they provided data in a few cases. The reason for this 

difference is due to correcting inconsistencies in the reported PM data during the PM 

augmentation process. For example, the Corn Products International facility (ID 

3706700732, emission point ES062C, process ID 62C-W had reported PM-CON emissions 

of 11.58 tons but PM10-PRI emissions of only 3.41 tons. Since PM-CON cannot be 

greater than PM10-PRI, the PM10-PRI value was replaced during the PM augmentation 

process. 

Forsyth County provided the mission facility name (Wake Forest University) for Facility 

ID 3706700003. 

The geographic coordinates were incorrect for many facilities. These have been replaced 

for all facilities in Forsyth County. 

1.6.11 North Carolina – Mecklenburg County 

Mecklenburg County approved the stack parameter changes for the stacks that were 

recommended for change based on the QA checks and gap filling process described in 

Section 1.5.2 of this report. 

1.6.12 South Carolina 

In preparing the initial version of the 2007 SEMAP point source inventory, MACTEC 

added facilities from EPA’s 2005 NEI that were not included in South Carolina’s 2007 

submittal. South Carolina reviewed the facilities that were added and indicated that much 

of the data for the 2005 NEI facilities was for very small sources, contained dated 

emissions data, had some double-counting of sources, contained data for airports (which 

are included in the SEMAP nonroad inventory) and did not reliably represent emissions in 

2007. As a result, South Carolina decided to remove many of the facilities added from the 

2005 NEI from the 2007 SEMAP inventory because they were either minor sources, out of 

business, or airports. The emissions from these sources will be accounted for in the 

inventories for area and nonroad sectors. 

South Carolina provided updated latitude and longitude data for 14 stacks that were 

identified as being located outside of the county boundaries. Five of these stacks were 

associated with facilities from the 2005 NEI which were removed from the SEMAP 

inventory. For the remaining stacks that were flagged, the facility level latitude and 

longitude were used to more accurately locate the stack. 

South Carolina approved the stack parameter changes for the stacks that were 

recommended for change based on the QA checks and gap filling process described in 
Development of Point Source Emission Inventory for 2007 January 26, 2011 

Page 36 

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 

Section 1.5.2 of this report. In several cases, South Carolina updated the original stack 

parameters for certain stacks and requested that the updated stack data be used. 

South Carolina reviewed the PM augmentation of PM10-PRI and PM2.5-PRI and 

generally agreed with the small increases in the PM10-PRI and PM2.5-PRI emissions 

resulting from the augmentation process. South Carolina expressed a concern about the 

increases that were made to the certain fuel burning SCCs (20100101, 20100201, and 

20200201). The reason for the small PM10-PRI and PM25-PRI increase for these SCCs 

was that a few facilities had reported PM10-FIL and PM25-FIL, not PM10-PRI and PM25-

PRI. Since the PM10-FIL and PM25-FIL were reported, the augmentation process 

calculated a PM-CON value and added it to the PM10-FIL and PM25-FIL values to get the 

revised PM10-PRI and PM25-PRI values. 

South Carolina reviewed the CAMD-to-NIF crosswalk and updated several linkages to 

correctly map CAMD identifiers to NIF. South Carolina also compared the CAMDreported NOx and SO2 emissions to the NIF-reported emissions, and updated the NIF 

emissions for several coal-fired plants with the CAMD emissions after consulting with the 

affected facilities. 

1.6.13 Tennessee 

In preparing the initial version of the 2007 SEMAP point source inventory, MACTEC 

added facilities from EPA’s 2005 NEI that were not included in Tennessee’s 2007 

submittal. Tennessee reviewed the facilities that were added and indicated that much of 

the data for the 2005 NEI facilities was for very small sources, contained dated emissions 

data, had some double-counting of sources, contained data for airports (which are included 

in the SEMAP nonroad inventory) and did not reliably represent emissions in 2007. As a 

result, Tennessee decided to remove most of the facilities added from the 2005 NEI from 

the 2007 SEMAP inventory. The emissions from these sources will be accounted for in 

the inventories for area and nonroad sectors. 

Tennessee provided updated 2007 emissions data for 16 facilities that were not in their 

original submittal: 

FIPS Facility 

Identifier Facility Name 

47149 0155 NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC. 

47027 0022 HONEST ABE LOG HOMES, INC., ETC. 

47029 0020 SONOCO PRODUCTS COMPANY 

47031 0010 ARNOLD ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT CENTER 

47031 0067 BATESVILLE MANUFACTURING, INC. 

47031 0113 M-TEK, INC. 
Development of Point Source Emission Inventory for 2007 January 26, 2011 

Page 37 

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 

FIPS Facility 

Identifier Facility Name 

47031 0123 CREATEC CORPORATION 

47047 0080 STABILT AMERICA, INC 

47053 0119 Kongsberg Automotive 

47071 0074 PRAXIS INDUSTRIES 

47077 0060 VOLVO PENTA MARINE PRODUCTS, L.C. 

47113 0020 ARMSTRONG HARDWOOD FLOORING 

47125 0092 NYRSTAR CLARKSVILLE, INC 

47151 0002 HARTCO FLOORING COMPANY 

47151 0051 ARMSTRONG HARDWOOD FLOORING 

47167 0079 QW MEMPHIS CORPORATION - COVINGTON DIVISION 

Tennessee provided updated latitude and longitude data for 25 stacks that were identified 

as being located outside of the county boundaries. Tennessee also provided changes to the 

stack parameters for 29 stacks. Stack parameter changes were made for fugitive emission 

release points that were recommended for change based on the QA checks and gap filling 

process described in Section 1.5.2 of this report. 

1.6.14 Tennessee – Davidson County 

Davidson County reviewed the draft point source emission inventory and approved the 

emissions contained in it. 

Davidson County approved the stack parameter changes for 723 stacks that were 

recommended for change based on the QA checks and gap filling process described in 

Section 1.5.2 of this report. In several cases, Davidson County provided updated stack 

parameters for selected stacks. 

1.6.15 Tennessee – Hamilton County 

Stack parameter changes were made for fugitive emission release points that were 

recommended for change based on the QA checks and gap filling process described in 

Section 1.5.2 of this report. Hamilton County provided updated stack latitude and 

longitude for three facilities that were identified as being located outside of the county 

boundaries. 

1.6.16 Tennessee – Knox County 

Stack parameter changes were made for fugitive emission release points that were 

recommended for change based on the QA checks and gap filling process described in 
Development of Point Source Emission Inventory for 2007 January 26, 2011 

Page 38 

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 

Section 1.5.2 of this report. Knox County provided updated stack latitude and longitude 

for one facility that was identified as being located outside of the county boundaries. 

1.6.17 Tennessee – Shelby County 

Shelby County approved the stack parameter changes for 765 stacks that were 

recommended for change based on the QA checks and gap filling process described in 

Section 1.5.2 of this report. In a few cases, Shelby County provided updated stack 

parameters for selected stacks. 

Hamilton County provided updated stack latitude and longitude for facilities that were 

flagged as being located outside of the county boundaries. 

1.6.18 Virginia 

Virginia provided updated latitude and longitude data for 115 stacks that were identified as 

being located outside of the county boundaries. 

Virginia approved the stack parameter changes for 540 stacks that were recommended for 

change based on the QA checks and gap filling process described in Section 1.5.2 of this 

report. The only exception was for the Jewel Coke Company (ID 51027-00004, stacks 1 

and 3), where Virginia requested that the original stack exhaust gas temperatures of 1500 

degrees Fahrenheit be retained. 

As part of the development of a 2007 inventory for the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast States 

directed by MARAMA, Virginia developed and approved the 2007 CAMD-to-NIF 

crosswalk and the 2007 emission values for all sources. 

1.6.19 West Virginia 

West Virginia approved the stack parameter changes for 540 stacks that were 

recommended for change based on the QA checks and gap filling process described in 

Section 1.5.2 of this report. There were four exceptions (Aker Plastics 5400300026, 

Gratech International 5403300001, Monongahela Power Harrison 5403300015, DuPont 

Belle 5403900001) where West Virginia requested that the original stack parameters for 

certain stacks be retained. 

West Virginia reviewed the locations for the seven facilities flagged as being outside of the 

county boundaries and provided updated stack latitude and longitude for these facilities. 

West Virginia reviewed the draft emission inventory and confirmed that all point source 

facilities are represented in the inventory, that the PM augmentation procedure produced 
Development of Point Source Emission Inventory for 2007 January 26, 2011 

Page 39 

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 

reasonable results, and the 2007 emissions in the SEMAP inventory agreed with the data 

they submitted. 

West Virginia reviewed the CAMD-to-NIF crosswalk and identified the linkage between 

CAMD and NIF identifiers for the Union Carbide Corporation (5403900003) boilers B25, 

B26, and B27. West Virginia approved all other linkages between CAMD and NIF 

identifiers. 

1.7 STAKEHOLDER REVIEW 

S/L agencies provided access to Version 1.3 of the 2007 point source inventory and solicited 

input from various stakeholders including EPA, the regulated community, academia, 

environmental groups, and the general public. This section documents the changes made to 

Version 1.3 based on S/L agency review of stakeholder comments as well as any additional 

updates or corrections identified by the S/L agencies. 

1.7.1 Alabama 

The National Lime Association requested consideration of a modification to PM emissions 

data for one of their facilities in Alabama (Unimin Lime Corporation, Calera Plant). The 

request was reviewed by State staff and the suggested correction was justified and made. 

1.7.2 Florida 

Lakeland Electric requested that the SO2 and NOx emission values from the EPA CAMD 

submittal be used instead of the values reported to the State. The CAMD represent the 

emissions more accurately that the State submittal for two plants (Plant IDs 1050004 and 

1050003). Florida agreed to make these changes. 

Tampa Electric reviewed the database and suggested several corrections. Most of the 

changes are due to the installation and operation of the SCR control devices on Big Bend 

units 1-4. Tampa Electric also evaluated filterable and condensable PM emissions for all 

of its major generating units and provided better, unit specific, emission rates for these 

units where available. Finally, Tampa Electric provided some corrections to stack exhaust 

gas parameters. Florida agreed to make all of these changes. 

Southern Company indicated that the inventory stack data for Crist plant reflects the 

current scrubbed stack parameters, not the operating parameters in 2007. Appropriate 

stack parameters for 2007 were submitted and reviewed/approved by Florida. 
Development of Point Source Emission Inventory for 2007 January 26, 2011 

Page 40 

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 

1.7.3 Georgia 

Georgia reviewed the emissions values and stack parameters for the Georgia Power 

facilities in the State. Georgia provided updated PM and NH3 emissions data for all 

Georgia Power facilities. The revised PM emission values included condensable emissions 

which were previously missing from the inventory. Georgia also provided updated stack 

parameters for selected Georgia Power stacks. 

Georgia also identified a number of emission units where the PM2.5 emissions were 

greater than the PM10 emissions. The source of this error was investigated and identified, 

and revisions were made to correct this error. 

1.7.4 Kentucky 

Kentucky identified that the PM point source emissions originally submitted for all 

Kentucky counties, excluding Jefferson County, should be considered as filterable PM 

emissions. The original submittal contained pollutant codes (PM-PRI, PM10-PRI, PM25-

PRI) that represent the sum of filterable and condensable emissions. These should have 

been reported as filterable only (PM-FIL, PM10-FIL, PM25-FIL). MACTEC changed the 

pollutant codes to represent filterable emissions only, and re-ran the PM augmentation 

process described previously in Section 1.4 to add condensable emissions to the filterable 

emissions. Kentucky reviewed and approved the revised PM emissions, except for a few 

EGUs. Kentucky worked with these utilities in obtaining updated PM emissions data that 

included both filterable and condensable emissions. These changes to the EGU PM 

emissions are discussed further in Section 1.9. 

1.7.5 North Carolina 

Duke Energy indicated that the SCC for Marshall Units 1&2 were 10200202 and 

10200502 (industrial boiler, coal and oil) but should be 10100202 and 10100502 (electric 

generation boiler, coal and oil). Duke Energy requested that the SCC be changed as that 

will impact how boilers are grouped by category for various regulatory and emission 

projection scenarios. 

1.7.6 Tennessee 

Tennessee identified three facilities (APAC-TN Harrison Construction Division, 

Dyersburg Compressor Station, Kimberly Clark Corporation) that had duplicate entries in 

the emission inventory. MACTEC investigated this issue and identified the error. The 

duplicate entries were removed. 
Development of Point Source Emission Inventory for 2007 January 26, 2011 

Page 41 

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 

Tennessee also provided updated 2007 emissions data for the CalsonicKansei North 

America -Lewisburg Operations facility. 

1.8 IDENTIFICATION OF EGU AND NONEGU POINT SOURCES 

States were asked to classify units in the 2007 SEMAP emissions inventory as either EGU 

or nonEGU for emission projection purposes. Emission projections for EGU point sources 

are being developed by the Eastern Regional Technical Advisory Committee (ERTAC). 

The emissions from point sources classified as nonEGUs will be projected using the 

methods and data developed by SEMAP. 

Most, but not all, of the units that are required to report hourly emissions to EPA’s Clean 

Air Markets Division (CAMD) are considered to be EGUs. CAMD implements EPA’s 

rule found in Volume 40 Part 75 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), which requires 

an hourly accounting of emissions from each affected unit - i.e., sources participating in an 

emissions cap and trade program under the Acid Rain Control Program, the NOx Budget 

Trading Program, or the Clean Air Interstate Rule. The following guidance was provided 

to States to determine whether a unit that reports to CAMD should be classified as an EGU 

or nonEGU: 

For the ERTAC process, a unit should only be considered EGU if it meets the following 

criteria: 

 An EGU sells most of the power generated to the electrical grid; 

 An EGU burns mostly commercial fuel. Commercial fuel in this case means 

natural gas, oil, and coal. Wood would not be considered as commercial fuel 

because some states have them as renewable, therefore, to prevent double counting, 

unless it's already in the CAMD database, units that burn wood and other 

renewable sources (depending on each state's own definition) should not be 

considered as EGU. 

The following units were NOT considered as EGU for the purpose of projection emissions: 

 A unit that generates power for a facility but occasionally sells to the grid; 

 Emergency generators; 

 Distributed generation units. 

S/L agencies were provided with a list of units that report to CAMD as well as a list of 

units with an electric generating unit SCC (1-01-xxx-xx or 2-01-xxx-xx). From these lists, 

S/L agencies identified units that should be classified as EGUs and those that should be 

classified as nonEGUs. A few States also identified units with SCCs beginning with 1-01 

or 2-01 that do not report to CAMD but which should be classified as EGUs; however, for 
Development of Point Source Emission Inventory for 2007 January 26, 2011 

Page 42 

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 

emission projection purposes these units will be processed using the nonEGU projection 

methodology developed by SEMAP. 

MACTEC added a flag to the NIF EP table to identify each unit according to the following 

classification scheme: 

 EGU-CAMD are combustion units that report hourly emissions to the CAMD 

database and have been classified as EGUs by the S/L agency; 

 EGU-nonCAMD are combustion units with SCC starting with 101 or 201 that are 

not contained in CAMD database; 

 nonEGU-CAMD are combustion units that report hourly emissions to the CAMD 

database and have been classified as nonEGUs by the S/L agency; and 

 nonEGU-nonCAMD are all other point sources not classified above. 

The above flags allow for sources to be categorized in different ways for emission 

projection and emission reporting purposes. 

1.9 FINAL S/L AGENCY QA REVIEW 

Two final QA checks were made. The first check was for S/L agencies to verify the PM 

emissions data for coal- and oil-fired units included PM condensable emissions in addition 

to PM filterable emissions. The second check was for S/L agencies to verify the location 

and emission values for certain sources via review of emission bubble plots prepared by 

another SEMAP contractor. This section documents the changes made based on these 

final QA checks. In addition, the documentation was revised to address comments 

provided by EPA Region 4. 

1.9.1 Kentucky 

Kentucky coordinated the review of PM emissions with utilities in the Commonwealth and 

provided updated PM condensable emissions for the following units: 

 Duke Energy East Bend (21-015-00029) Unit 2; 

 TVA Shawnee (21-145-00006) Units 1 through 10; 

 TVA Paradise (21-177-00006) Units 1, 2, and 3; and 

 Kentucky Energy Reid/Henderson (21-233-00001) Units H1 and H2 

1.9.2 North Carolina 

Both Duke Energy and Progress Energy submitted information to confirm that the PM2.5-

PRI and PM10-PRI emission estimates for its facilities do include both filterable and 

condensable values. 
Development of Point Source Emission Inventory for 2007 January 26, 2011 

Page 43 

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 

1.9.3 North Carolina – Forsyth County 

In its original submittal, Forsyth County submitted a mix of 2007 and 2008 emission data. 

After further reviewing the 2007 and 2008 data, Forsyth County identified several 

revisions to make the data more representative of 2007. One facility (VP Buildings, Inc., 

Plant ID 00488) that shut down in 2008 was omitted for the initial submittal and was added 

to the SEMAP 2007 inventory. The only other significant change was the addition of the 

coal boilers at R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (Plant ID 00039) to the SEMAP 2007 

inventory that were shut down in 2008. Some additional relatively minor corrections were 

made as well. 

1.9.4 South Carolina 

South Carolina confirmed that the PM condensable emissions are included in the PM10-

PRI and PM2.5-PRI data provided for coal- and oil-fired EGUs. 

1.9.5 Virginia 

Virginia confirmed that the PM condensable emissions are included in the PM10-PRI and 

PM2.5-PRI data provided for coal- and oil-fired EGUs. 

1.9.6 West Virginia 

After reviewing the emission density maps and emission bubble plots, West Virginia 

submitted revisions to the geographic coordinates at three facilities (54-009-00012 Impress 

USA, 54-021-00001 Columbia Gas Glenville, 54-057-00008 Newpage Corporation). 

1.10 2007 POINT SOURCE EMISSION SUMMARY 

This section presents State-level summaries of the annual point source emissions by 

pollutant in the 2007 SEMAP inventory and compares the emissions to the 2002 VISTAS 

Best and Final inventory. For most States and pollutants, point source emissions have 

decreased from 2002 to 2007. 

Exhibit 7 shows that CO emissions in the SEMAP region have decreased by about 30 

percent between 2002 and 2007. Exhibit 8 shows that most of the point source CO 

emissions (about 81 percent) come from nonEGUs that are not required to report emissions 

to CAMD. 

Exhibit 9 shows that NH3 emissions in the SEMAP region have remained about the same 

in 2002 and 2007, although NH3 emissions increased substantially in some States while 

decreasing in others. Exhibit 10 shows that most of the point source NH3 emissions (about 

90 percent) come from nonEGUs that are not required to report emissions to CAMD. 
Development of Point Source Emission Inventory for 2007 January 26, 2011 

Page 44 

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 

Exhibit 11 shows that NOx emissions have decreased by about 27 percent between 2002 

and 2007. All States showed a decrease in NOx emissions from point sources. Exhibit 12 

shows that about 69 percent of the point source NOx emissions come from EGUs that are 

required to report emissions to CAMD. Another 28 percent of the NOx emissions result 

from nonEGUs that are not required to report emissions to CAMD. 

Exhibit 13 shows that PM10-PRI emissions in the SEMAP region have decreased by about 

14 percent between 2002 and 2007, although PM10-PRI emissions increased substantially 

in some States while decreasing in others. Exhibit 14 shows that about 46 percent of the 

point source PM10-PRI emissions come from EGUs that are required to report emissions 

to CAMD. Another 53 percent of the PM10-PRI emissions result from nonEGUs that are 

not required to report emissions to CAMD. 

Exhibit 15 shows that PM25-PRI emissions in the SEMAP region have decreased by about 

12 percent between 2002 and 2007, although PM25-PRI emissions increased substantially 

in some States while decreasing in others. Exhibit 16 shows that about 45 percent of the 

point source PM25-PRI emissions come from EGUs that are required to report emissions 

to CAMD. Another 54 percent of the PM25-PRI emissions result from nonEGUs that are 

not required to report emissions to CAMD. 

Exhibit 17 shows that SO2 emissions in the SEMAP region have decreased by about 14 

percent between 2002 and 2007. All States except Georgia showed a decrease in SO2 

emissions. Exhibit 18 shows that most of the point source SO2 emissions (about 87 

percent) come from EGUs that are required to report emissions to CAMD. Another 11 

percent of the SO2 emissions result from nonEGUs that are not required to report 

emissions to CAMD. 

Exhibit 19 shows that VOC emissions in the SEMAP region have decreased by about 20 

percent between 2002 and 2007. Exhibit 20 shows that nearly all of the point source VOC 

emissions (about 97 percent) result from nonEGUs that are not required to report emissions 

to CAMD. 

The reasons for the differences between 2002 and 2007 are many and vary by State, 

facility, and pollutant. Examples include: 1) new controls added between 2002 and 2007; 

2) change in emission factors or source test data; 3) inclusion of PM condensables that 

were not included in 2002; 4) more {or less} facilities in 2002 inventory than in 2007 

inventory; 5) new sources that came online between 2002 and 2007; 6) different fuels used 

in 2007 than in 2002; 7) industry specific economic growth or contraction between 2002 

and 2007; 8) facility or emission unit closures; and 9) errors in 2002 inventory. 
Development of Point Source Emission Inventory for 2007 January 26, 2011 

Page 45 

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 

Exhibit 7 – 2002 and 2007 Point Source CO Emissions by State (tons/year) 

STATE 2002 2007 Change 

Alabama 185,550 119,409 -36% 

Florida 139,045 111,280 -20% 

Georgia 140,561 82,547 -41% 

Kentucky 122,555 82,553 -33% 

Mississippi 59,871 40,294 -33% 

North Carolina 64,461 67,127 4% 

South Carolina 63,305 60,375 -5% 

Tennessee 122,348 50,667 -59% 

Virginia 70,688 72,029 2% 

West Virginia 100,220 65,230 -35% 

SEMAP 1,068,604 751,511 -30% 

Exhibit 8 – 2007 Point Source CO Emissions by Category (tons/year) 
Development of Point Source Emission Inventory for 2007 January 26, 2011 

Page 46 

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 

Exhibit 9 – 2002 and 2007 Point Source NH3 Emissions by State (tons/year) 

STATE 2002 2007 Change 

Alabama 2,200 2,191 0% 

Florida 1,657 1,661 0% 

Georgia 3,697 6,046 64% 

Kentucky 1,000 113 -89% 

Mississippi 1,359 1,640 21% 

North Carolina 1,234 1,706 38% 

South Carolina 1,553 1,125 -28% 

Tennessee 1,817 1,429 -21% 

Virginia 3,230 1,830 -43% 

West Virginia 453 366 -19% 

SEMAP 18,200 18,107 -1% 

Exhibit 10 – 2007 Point Source NH3 Emissions by Category (tons/year) 
Development of Point Source Emission Inventory for 2007 January 26, 2011 

Page 47 

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 

Exhibit 11 – 2002 and 2007 Point Source NOx Emissions by State (tons/year) 

STATE 2002 2007 Change 

Alabama 244,348 196,145 -20% 

Florida 302,834 212,294 -30% 

Georgia 196,767 154,496 -21% 

Kentucky 237,209 208,455 -12% 

Mississippi 104,661 98,183 -6% 

North Carolina 196,782 100,949 -49% 

South Carolina 130,394 81,480 -38% 

Tennessee 221,652 144,792 -35% 

Virginia 147,300 112,938 -23% 

West Virginia 277,589 188,629 -32% 

SEMAP 2,059,536 1,498,361 -27% 

Exhibit 12 – 2007 Point Source NOx Emissions by Category (tons/year) 
Development of Point Source Emission Inventory for 2007 January 26, 2011 

Page 48 

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 

Exhibit 13 – 2002 and 2007 Point Source PM10-PRI Emissions by State (tons/year) 

STATE 2002 2007 Change 

Alabama 32,886 34,800 6% 

Florida 57,243 35,796 -37% 

Georgia 32,834 33,214 1% 

Kentucky 21,326 30,678 44% 

Mississippi 21,106 12,368 -41% 

North Carolina 36,592 42,991 17% 

South Carolina 35,542 30,605 -14% 

Tennessee 49,814 27,882 -44% 

Virginia 17,211 19,203 12% 

West Virginia 22,076 13,736 -38% 

SEMAP 326,630 281,273 -14% 

Exhibit 14 – 2007 Point Source PM10-PRI Emissions by Category (tons/year) 
Development of Point Source Emission Inventory for 2007 January 26, 2011 

Page 49 

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 

Exhibit 15 – 2002 and 2007 Point Source PM25-PRI Emissions by State (tons/year) 

STATE 2002 2007 Change 

Alabama 23,291 24,953 7% 

Florida 46,148 28,418 -38% 

Georgia 22,401 25,059 12% 

Kentucky 14,173 21,111 49% 

Mississippi 11,044 8,731 -21% 

North Carolina 26,998 33,441 24% 

South Carolina 27,399 23,493 -14% 

Tennessee 39,973 22,147 -45% 

Virginia 12,771 14,875 16% 

West Virginia 15,523 9,173 -41% 

SEMAP 239,721 211,401 -12% 

Exhibit 16 – 2007 Point Source PM25-PRI Emissions by Category (tons/year) 
Development of Point Source Emission Inventory for 2007 January 26, 2011 

Page 50 

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 

Exhibit 17 – 2002 and 2007 Point Source SO2 Emissions by State (tons/year) 

STATE 2002 2007 Change 

Alabama 544,309 526,664 -3% 

Florida 518,721 371,619 -28% 

Georgia 568,731 683,370 20% 

Kentucky 518,086 433,731 -16% 

Mississippi 103,388 94,978 -8% 

North Carolina 522,113 420,554 -19% 

South Carolina 259,916 216,157 -17% 

Tennessee 413,755 287,698 -30% 

Virginia 305,106 243,048 -20% 

West Virginia 570,153 428,350 -25% 

SEMAP 4,324,278 3,706,169 -14% 

Exhibit 18 – 2007 Point Source SO2 Emissions by Category (tons/year) 
Development of Point Source Emission Inventory for 2007 January 26, 2011 

Page 51 

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 

Exhibit 19 – 2002 and 2007 Point Source VOC Emissions by State (tons/year) 

STATE 2002 2007 Change 

Alabama 49,332 38,881 -21% 

Florida 40,995 33,683 -18% 

Georgia 34,952 36,717 5% 

Kentucky 46,321 47,679 3% 

Mississippi 43,852 34,587 -21% 

North Carolina 62,170 48,346 -22% 

South Carolina 38,927 29,281 -25% 

Tennessee 85,254 48,104 -44% 

Virginia 43,906 35,618 -19% 

West Virginia 15,775 12,503 -21% 

SEMAP 461,484 365,399 -21% 

Exhibit 20 – 2007 Point Source VOC Emissions by Category (tons/year) 
Development of Point Source Emission Inventory for 2007 January 26, 2011 

Page 52 

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 

1.11 DATA FILES 

These files are accessible on the MARAMA ftp site in the following location: 

Address: ftp.mactec.com 

Login ID: externalclient 

Password: sen382 

Folder: /OUTGOING/SEMAP_POINT_V_1_8/ 

Process level summary files containing all data that will be used in modeling: 

AL SEMAP 2007 Process V_1_8.xls 

FL SEMAP 2007 Process V_1_8.xls 

GA SEMAP 2007 Process V_1_8.xls 

KY SEMAP 2007 Process V_1_8.xls 

MS SEMAP 2007 Process V_1_8.xls 

NC SEMAP 2007 Process V_1_8.xls 

SC SEMAP 2007 Process V_1_8.xls 

TN SEMAP 2007 Process V_1_8.xls 

VA SEMAP 2007 Process V_1_8.xls 

WV SEMAP 2007 Process V_1_8.xls 

NIF 3.0 ACCESS Database with the 8 NIF tables: 

SEMAP 2007 Point NIF V_1_8.mdb 

NIF 3.0 ASCII delimited text files of the 8 NIF tables: 

SEMAP 2007 PTTR V_1_8.txt 

SEMAP 2007 PTSI V_1_8.txt 

SEMAP 2007 PTER V_1_8.txt 

SEMAP 2007 PTEU V_1_8.txt 

SEMAP 2007 PTEP V_1_8.txt 

SEMAP 2007 PTPE V_1_8.txt 

SEMAP 2007 PTCE V_1_8.txt 

SEMAP 2007 PTEM V_1_8.txt 

Annual point source files in SMOKE ORL format are being prepared under SEMAP’s 

emission modeling contract. 
Development of Point Source Emission Inventory for 2007 January 26, 2011 

Page 53 

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 

1.12 REFERENCES 

Dutch 2005. Steven Dutch, Natural and Applied Sciences, University of Wisconsin - 

Green Bay. Converting UTM to Latitude and Longitude (Or Vice Versa). Downloaded 

March 2009, last updated 19 April 2005. 

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/UsefulData/UTMFormulas.HTM 

EPA 2004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Basic Format and Content Checker. 

Version Date 052604. Software no longer available on EPA web site. 

EPA 2005. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emissions Inventory Guidance for 

Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations. EPA-454/R-05-001. August 2005. 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eidocs/eiguid/eiguidfinal_nov2005.pdf 

EPA 2006a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. NEI Quality Assurance and Data 

Augmentation for Point Sources. February, 2006. . 

ftp://ftp.epa.gov/EmisInventory/2002finalnei/documentation/point/augmentation_point/2002nei_qa

_augmentation_report0206.pdf 

EPA 2006b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002 NEI Stack Parameter Default. 

ftp://ftp.epa.gov/EmisInventory/2002finalnei/documentation/augmentation_point_sector/ .

EPA 2007. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Guidance on the Use of Models and 

Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and 

Regional Haze. EPA -454/B-07-002. April 2007. 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/guide/final-03-pm-rh-guidance.pdf 

EPA 2009a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Clean Air Markets – Data and 

Maps Web Site; Unit Level Emissions Query for 2007. File downloaded on October 8, 

2009. http://camddataandmaps.epa.gov/gdm/index.cfm?fuseaction=emissions.wizard 

EPA 2009b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Clean Air Markets – Emissions 

Data in SMOKE Format for 2007. File (hour_unit_2007.zip) downloaded on October 8, 

2009. http://camddataandmaps.epa.gov/gdm/index.cfm?fuseaction=emissions.prepacksmoke 

EPA 2009c. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2005 National Emissions Inventory 

Data & Documentation. file name: 2005v4CAPHAP_orl_point.zip. June 2009. 

ftp://ftp.epa.gov/EmisInventory/2005v4/2005emis

MARAMA 2006. Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association. Technical 

Support Documentation for 2002 MANE-VU SIP Modeling Inventories, Version 3. 
Development of Point Source Emission Inventory for 2007 January 26, 2011 

Page 54 

MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. 

November 20, 2006. http://www.marama.org/technical-center/emissions-inventory/2002-

inventory-and-projections/mane-vu-2002-emissions-inventory 

SESARM 2009. Southeastern States Air Resource Managers, Inc. Point Source, OnRoad, and Fire Base Year, Future Year, and Control Strategy Emissions Inventories – 

Quality Assurance Project Plan. August 2009. 

VISTAS 2007. Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the Southeast. 

Documentation of the Base G 2002 Base Year, 2009, and 2018 Emission Inventories for 

the Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the Southeast. February 2007. 

http://www.vistas-sesarm.org/documents/VISTABF2003-20-2008.pdf