# A TTACHMENT 

# AUNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

QUICKLOOK CRITERIA PARAMETERS

Mar. 7, 2011 Report Request ID: 843754 Report Code: AMP450

Selection Criteria Page 1 User ID: GYE

State County City

Site Parameter POC AQCR UAR CBSA CSA EPA

Region Method Duration Begin Date End Date

39 049 GEOGRAPHIC SELECTIONS

PROTOCOL SELECTIONS

Parameter

Classification Parameter Method Duration

QUICK LOOK 88101

SELECTED OPTIONS

EVENTS PROCESSING

MERGE PDF FILES

WORKFILE DELIMITER Option Type Option Value

EXCLUDE REGIONALLY CONCURRED EVENTS

YES

, SORT ORDER

1

2

3

4

5

6

7 Order Column

PARAMETER_CODE

STATE_CODE

COUNTY_CODE

SITE_ID

POC

DATES

EDT_ID

GLOBAL DATES

2008 Start Date End Date

2010 Tribal

APPLICABLE STANDARDS

Standard Description

PM25 24-hour 2006

PM25 Annual 2006Mar. 7, 2011

Note: The * indicates that the mean does

not satisfy summary criteria. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

AIR QUALITY SYSTEM

QUICK LOOK REPORT (AMP450)

Page 1 of 4 EXCEPTIONAL DATA TYPES

EDT DESCRIPTION

0

1

2

5 NO EVENTS

EVENTS EXCLUDED

EVENTS INCLUDED

EVENTS WITH CONCURRENCE EXCLUDEDMar. 7, 2011

Note: The * indicates that the mean does

not satisfy summary criteria. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

AIR QUALITY SYSTEM

QUICK LOOK REPORT (AMP450)

Page 2 of 4 PM2.5 - Local Conditions (88101) Ohio Micrograms/cubic meter (LC) (105)

SITE ID P

O

C PQAO CITY COUNTY ADDRESS YEAR METH #OBS 4TH

MAX CERT EDT

39-049-0024

39-049-0024

39-049-0024

39-049-0025

39-049-0025

39-049-0025

39-049-0025

39-049-0025

39-049-0025

39-049-0029

39-049-0081

39-049-0081

39-049-0081 1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

3

1

1

1 0805

0805

0805

0805

0805

0805

0805

0805

0805

0805

0805

0805

0805 Columbus

Columbus

Columbus

Columbus

Columbus

Columbus

Columbus

Columbus

Columbus

New Albany

Columbus

Columbus

Columbus Franklin

Franklin

Franklin

Franklin

Franklin

Franklin

Franklin

Franklin

Franklin

Franklin

Franklin

Franklin

Franklin STATE

FAIRGROUNDS

STATE

FAIRGROUNDS

STATE

FAIRGROUNDS

1700 ANN ST.

1700 ANN ST.

1700 ANN ST.

1700 ANN ST.

1700 ANN ST.

1700 ANN ST.

7600 FODOR

RD.

5750 MAPLE

CANYON

5750 MAPLE

CANYON

5750 MAPLE

CANYON 2008

2009

2010

2008

2009

2010

2008

2009

2010

2010

2008

2009

2010 120

120

120

120

120

120

120

120

120

170

120

120

120 33.1

26.2

38.9

32.6

30.5

38.0

39.0

31.4

31.9

37.9

43.8

32.7

34.2 Y

Y

Y 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 24-HOUR

98TH

PERCENTILE

VALUE

27.8

23.2

30.9

26.8

23.6

33.5

32.7

22.6

28.0

29.5

25.3

25.7

29.1 115

114

118

111

116

118

57

55

59

4511

114

118

120 1ST

MAX 2ND

MAX 3RD

MAX

28.2

24.3

36.7

27.1

26.9

34.1

32.7

22.6

28.0

32.8

30.3

28.3

29.2 27.8

23.2

30.9

26.8

23.6

33.5

27.9

20.5

25.0

31.3

25.3

25.7

29.1 26.5

23.0

30.6

26.4

22.0

28.7

26.7

19.5

22.8

29.5

24.6

23.1

27.8 12.78

11.54

13.06

12.20

11.33

12.67

12.96

11.09

12.52

12.65*

11.05

10.83

11.88 WTD

ARITH

MEANMar. 7, 2011

Note: The * indicates that the mean does

not satisfy summary criteria. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

AIR QUALITY SYSTEM

QUICK LOOK REPORT (AMP450)

Page 3 of 4 88101

88101 120

170 Andersen RAAS2.5-300 PM2.5 SEQ w/WINS

Met One BAM-1020 Mass Monitor w/VSCC GRAVIMETRIC

Beta Attenuation PARAMETER METHOD

CODE COLLECTION METHOD ANALYSIS METHOD METHODS USED IN THIS REPORTMar. 7, 2011

Note: The * indicates that the mean does

not satisfy summary criteria. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

AIR QUALITY SYSTEM

QUICK LOOK REPORT (AMP450)

Page 4 of 4 PQAOS USED IN THIS REPORT

PQAO AGENCY DESCRIPTION

0805 Ohio EPA, Central District OfficeEnvironmental protection Agency

John R. Kasich, Governor

Mary Taylor, Lt. Governor

Scott J. Nally, Director



### CERTIFIED MAIL

March 10, 2011

Cheryl L. Newton, Director

Air and Radiation Division

U.S.EPA, Region V

77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, Illinois 60604

RE: 2010 SLAMS PM,.5 and Ozone Data Certification

Dear Ms. Newton:

Please find enclosed our SLAMS Report (AMP-450, AMP-450NC and AMP255) for calendar year 2010 as required in 40 CFR, Part 58, Section

58.15. The ambient concentration and the quality assurance data

have been completely submitted to the AQS database.

The remaining criteria pollutant data will be certified within the

month of April.

I certify that the Ozone and PM,., data in the report are accurate to

the best of our knowledge taking into consideration the quality

assurance findings and only to the extent of the activities
performed by Ohio EPA.

There were no incidents of air pollution that reached or exceeded

levels as specified by Section 51.151 which could cause significant

harm to the health of persons.

Sincerely,

Robert Hodanbosi
Chief, Division of Air Pollution Control

Enclosure

50 West Town Street,**Su~e** 700

PO. Box 1049 Columbus,OH 43216-1049 61416443020
61416443184 (fax) www.epa.ohio.gov

# A TTACHMENT 

# B

### 1 

## OHIO 2005 Base Year PM2.5 SIP Inventory

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency

Lazarus Government Center 50 West Town Street, Suite 700

Columbus Ohio 43215

Prepared by Ohio EPA

Division of Air Pollution Control Emissions Inventory Unit February 2008

### 2 

## Table of Contents

Section Page

Introduc tion ................................................................................................. 3

1.0 Point Sources ............................................................................................. 4

2.0 Area S ources .............................................................................................. 8

3.0 Non Road Sources........................................................................15

4.0 On Road Sources.......

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

5.0 MAR Sources..............................................................................43

Table

2-1 Categories included in the 2005 area source Inventory.............................8

2-2 Emission Factors used for Wood Bu rners included in area sources............11

3-1 NMIM NCD Tables for Specific Years and States ........................................... 

### 16

4-1 Federal Functional Class Categories............................................................ 

### 23

4-2 DVMT Summary by County



### .................................................................. . 24

4-3 Speed by Federal Functional Class ............................................................. 

### 28

4-4 Link Group Codes & Associated BPR Curves

.......................................... 

### 29 4-5 Mobile6 Inputs.................................................................................31 4-6 LADCO Data Output............................................. .............39 4-7 County Summary Table of MPOs by County......................................... .40 5-1 Number of operations and LTOs for 2005.............................................. 45

5-2 EDMS Aircraft Emissions ..................................................................50

5-3 Fleet Emission Fa ctor Categories ........................................................51 5-4 Pollutant by County (Sample) ............................................................. 54

. Figure

1............................... ......... Speed Comparison Graphs.....................................27

### 3 

## 2005 Base Year PM2.5 SIP Inventory for Ohio

Introduction

The State of Ohio has a nu mber of counties with air quality data showing nonattainment for the following PM 2



### . 5 

### standard:

• 

### Annual Standard = 15.0 ug/m3

The Clean Air Act Amendments (CAA A) requires all states to revise and submit State Implementation Plans (SIP) for areas which are classified as non-atta inment of the 1997 Fine Particle (PM 2



### . 5 

### ) National Ambient Air Quality St andards (NAAQS). The Federal Register ( Vol. 72, No. 79/ Wednesday, April 25, 2007) provides the emissions inventory rules and regulations for the PM 2



### . 5 

### Clean Air Fine Particle implementation rule. An

electronic version of the document can be found at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPAAIR/2007/April/Day-25/a6347.pdf.



### As part of the designation of non-attainment areas for PM 2



### . 5 

### standards, a new

attainment demonstration SIP will be necessary. A key el ement in the overall SIP planning process is the need for an updated emissions inventory. This document presents the 2005 Base Year Pa rticulate SIP Emissions Inv entory for Ohio as required by the CAAA. It includes emissions for poi nt, area, on-road mobi le and non-road mobile

for the State of Ohio.

This technical report document s the procedures and the me thodologies that were used in the development of daily emissions for all counties in Ohio. This report describes the following:

1. Identification of st ationary and mobile sources included in the inventory; 2. Sources of data, and data collecti on methods used in the development of the inventory; 3. Methods and procedures used to estimate emissions; and 4. Assumptions considered in t he development of the emissions

inventories.

The intent of this report is to descri be how the inventory was prepared, and what information was considered in the inventory development.

This document is comprised of 5 sections , one section for each inventory type. The biogenic inventory is not being discussed in this document because Ohio EPA did not participate in the generation of this inventory. Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO) ran EPA’s BEIS model in the Em ission Modeling System (EMS) to generate Summer Weekday emissions for VOC and NOx.

### 4 

## SECTION 1

POINT SOURCES

Emissions and source specific data for point sources are collected for the 2005 baseyear SIP inventory by the Ohio Envir onmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA.) The primary source of data for point sources is facility reported STARShip files. STARShip is a software package developed by Ohio EPA, Division of Ai r Pollution Control (DAPC), to assist the regulated community in prepar ing and submitting a variety of electronic permit applications and reports to the DAPC . These data are reported by the Title V facilities annually as part of the emission s fee/inventory process conducted by Ohio EPA and include emissions, process rates, oper ating schedules, emissions control data

and other relevant information.

The STARShip files are electr onically transferred to the DAPC and stored into the Division’s Oracle database, STARS. The f iles are reviewed by the local air agencies

and Ohio EPA district and central office staff. After review, the data are imported into

Excel and linked with an Access® database to further process the information into the federally approved National Em ission Inventory (NEI) database format in version 3.0. The files are quality assured ag ain using the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (U.S.EPA) QA/QC so ftware for format and content. The data is finally submitted to LADCO for emissions processi ng through the Emissions Modeling System. The State provided inv entory for Electric Generating Un its (EGU) is replaced with the Federal EGU inventory. T he EGU inventory is compiled by U.S. EPA’s Acid Rain Program. It is based on facility report ed emissions as meas ured by continuous emissions monitors. In conclusion, the final point source inventory is a hybrid of the federal EGU inventory and the state provided non-EGU units.

A major distinction typically made in emissi ons inventories is t hat between point and

area sources. In this invent ory, point sources are sources for which individual records

are maintained for that source. Such records are maintained for all Ohio Title V facilities (706 facilities statewide). The area source inventory accounts for facilities from nonTitle V facilities and calculates emissions information using surrogate emissions factors based on energy usage, population, employment records, or other reliable data. A

more detailed discussion of t he area source inventory is pr ovided in Section 2. The point source inventory descr ibed herein is considered to be the most current and

accurate source of emissions data available for 2005.

1.1 Point Source Process Emissions

Ohio EPA defines point source process emissions as those which occur at an identifiable Title V stationary stack or vent. Point source emissions not emitted from discrete stacks or vents are termed fugitive emissions and are discussed in Section 1.2.

### 5 1.1.1 Source Identificati on and Data Collection

The sources to be included in the 2005 base year inventory are identified using the Title V STARS database. Facility production and emissions data are included in this

database. This information is fac ility-reported actual 2005 emissions.

1.1.2 Non-reactive VOC Emissions Adjustments

This section is primarily appl icable for VOC pollutants. S ources are required to identify emissions of photochemically non-reactive Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC.) Based upon this information, those emissions have been specifically excl uded from the 2005 base line inventory in accordance with U.S. EPA’s “Recommended Policy on the Control of Volatile Organic Co mpounds.” A complete list of the compounds that U.S. EPA has identified as being photochemically non -reactive, and therefore not included in the inventory, are listed below:

• Methane

• Ethane

• Methylene chloride

• Methyl chloroform

• Trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11)

• Dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC-12)

• Chlorodifluoromethane (CFC-22)

• Trifluoromethane (HFC-23)

• Chlorofluoromethance (HCFC-31)

• Difluoromethane (HFC-32)

• Decafluoropentane (HFC-43-10mee)

• Ethylfluoride (HFC-161)

• Trichlorotrifluoroethane (CFC-113)

• Dichlorotetrafluoroethane (CFC-114)

• Chloropentafluoroethane (CFC-115)

• 2,2-Dichloro-1,1,1-trifluoroethane (HCFC-123)

• 1,1,2-Trifluoroethane (HCFC-123a)

• 2-Chloro-1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (HCFC-124)

• Pentafluoroethane (HFC-125)

• 1,1,2,2,-Tetrafluoroethane (HFC-134)

• 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane (HFC-134a)

• 1,1-Dichloro-1-fluoroethane (HCFC-141b)

• 1-Chloro-1,1,-difluoroethane (HCFC-142b)

• 1,1,1-Trifluoroethane (HFC-143a)

• Fluoroethane (HCFC-151a)

• 1,1-Difluoroethane (HFC-152a)

• Pentafluoropropane (HFC-225ca)

• Pentafluoropropane (HFC-225cb)

• Hexafluoropropane (HFC-236ea)

• Hexafluoropropane (HFC-236fa)

• Pentafluoropropane (HFC-245ca)

• Pentafluoropropane (HFC-245ea)

• Pentafluoropropane (HFC-245eb)

### 6 • Pentafluoropropane (HFC-245fa)

• Pentafluorobutane (HFC-365mfc)

• Parachlorobenzotrifluoride (PCBTF)

• Methoxybutane

• Nonaflourobutane

• Heptafluoropropane ((CF 3 ) 2 CFCF 2 OCH 3 )

• Heptafluoropropane ((CF 3 )CFCF 2 OC 2 H 5 )

• Perchloroethylene

• Cyclic, branched or linear completely methylated siloxanes

• Methyl acetate

• Volatile methyl siloxanes

• Acetone



### 1.1.3 Emissions Esti mation Methodologies

Since source reported actual annual emi ssions are used in the 2005 base year inventory, no estimation methods are necessary . The reports are provided to LADCO in National Emissions Inventory Input Format (NIF) 3.0 format. LADCO imported and processed the NIF files in EMS and applied temporal and spat ial profiles to the annual emissions to calculate weekday emissions rate s. The final point source inventory is split into two separate reports, the Electric Generating Units (EGU) which is the U.S. EPA inventory for electric generating units a nd the non-EGU which is the state inventory

minus the EGU units.

1.2 Point Source Fugitive Emissions

Another type of emissions data which is r equired to be filed from point sources is fugitive emissions. Before 1990, fugitive emissions were categorized as area sources

due to the lack of detailed information availa ble for fugitive sources. However, since

these emissions are now el ectronically reported in t he State’s ORACLE database, STARS, these emissions can be classified as point sources.

1.3 References
Getting Started: Emissions In ventory Methods for PM2.5 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September, 1999.

Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implem entation of Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Qaulity Standards (N AAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations

, Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards Research, Triangle Park, NC. November

2005.

Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors, Fourth Ed ition and Supplements, AP-42

. U.S. Environmental Protecti on Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1985.

### 7 Preparing 2002 Regional PM2.5 Emissions QAQPS PM Inventory Conference Inventory Conference San Diego, 2003.

Documentation for the 2002 El ectric Generating Unit Nati onal Emissions Inventory (NEI) . Eastern research group, Inc., 1600 Peri meter Park Drive, Morrisville, NC 27560 and E.H. Pechan and Associates, Inc., 5528–B Hempstead Way

### 8 

## SECTION 2

AREA SOURCES

Area sources are sources which are typically small, indivi dual, numerous, and have not been inventoried as specific point, mobile, or biogenic sources. For inventory purposes, they are grouped with other like sources into categories that allow emissions to be calculated collectively usi ng one methodology. Since area sources are traditionally defined at the county level, most methods are designed to estimate area source emissions at the county level.

Ohio EPA has either used published Emission Inventory Improvement Program (EIIP) 6


### methodologies or selected other methodologies which are shared by other states. The decision of which methodology to use was lar gely based on Ohio’s data availability. Data which was not available on a county-lev el is estimated by assigning a percentage of the state’s total activity to each county based on the state’s popul ation or employment information. If Ohio county specific activity data is available throu gh Ohio EPA or other State Agencies, that data is us ed rather than allocating acti vity by percentage. Table 2-1

lists the sources which emit PM 2.5 

### , NO
x 

### and SO 2 

### along with the respective EFs used to calculate each pollutant.

Table 2-1 Categories in the 2005 PM 2


### . 5 

### SIP Area Source inventory

Area Source NO
x 

### PM 2.5 

### SO 2 

### Section

Commercial Natural

Gas Combustion 94 lb/MMSCF 7.6 lb/MMSCF 0.6 lb/MMSCF 2.1

Industrial Distillate Oil

Combustion 20 lb/E3gal fuel 0.25 lb/E3gal fuel 42.6 lb/E3gal fuel 2.2

Industrial Residual Oil

Combustion 55 lb/E3gal fuel 4.67 lb/E3gal fuel 157 lb/E3gal fuel 2.2

Industrial Natural Gas

Combustion 94 lb/MMSCF 7.6 lb/MMSCF 0.6 lb/MMSCF 2.2

Residential Coal

Combustion 9.1 Lb/Ton Coal 3.8 Lb/Ton Coal 31 Lb/Ton Coal 2.3

Residential Distillate
Oil Combustion 18 lb/E3gal fuel 0.83 lb/E3gal fuel 42.6 lb/E3gal fuel 2.3

Residential Natural
Gas Combustion 94 lb/MMSCF 7.6 lb/MMSCF 0.6 lb/MMSCF 2.3

Residential LPG

Combustion 13 lb/E3gal fuel 0.17 lb/E3gal fuel 0.1 lb/E3gal fuel 2.3

Human Cremation 1.01E+01 lb/Ton

cremated 0.0637 lb/Ton

cremated NA 2.4

Structure Fires 1.4 Lb/Ton

burned 10.8 Lb/Ton

burned NA 2.5

Outdoor Wood Boilers 2.8 Lb/Ton 2.76E+1 Lb/Ton 4 E-1 Lb/Ton 2.6

### 9 Residential Wood

Combustion

Non-Certified

Non-Catalytic

Catalytic 2.80E+00 lb/Ton

2.80E+00 lb/Ton

2.00E+00 lb/Ton 3.06E+01 lb/Ton

1.96E+01 lb/Ton

2.04E+01 lb/Ton 4.00E-01 lb/Ton

4.00E-01 lb/Ton

4.00E-01 lb/Ton 2.3

2.1 

### Commercial Natural Gas Combustion (SCC 2103006000)

The 2005 total state-level commercial sector energy consumption is obtained from the Energy Information Administration (EIA)’s State Energy Data System (SEDS), and apportioned per county based on population 4 

### . Emissions factors are given in table 2-1.

The area source emissions are calculated ba sed on an adjusted value by subtracting the emissions due to point sources.

2.2 Industrial Fuel Combustion

Industrial Distillate Oil Combustion (SCC 2102004000)

Ohio’s fuel consumption is apportioned per county based on the county’s population 4



### . The area source NO X 

### emissions are calculated and adjusted by subtracting the emissions due to point source s. A heating value of 140 MMBTU/1000 Gal is used and 84,408 thousand gallons are consumed in 2005. [MMBTU stand for Million British Thermal Units]. Emissions fact ors are given in table 2-1.

SO 2 

### emissions were calculated us ing EF 42.6 Lb/1000 Gal. PM 10 

### and PM 2.5 

### emissions are calculated using 1Lb/1000 Ga l and 0.25 Lb/1000 Gal respecti vely. All Factors are

obtained from AP-42 19



### Industrial Residual Oil Combustion (SCC 2102005000)

Ohio’s fuel consumption is apportioned per county based on the county’s population 4



### . The area source NO X 

### emissions are calculated and adjusted by subtracting the emissions due to point sour ces. 54,652 thousand gallons 14 

### are consumed in 2005 and a heating value of 140 MMBTU/1000 Gal is used. The SO 2 

### emissions are calculated using EF 157 Lb/1000 Gal. PM 10 

### and PM 2.5 

### emissions are calculated using 7.17 Lb/1000 Gal and 4.67 Lb/1000 Gal respectively. All factors are obtained from AP-42 19



### Industrial Natural Gas Combustion (S CC 2102006000)

Ohio’s fuel consumption is apportioned per county based on the county’s population 4



### . The area source NO X 

### emissions are calculated and adjusted by subtracting the emissions due to point sources. 293,857 MMCF 14 

### are consumed in 2005. The SO 2

### 10 emissions are calculated usi ng EF 0.6 Lb/MMBTU. The PM 10 

### and PM 2.5 

### emissions are calculated using 7.6 Lb/MMBTU. All factors were obtained from AP-42 19



### 2.3 Residential Fuel Combustion

Residential Coal Combustion (SCC 2104001000)

Ohio’s household consumption of coal is apportioned per county based on county population 4 

### . NO X 

### emissions are calculated using EF of 9.1 of coal. The SO 2 

### emissions are calculated using EF 31Lb/1000 Gal. The PM 10 

### and PM 2.5 

### emissions are calculated using 6.2Lb/Ton and 3.8 Lb/Ton respectively . All factors were obtained from AP-42 19



### Residential Distillate Oil Combustion (SCC 2104004000)

Ohio’s household consumption of distillate oil is apportioned per county based on county population 4 

### . NO X 

### emissions are calculated us ing EF of 18 lb/1000 gallons distillate fuel respectively. A heating value of 140 MMBTU/1000 Gal is used. The SO 2 

### emissions are calculated using EF 42.6 Lb/1000 Gal. The PM 10 

### and PM 2.5 

### emissions are calculated using 1.08Lb/1000 Gal and 0.83 Lb/1000 Gal respec tively. All factors are

obtained from AP-42 19



### Residential Liquid Petroleu m Gas Combustion (LPG) (SCC 2104007000)

Ohio’s household consumption of LPG is apportioned per county based on county population 4 

### . NO X 

### emissions are calculated using EF of 13 lb/1000 gallons LPG. The

SO 2 

### emissions are calculated usi ng EF 0.1 Lb/1000 Gal. The PM 10 

### and PM 2.5 

### emissions are calculated using 0.17Lb/1000 Gal. All factors are obtained from AP-42 19



### Residential Natural Gas Combustion (SCC 2104006010)

Ohio’s household consumption of LPG is apportioned per county based on county population 4 

### . NO X 

### emissions are calculated using EF of 94 lb/MMSCF. MMSCF stands

for Million Standard Cubic Feet. This source also emits SO 2 

### emissions which are calculated using EF 0.6 Lb/MMBTU. The PM 10 

### and PM 2.5 

### emissions are calculated using 7.6Lb/MMBTU. All fact ors are obtained from AP-42 19



### Residential Wood Combustion

NO X 

### emissions from this area source are ca lculated for seven types of residential heating units that utilize wood for fuel. They are listed below with the appropriate SCC:

Fireplaces without inserts 2104008001 Fireplaces with inserts cataly tic (non-U.S. EPA cert) 2104008002 Fireplaces with inserts non -catalytic 2104008003 Fireplaces with inserts catalytic (U.S. EPA cert) 2104008004

Wood stoves – Conventional 2104008010 Woodstoves – Catalytic 2104008030 Wood stoves – Non catalytic 2104008050

### 11 The number of Ohio homes with fireplaces ar e adjusted for those t hat burn wood. The following assumptions are applie d to those adjusted homes:

92 percent of wood combust ed in non-certified units 5.7 percent of wood combusted in non-catalytic units 2.3 percent of wood combusted in catalytic units

A state consumption value is applied which is apportioned to each county based on its population 4 

### . Table 2-2 shows the EF used for each of the seven types of indoor wood burners which make-up this category:

Table 2-2 Emission Factors Used for Wood Burners

SCC 2104008002 210400 8003 2104008004

SCC 2104008010 210400 8050 2104008030

SCC 2104008001

RAPIDS Code Non-Certified N on-Catalytic Catalytic Units

SO 2 

### 4.00E-01 4.00E-01 4.00E-01 Lb/ton

NO X 

### 2.80E+00 2.80E+00 2.00E+00 Lb/ton

PM 2.5 

### 3.06E+01 1.96E+01 2.04E+01 Lb/ton

To avoid double counting of wood consumption for fuel, this category is adjusted by subtracting the wood consumption from OWB to allow this category to account only for indoor wood burning emissions.

Residential Wood combustion also emits SO 2 

### which is calculated using EF 0.4 Lb/Ton

EF. The PM 2.5 

### emissions are calculated using EF as shown in table 2-2. All factors are

obtained from AP-42 19



### 2.4 Human Cremation (SCC 2810060200)

Not all Ohio counties possess a crematory so only those counties with crematories are

used to calculate the number of cremations and their resulting NOx emissions. The

2005 cremation data is obtained fr om the Ohio Department of Health, Vital Statistics 17



### . It is estimated that 3% of deaths occur outsi de the State of Ohio with no available data to account for their disposition at the time this area source is being calculated. Therefore, those deaths are not accounted for in this category. The methodology does not offer an EF for NOx for this category nor is NOx required to

be calculated for this area source. Ohio f eels that it is a combustion source and NOx needs to be included in the inventory al ong with the other com bustion sources. Through its Permits-to-Install for human crem ation, Ohio has se lected a NOx EF of

10.13lb/ton cremated to calculate emi ssions from this area source.

### 12 This source also emits PM, PM 10 

### , and PM 2.5 

### emissions which are calculated using EF 0.1 Lb/Ton, 0.071Lb/Ton and, 0.0637 Lb/Ton respec tively. All factors are obtained from

AP-42 19



### 2.5 Structur e Fires (SCC 2810030000)

The Structure Fires category includes resid ential and commercial fires resulting from unintentional actions. Intentional fires, fo rest and wildfires, agricultural, and vehicle burning are not included in this area source

. The State Fire Marshall Office, Fire

Prevention Bureau 15 

### provided data on the number of st ructure fires per county in 2005.

This area source is consider ed a combustion source for NO X 

### emissions which are calculated using EF 1.4 lb/ton burned. The residential and commercial structures fires for each county are tabul ated and a fuel load ing of 1.15 Ton/fire is applied. This source also emits PM, PM 10 

### , and PM 2.5 

### emissions which are calculat ed using EF 10.8 Lb/Ton.

This factor was obtained from AP-42 19



### 2.6 Outdoor W ood Boilers (SCC 2104008070)

Outdoor Wood Boilers (OWB), are also known as outdoor water stoves and outdoor wood furnaces, are used as outdoor residenti al heaters. These boilers have wood burning fireboxes surrounded by a water reserv oir vented by a chimney stack. The

combustion of the wood in t he firebox heats the water in the surrounding reservoir and the heated water is pumped to the residence. OWB units can also supply residential hot water. The water capacit y ranges from 60 gallons to 764 gallons. The operational design creates long periods where the fire smolders and creosote is formed 13



### .

When the water circulating through the furn ace reaches an upper set point, the air supply to the fire is cut-off, cooling the fire so the water will not overheat. The furnace operates in this "idle" mode until the water te mperature hits a lower set point and the air supply is re-established. The OWB may be in idle mode far longer than in operating mode. This type of operating causes very poor combustion and heavy foul smoke. Most

of the smoke emitted is fi ne condensed organic material t hat does not burn under cool, oxygen starved conditions. In addition, many owners burn green wood full of moisture which also causes poor combustion 12



### . The smoke created from these outdoor wood burning units can contain severa l pollutants that are harmful to breathe, including fine particle pollution such as PM 2.5 11 

### in addition to NOx (research assisted by Deborah Lucas, DAPC intern, 2007)

This new area source category has many unknowns and variables associated with it and Ohio does not possess accurate OWB uni t sales data available to calculate emissions on the county level. Therefore, several assu mptions are made in agreement

with the Great Lake States in order to formulate a homogeneous inventory for the region.

### 13 The assumptions are as follows:

• 100% of wood combusted in non-certified units.

• OWB units to be 90% in rural counties and 10% in urban counties

• 11.68 cords of wood consumption per unit per year (includes heating efficiency of 30-40%)

• 5 months heating season = 3650 hours (24/7)

• PM 2.5 

### emissions factor (g/kg wood) =13.82 (Average of indoor and outdoor) or

27.64 lb/ton of wood

The agreed upon methodology requi res that total number of OWB sold in Ohio be apportioned to each county based on rural or urban designation while observing the 9:1 ratio in area sales. The guesstimated factor s (see above) are applied to calculate the

emissions from this outdoor wood burner. Total emissions obtained from this category

are subtracted from the Residential Wood Co mbustion category to allow for accurate emissions from the indoor wood burning units.

2.7 References

1. Documentation For the 2002 Non-Point S ource National Emission Inventory For

CAPS and HAPS . U.S. Environmental Protecti on Agency. Emissions Factor and inventory Group. E.H Pe chan and Associates, Inc. January 2004.

2. United States Census Bureau. Population Division. http://eire.census.gov/popest/data/c ounties/tables/CO-EST 2002/CO-EST2002-01- 39.php (Accessed 2003)

3. United States Census Bureau. County Business Patterns. http://censtats.census.gov/cbpnaic/cbpnaic.shtml (Accessed 2003)

4. Ohio Department of Development, Office of Strategic Research. Population Projects by Age and Sex: 2005-2030. http://www.odod.ohio.gov /research/files/p200.htm (Accessed August 2006)

5. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1999 Base Year Non-point Source National Emission Inventory for Hazardous Air Pollutants, Research Triangle Park, NC. September 28, 2001.

6 . Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). STAPPA-ALAP CO-EPA Emission Inventory Improvement Progr am (EIIP). Volume III - Area Sources Preferred and

Alternative Methods. November 1996.

7. Documentation for the Dr aft 1999 National Emissions In ventory (Version 3.0) for

Criteria Air Pollutants and Amm onia. Area Sources. E. H. Pechan & Associates, Inc. March 3, 2003

### 14 8. U.S. Environmental Pr otection Agency, STAPPA-ALAPC O-EPA Emission Inventory Improvement Program (EIIP), Volume III - Area Sources Preferred and Alternative Methods, Chapter 8. September 1997.

9. Spreadsheet formulation provided by “Buzz” David Asse lmeier, Air Quality Planning Section, Inventory Group, Springfield, Illinois.

10. Environmental Protection Agen cy (EPA). STAPPA-ALAPCO-EPA Emission Inventory Improvement Progr am (EIIP). Volume III - Area Sources Preferred and Alternative Methods. May 1997.

11. (Environmental Chemistr y.com) viewed on Feb 8th, 2007. [http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi /environmental/200602out doorwoodfurnaces.ht

ml ]

12. (Washington State, Department of Ecology) viewed on Feb 8th, 2007 [http://www.ecy.wa.gov/progr ams/air/AOP_Permits/Boiler /Outdoor_Boilers_home.html]

13. U.S. Environmental Protection Agen cy. Reducing Pollution from Outdoor WoodFired Hydronic Heaters. Fact Sheet http://www.epa.gov/owhh/ pdfs/fact_sheet_1_29_07.pdf (Accessed 1/2007)

14. Industrial Sector E nergy Price and Expenditure Estimates, 1970-2001, Ohio. Energy Information Administration. U. S. Department of Energy. http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/st ates/sep_prices/ind/pr_ind_oh.html http://www.eia.doe.gov/em eu/aer/pdf/pages/sec1_27.pdf (Accessed 2003)

15. State Fire Marshal Office. Fire Prevention Bureau, Columbus, Ohio. http://www.com.state.oh. us/odoc/sfm/firecont.htm (Accessed 2003)

16. Documentation for the Draft 1999 National Emissions In ventory (Version 3.0) For

Criteria Air Pollutants and Amm onia. Area Sources. E. H. Pechan & Associates, Inc. March 3, 2003

17. Ohio Department of Health, Vital Statistics

18. Environmental Protection Agency. STAPPA-ALAPCO-EPA Em ission Inventory Improvement Program (EIIP). Volume X – Emissions Projections. December 1999. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eiip/techreport/volume10/x01.pdf (Accessed 2/2007)

19. Environmental Protection Agency. AP-42. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/

### 15 

## SECTION 3

NON-ROAD SOURCES

The non-road inventory is gener ated regionally by running U. S. EPA’s Nati onal Mobile Inventory Model (NMIM) model. The Wi sconsin Department of Natural Resources undertook the responsibility of customizing the NMIM input files and submitting the output file in NIF format to LADCO and U.S. EPA. LADCO process ed the NMIM files in their emissions model and generat ed daily emissions rates. Grant Heatherington from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Reso urces provided the following descriptions...

The National Mobile Inventory Model (NMIM) developed by USEPA was used to

estimate emissions for all other non-road m obile categories. NMIM consolidates nonroad mobile emissions and on-road emissions modeling into a singl e modeling system. Only the non-road emissions modeling portion of NMIM was used in the development of this emission’s inventory. NMIM uses the USEPA’s NONROAD model to calculate nonroad mobile emissions. The basic NONROAD algorithm for calculating emissions uses base year equipment populati ons, average load factors, available engine powers, activity hours and emission factors. Before NMIM was run, modifications and additions

were made to the NM IM input data.

a. Added emission factors for diesel ta mpers/rammers provided by E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc. Diesel tampers/rammers are a type of construction equipment.

b. Revised PM 2.5 

### ratios in SCC table to correctly calculate PM 2



### . 5 

### diesel

emissions. This error was introduc ed with NMIM2005 and didn’t exist in

NMIM2004.

c. Revised gasoline parameter s using updates provi ded by the states and E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc. Ga soline parameters include Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP), oxygenate c ontent and sulfur content.

The NMIM NEI NIF files are on the LADCO ftp site at: ftp://ftp.airtoxics.org/in v2005/nonroad/NMIM /Base_L_ph2/2005/



## Revised NMIM2005 Input Data

Emission Factor Data

All States: Pechan revised the brake specific fuel consumption (BSFC) emission factor data to include diesel tampers/rammers (2270002006). The revised NMIM file is saved as

revBSFC.EMF.

### 16 Population Data

For 26000.pop, replaced default file supplied with NMIM2005 with 26000_rev_NMIM05.pop that contains revised construction data missing from 26000.pop external file provided with NMIM2005. This Michigan construction data should have been added with the other LADCO

states modified construction data but was overlooked.



### SCC Data

The default SCC table of NCD20060201 is replaced by a version that contains corrections to the PM25fac field that earlier NCDs contained (i.e. changed from 0.92 to 0.97 for diesel non-road equipment) in NONROAD2004.



### Fuel Data

LADCO States: Pechan revised four tables (countyyear, countyyearmonth, datasource and gasoline) in the National County Database (NCD) used by NMIM to incorporate new fuel data. AIR revised gasoline characteristics per instructions from the states. Also, gasoline characteristic revisions for 2005 provided by states were incorporated. Additional revisions were incorporated into 2002 data for non-road Stage 2 controls. Depending on the year being modeled, different versions of the revised tables are used. Also, the countynrfile, countyyear and datasource tables were revised to reference the new activity, allocation, growth, population and seasonality files described above. NCD tables with names ending in “def” are default versions of the table. See table below for the appropriate versions of the tables for the selected

years.

Non-LADCO States: The countynrfile, countyyear and datasource tables were revised to reference the new activity, allocation and seasonality files described above. See table below for the appropriate versions of the tables for the selected years.



### Table 3-1 NMIM National County Database Tables for Specific Years and States

States

Years

1999 (WI only) 2002, 05, 07, 08, 09, 12 and 18

LADCO states countynrfile_NMIM05_rev, countyyear_NMIM05_rev, countyyearmonth_NMIM05_w _05_12_18_rev, datasource_NMIM05_rev, gasoline_NMIM05_def SCC_NCD20060201_rev (used when NCD20060201 is used) countynrfile_NMIM05_rev, countyyear_NMIM05_rev , countyyearmonth_NMIM05_w_05_12_18_rev, datasource_NMIM05_rev, gasoline_NMIM05_w_05_12_18_rev SCC_NCD20060201_rev (used when NCD20060201 is used)

### 17 

## SECTION 4

ON-ROAD SOURCES

A mobile source of air pollution is a self-p ropelled or portable emi tter of air pollutants, and mobile source emissions are those genera ted by the engines or motors that power such sources. Most mobile sources, exce pt jet or turboprop ai rcraft, are powered by internal combustion (IC) piston engines, and nearly all use liquid fuels.

Gaseous fuels, such as compressed natur al gas (CNG) or li quefied petroleum gas (LPG), had only a very small fraction of the motor fuel market in Ohio in 2005. Solid fuels have not been used by mobile sources in significant amounts since railroads retired their coal-powered steam locomotives in the 1950s.

4.1 Categories of Mobile Sources

For inventory and planning pur poses, mobile sources ar e divided into two major categories.

1. On-highway mobile sources (usually referred to as on-road ), e.g., motor vehicles such as cars, vans, trucks, buses and motorcycles used for transportation of goods and pa ssengers on roads and streets

2. Off-highway (usually referred to as non-road ) mobile sources including:

• Modes of powered transportation that do not use roads, such as aircraft, trains, ships and boats, and motor vehicles used off-road.

• Self-propelled or portable motoriz ed machines or equipment not used for transportation, ranging from constructi on equipment and farm tractors to lawnmowers and hand-held power weed choppers.

Mobile Sources: All on-road mobile source s are self-propelled.

Non-road Mobile Sources: Some non-road mobile source s (e.g., farm tractors), are self-propelled, but many non-road sources ar e not. A gasoline-powe red chain saw is a familiar example of a non-self-pr opelled non-road mobile source.

Stationary Sources: Not all movable or portable emi ssion sources are mobile sources, however. A small truck-portable cement or hot-mix asphalt plant, for example, may be set up near a construction or road-building site . Such plants are classified as stationary sources, not mobile sources for two reasons: (1) they may operate for weeks or months at a single location, and (2) the trucks that move the plants do not supply power for

them.

### 18 NOTE: Not all Internal Combustion engines (IC) or turbine engines are mobile sources. Fixed IC engines, such as those that pow er pipeline compressors or standby generators in electricity plants and elsewhere, are al so classified as stationary sources.

4.1.1 Categories and Componen ts of Mobile Source Emissions

There are three categories of mobile source emissions:

• Exhaust or tailpipe emissions , which result from the combustion of fuel in the source’s engine

• Evaporative emissions , which result from evaporation of fuel from the engine or its fuel system

• Refueling emissions

Exhaust Emissions: Are the result of fuel combustion and occu r only when the engine is running.

Evaporative emissions: Are Volatile Organic Compou nd (VOC) based only and are continuously emitted from an engine’s fuel syst em, whether the engine is running or not. Gasoline is a very volatile fuel, so total VOC emissions from gasoline powered vehicles have a large evaporative component. Diesel and je t fuels are of very low volatility, so evaporative emissions from diesel and turbi ne engines are a much smaller part of their total VOC emissions. Evaporative emission s for CNG or LPG powered vehicles are negligible because their fuel tanks and systems are of necessity, sealed.

Evaporative and exhaust VOC emissions can be calculated separately for most mobile source categories. Evaporative emissions do not include VOC emissions that occur during refueling.

Refueling Emissions: These emissions are the third category of mobile source emissions. Refueling emissi ons are entirely VOC. Alth ough they result from the evaporation of fuel, they ar e distinct from, and not dire ctly related to, evaporative

emissions as defined above.

Refueling emissions have two subcomponents:

• Displacement emissions . These occur when new fuel is transferred into a partly

filled tank--be it a service station stor age tank, a portable fuel container (gas can), or a vehicle or engine’s fuel tank; displacing the air in the tank and forcing that vapor-rich air out the inlet pipe or other vent. There are two stages of displacement emissions:

o “ Stage I ” emissions occur when the underground storage tanks at a service station are being refilled;

### 19 o “ Stage II ” emissions occur when a motor vehicle (or gas can) is being

refueled.

NOTE: These emissions are covered in , “Area Sources,” section 3.6.

• Spill emissions . These occur when drops of fuel drip or splash on the ground during or after refueling and evaporate away.

4.2 Ohio On-Road Mobile Source Inventory

The inventory of on-road mobile source emissions was developed in conjunction with the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT), Lake Michigan Air Director’s Consortium (LADCO), Unit ed States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and the Ohio EPA (OEPA). Estimates of the amounts of NOx and VO C are reported by county in tons per day. Emissions are repor ted for a typical ozone season weekday in

the summer of 2005.

4.2.1 Emission Inventories Developed with MOBILE6 Model

MOBILE6 Overview:

MOBILE6 is a computer program that es timates hydrocarbon (HC), carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen (NO
x 

### ), exhaust particulate matter (which consists of several components), tire wear particula te matter, brake wear particu late matter, sulfur dioxide (SO 2 

### ), ammonia (NH 3 

### ), six hazardous air pollutant (HAP), and carbon dioxide (CO 2 

### ) emission factors for gasoline-f ueled and diesel highway moto r vehicles, and for certain specialized vehicles such as natural-gas-fuel ed or electric vehicles that may replace them. The program uses the calculation procedures presented in technical reports posted on EPA's MOBILE6 Web page http ://www.epa.gov/otaq/models.htm.

MOBILE6 emission factor estimates depend on various conditions, such as ambient temperatures, travel speeds, operating modes, fuel volatility, and mileage accrual rates. Many of the variables affe cting vehicle emissions can be specified by the user.

MOBILE6 will estimate emission factors fo r any calendar year between 1952 and 2050,

inclusive. Vehicles from the 25 most re cent model years are considered to be in operation in each calendar year.

4.2.2 MOBILE6 Defaults:

MOBILE6 includes default values for a wide range of conditions that affect emissions. These defaults are designed to represent “ national average” input data values. Users who desire a more precise estimate of local emissions can substitute information that more specifically reflects local conditions. Use of local input data will be particularly

common when the local emission inventor y is to be constructed from separate

### 20 estimates of roadways, geographic areas, or ti mes of day, in which fleet or traffic conditions vary considerably.

A list of MOBILE6 input parameters is provi ded below. Most of these inputs are optional because the model will supply default values unless alternate data are provided.

4.2.3 MOBILE6 Input Parameters

• Calendar year

• Month (January, July)

• Hourly Temperature

• Altitude (high, low)

• Weekend/weekday

• Fuel characteristics (Reid va por pressure, sulfur content, oxygenate content, etc.)

• Humidity and solar load

• Registration (age) distribution by vehicle class

• Annual mileage accumulation by vehicle class

• Diesel sales fractions by vehicle class and model year

• Average speed distribution by hour and roadway

• Distribution of vehicle miles traveled by roadway type

• Engine starts per day by vehi cle class and distribution by hour

• Engine start soak time distribution by hour

• Trip end distribution by hour

• Average trip length distribution

• Hot soak duration

• Distribution of vehicle miles traveled by vehicle class

• Full, partial, and multiple diurnal distribution by hour

• Inspection and maintenance ( I/M) program description

• Anti-tampering inspection program description

• Stage II refueling emissions inspection program description

• Natural gas vehicle fractions

• HC species output

• Particle size cutoff

• Emissions factors for PM and HAP

• 

### Output format specific ations and selections

4.2.4 MOBILE6 References

The following publications prov ide much of the guidance fo r the preparation of the onhighway inventory.

EPA-450/4-81-026d (Revised), now EPA/450-R-92-009, Procedures for Emission Inventory Preparation , Volume IV: Mobile Sources , December 1992. Hereafter,

“Procedures Vol. IV”. The 1992 vers ion is still the definitive document on

### 21 inventories. If a previous edition is referr ed to, the fact will be not ed as, for example, “the 1989 Procedures Vol. IV” or “Volume IV, 1989 edition”.

EPA420-R-03-010, User’s Guide to MOBILE6.1 and MOBILE6.2: Mobile Source

Emission Factor Model

, August 2003. This is the User’s Guide for the official MOBILE6.2.03 on-highway mobile source em ission factor model and will usually be referred to as the M6.2 (or simply M6) User’s Guide (UG). The M6 model in its various versions was developed and publis hed by Assessment & Modeling Division (AMD) of the National Vehicle & Fuels Em issions Laboratory (NVFEL) in Ann Arbor, Michigan. The NVFEL is part of USE PA Office of Transportation & Air Quality (OTAQ), formerly the Office of Mobile Sources (OMS).

Technical Guidance on the Use of MOBILE6 for Emission Inventory Preparation , August 2004. Hereafter, the M6 “Technical Guidance [Document]” or “TGD”. The TGD is the pr imary source of guidance on M6 inputs and an invaluable adjunct to the M6 User’s Guide.

USEPA document “Frequently Asked Questions on MOBILE6” , 16 January 2002. Hereafter, [M6] “FAQ”. This document was published along with the M6

TGD.

USEPA memo, “Policy Guidance on the Use of MOBILE6 for SIP Development and Transportation Conformity” , dated 18 January 2002, from John Seitz, Director of OAQPS, and Mar go Oge, Director of OTAQ, to Regional Air Division

Directors.

4.3 Ohio’s Alternate Data for MOBILE6
Alternative data is state-specif ic data that is used in the M obile6 runs. Using local data is preferred to using the default data in Mobi le6. Efforts are made to collect as much local data as possible.

4.3.1 Vehicle Registra tion Distribution by Age

Overview:

The vehicle age distribution determines the fr action of vehicles operating within each emissions control requirement standard and the deterioration of the emission control technology.

Emission rates vary widely between new and older vehicles. Thus, even small changes in fleet age, particularly for older vehicles , may result in large changes in emission

totals.

### 22 The MOBILE6 model requires esti mates of a distribution of r egistered vehicles by age and vehicle category for current and future years. MOBILE6 default values were developed using national level vehicle registration data by age and class for July 1, 1996. EPA developed a methodology to convert t he July 1, 1996 registration profile into a general registration distribut ion by age and by vehicle ca tegory for some 6 composite (gasoline and diesel) vehicle types plus motorcycles. To project future changes, EPA evaluated general sales growth and vehicle scrappage trends for the total light-duty vehicle in-use fleet and the total heavy-dut y vehicle in-use fleet, and made minor adjustments, where possible, to reflect some of the differences between vehicle categories.

Description: The MOBILE6 model requires estima tes of a distribution of registered vehicles by age and vehicle category for curr ent and future years. OEPA chose to use local vehicle registration data provided by the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV) which was sent to the Lake Michigan Air Dir ectors Consortium (LADCO) to develop these inputs. LADCO then contracted with a subcontractor to breakout the age

distribution data from the Vehicle Identification Num bers (VIN).

Note: It was learned during the course of this inventory that there were some discrepancies in the age distribution data. But it was too large of a project to reevaluate the data prior to this invent ory. This will be corrected in the next inventory (2008).

Method Applicability: This approach is most applic able in areas where there are significant differences in the local vehicle fleet age distribution rela tive to the national

average.

Data Sources and Procedures: This approach involves using local vehicle registration data. This is typically available at the county level, but may also be applied using

statewide data from the stat e motor vehicle registration office. The fleet age should be representative of the vehicle fleet over the small urban or rural area under question.

Advantages:

• Uses locally specific registration data, which is likely more representative of the

local area than t he national default.

• Requires minimal additional resources, par ticularly if data is readily available at the county or local level fr om the State departm ent of motor vehicle registration.

• Recommended by EPA and generally is encouraged as a preferred approach over the national default approach.

### 23 4.3.2 Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled (DVMT)

Overview:

In coordination with Ohio Metropolitan Pl anning Organizations (MPOs), the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) provi ded Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled (DVMT) data and travel demand model (TDM) data. TDM data will be covered in another section. Because TDM results are used by t he state and MPOs to fo recast traffic for a variety of reasons, undergo rigorous calibrati on and validation checks, and are sensitive to roadway capacity/travel time improvement s, the TDMs are considered the best tool for emissions forecasting. Therefore, the DVMT data discussed in this section is not used directly for all areas of Ohio. In countie s where it is not used directly it is used for making rough emissions estimates where model s do not exist or where time prohibits the use of TDMs. DVMT is a simple mechan ism to measure how much traffic is flowing along a roadway during an average 24 hour peri od. This simple formula multiplies Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) by the length of the roadway. For example; if a roadway is 2 miles in length and the AADT is 4000 vehicles per day the DVMT would be computed by multiplying 2* 4,000 =8,000 or 8,000 DVMT.

County-By-County DVMT is computed usin g the State of Ohio, Department of Transportation’s Roadway Information F iles and the annual Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) Summary Reports . DVMT’s are computed for all of the Federal Functional Class (FC) categories within each of Ohio’s 88 counties.

The AADT and Roadway length information prov ides a very accurate estimate of statewide total DVMT for The State Highway S ystem (Interstate, US and State Routes). County total DVMT are consistent and cons idered a good source of county level DVMT for countywide emissions estimates. For roadways that are not part of the State Highway System, various representative count s were used, such as: railroad crossing counts, HPMS Sample Section Counts, etc. All traffic count data that was not collected during the current year has had statewide growth factors applied to account for systematic growth.

Given the previously mentioned methodologies, the DVMT data is more accurate on roads functionally classified as collector or above.

Table 4-1 Federal Func tional Class Categories:

01 - Rural Interstate 02 - Rural Principal Arterial

06 - Rural Minor Arterial 07 - Rural Major Collector

08 - Rural Minor Collector

09 - Rural Local 11 - Urban Interstate 12 - Urban Freeway & Expressway 14 - Urban Principal Arterial

16 - Urban Minor Arterial

17 - Urban Collector

19 - Urban Local

### 24 Table 4-2 DVMT County Summary:

For PDF web based tables of 2005 DVMT by county see:

http://www.dot.state.oh.us /techservsite/availpro/Road_%20Infor/KDVMT/vmt2005.pdf

Disclaimer by ODOT:

The above PDF web based tables contain the State of Ohio's adjusted county DVMT's and road mileage for the years 1990 - 2005. Please be aware that the numbers are estimates only. The factoring process used annual, estimated, and statewide ADT (Average Daily Traffic) growth factors, deriv ed from the output of a limited number of traffic counting stations around the state. Although the growth factors are available by functional class, they are more reliable for major roads such as interstates or expressways, which are relatively well-sampl ed, than for local roads or collectors. The numbers also do no allow for periodic, large- scale functional reclassification actions

### 25 which reassign selected roads or road segm ents from one functional class to another.

The Ohio Department of Transportation t herefore does not warr ant the accuracy, completeness, or reliability of these estimates for your research. We also do not assume responsibility for any incorrectness that may occur.

4.3.3 VMT From Travel Demand Models (TDM)

Overview:

Travel demand forecast modeling is perform ed by the Ohio Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and ODOT for a multit ude of purposes including the preparation of regional emissions estimate s. The ODOT Office of Te chnical Services’ Modeling & Forecasting Section recommends that Ohio ’s TDMs and ODOT’s conformity analysis methods be used to establish the roadway mob ile source portion of Ohio’s SIP budget

to assure consistent methods are used for transportation conformity analysis and budgets. Therefore, ODOT provided both MPO regional TDM runs and statewide TDM

runs with associated data to OEPA and LADC O. The ODOT provided model run data for years 2002, 2005, 2009, 2012, and 2018.

Data provided included loaded networks in both CSV format and GIS shape files, trip end summaries, zone boundary GIS shape files, intra-zonal trip VMT estimates, and

VMT summaries for each of the loaded networ ks. Additional post processing data was provided including but not lim ited to metadata describing the loaded networks, Hourly distribution by functional cla ss, speed profiles, day of week / weekend / monthly car and truck traffic profiles, 2009 & 2018 VMT RPO data sets, state wide VMT growth rates for local traffic, and a 2005 VMT summary comparison spreadsheet. It should be noted that among other things, the loaded TDM Netw orks contain distance and daily volumes

from which VMT is computed.

Network volumes are post processed to esti mate VMT by hour of day. The hourly volumes and capacity, posted speed limi t, and type of roadway for each roadway segment are then used to estimate aver age hourly speeds needed for MOBILE6 based

emissions estimates. Modelin g by segment by hour of day in this way makes emissions

estimates more sensitive to the effects of roadway improvements. This allows transportation planners to evaluate the relati ve emissions affect of improvements to individual roadways as well as packages of improvements and the entire set of planned roadway improvement projec ts air quality impacts of construction programs.

### 26 4.3.4 Speed Di stribution Profiles

Overview:

ODOT provided speed distribution profiles to LADCO. A couple of different sets of speed distribution profiles were provided to OEPA and LADCO for their use, a table of space mean speeds by functional class for use with DVMTs and link group speed curves for post processing travel demand model traffic forecasts. Both sets of speed profiles are based on the same speed study c onducted by ODOT. The speed study is

documented in “Statewide Travel Time Study, May 2001 by Greg Giaimo, Ohio Department of Transportation ”. When OEPA asked for s peeds for use with MOBILE6 for development of CERR, ODOT provided a set of speeds based on that statewide travel time study. Those speeds are doc umented in a technical memorandum titled “Estimation of Average Speed by Functional Class for MOBILE6 Runs ” dated

5/27/2004. Readers should refer to those docum ents for the details. Here the contents of the technical memo, Estimated Average Speed by Functional Class, are summarized.

Space Mean Speeds by Functional Class for U se with County Level DVMT, HPMS:

The memo states that the s peeds which the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) had been using prior to that date, 2004, fo r air quality analysis estimates based on County DVMT summaries, were developed by a former ODOT employee for addressing the one (1) hour standards conformity ru les established due to 1990 emissions

exceedances. No documentation was found in ODOT’s files on the origin of these average speed values or how they were esti mated. In addition, EPA has requirements for using latest planning assumptions for ai r quality conformity analyses. Therefore,

ODOT believed that it was in the state’s best interest to use the mo st recent available data to provide a new set of estimated av erage speeds consistent with those used for

urban area travel demand models which were under development at that time. The memo contains comparisons of 2002 speed dat a obtained from traf fic count equipment, automatic traffic recorders (ATRs) which co llect data continuously throughout the year. It also contains comparisons of the new speeds with those used to address the one hour standard Gebhart’s. The graphs shown in figure 1, taken from the memo, illustrate the comparisons. The first graph compares time mean speeds from the ATRs with space mean speeds from ODOTs travel time study done in 2001and with the speeds used for addressing the one hour standard.

### 27 Figure 1 - Speed Comparison Graphs

Speeds Comparison

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0

FC01 FC 0

6
F C0 8
F C1 1 FC1 4 FC1 7



### Functional ClassSpeed Average Speed

1990 Analysis Speeds

2001 Speed Study



## Speeds Comparison

0 20 40 60 80 100

FC 0

1 FC 06
F C08

F C11 FC14 FC 1

7

R

AMPS



### Functional ClassSpeed 

### Average Speed

Min. Avg Speed

Max. Avg. Speed

Gebhardt's Speeds

Spd Study Est Speeds
Spd Study Greg Est



### The following caution statem ent was taken from the Estimation of Average Speed by

Functional Class memo.

CAUTION 

## : It should be noted that speeds on facilities falling in any one of the federal functional classifications vary greatly bet ween roadways, between hour of the day, and day of the week. So these provide only very rough estimates of speed and should be used with caution. In addition, it is expec ted that these average statewide speeds are higher than the average speeds in t he non-attainment areas because the non-

### 28 attainment counties tend to be more popul ated and more congested. The document “Highway Vehicle Speed Es timation Procedures For Use in Emission Inventories”, September 1991 by Earl Ruiter of Cambridge Systematics Inc. is referenced by EPA’s documented procedures for emission inventor y preparation. This document suggests post processing travel demand model traffic assignment results to estimate average speeds.

Final space mean speeds that ODOT provi ded are summarized in the Table 1 below:

Table 4-3 Speed by Federal Functional Class

Functional Class 1990 Analysis 2001 Speed Study Speeds Speeds

FC01 57.3 64.0

FC02 45.3 53.0

FC06 39.9 53.0

FC07 35.1 43.1

FC08 30.5 43.1

FC09 28.0 43.1

FC11 46.3 61.6

FC12 43.3 61.6

FC14 18.9 29.3

FC16 19.6 29.3

FC17 19.6 29.2

FC19 19.6 23.8

It was decided by mutual agreement among individuals within the ODOT Office of

Technical Services that these new s pace mean speed based average speed estimates were reproducible and defensib le since they are well docu mented and should therefore be the speeds used with HPMS** VMT if any year 2002 emissions budget work is done using only the county level VMT summaries discussed in section 5.3.2 Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled (DVMT).

** Note that HPMS VMT is a statewide VMT estimate and the county level DVMT

summaries are consistent with the HPMS VMT so the county level DVMT summaries are loosely referred to as HPMS VMTs even though in fact they are not.

4.3.5 Link Group Speed Curves:

The ODOT Modeling & Forecasting Section recommends that Ohio’s travel demand forecasting models and ODOT’s conformity anal ysis methods be used to establish the roadway mobile source portion of Ohio’s SIP budget for reasons already mentioned in

5.3.2 and to assure consistent methods are used for transportation conformity demonstration analyses and budget s. Therefore, ODOT pr ovided travel demand model runs and the speed curves by link group that ODOT uses for the speed estimates within

### 29 the post processing of travel demand model runs for estimating regional emissions. Table 2 shows these link group curves.

Table 4-4 Link Group Cod es & Associated BPR Curves

Link Group Facility Type Free Flow Speed Areatype a b

1 Freeway 75 Any 0.39 6.3 2 Freeway 70 Any 0.32 7.0 3 Freeway 65 Any 0.25 9.0 4 Freeway 60 Any 0.18 8.5 5 Freeway 55 Any 0.10 10.0

6 Multi-Lane 60 Rural 0.09 6.0

7 Multi-Lane 55 Rural 0.08 6.0

8 Multi-Lane 50 Rural 0.07 6.0

9 Multi-Lane 45 Rural 0.07 6.0 10 2 Lane Any Rural 0.34 4.0

10 Urban

Street 50 Suburban 0.34 4.0

11 Urban

Street 50 Urban 0.74 5.0

12 Urban

Street 50 CBD 1.16 6.0

13 Urban

Street 40 Suburban 0.38 5.0

14 Urban

Street 40 Urban 0.70 5.0

15 Urban

Street 40 CBD 1.00 5.0

16 Urban

Street 35 Suburban 0.96 5.0

17 Urban

Street 35 Urban 1.00 5.0

18 Urban

Street 35 CBD 1.40 5.0

19 Urban

Street 30 Suburban 1.11 5.0

20 Urban

Street 30 Urban 1.20 5.0

21 Urban

Street 30 CBD 1.50 5.0

Note: a and b are the BPR curv e parameters for the equation

T = T 0 

### {1 + a * (V/C)^b]

### 30 More complete details about emissions mode ling process employed by ODOT may be

found in ODOT documentations. The docum ent titled “Congestion Management & Air Quality Analysis (CMAQ) Program Docu mentation” dated December 2005 may be

obtained from the ODOT web site at www.dot.state.oh.us/urban/data/cmaq.doc (Microsoft Word document)

4.4 Mobile6 Inputs:

The following table contains the inputs s upplied to LADCO to process our mobile inventory.

4.4.1 Ohio’s 2005 MOBILE6 Inputs
The following tables are the result of a joint meeting between Ohio EPA, ODOT, and

MPOs from around the state. At that meeting Mobile6 inputs were discussed and efforts were made to verify the sources of data inputs for Moble6. Dialogue has continued between the parties.

For historical reference:

>>> Dave Moore <Dave.Moore1@dot.s tate.oh.us> 4/10/2006 2:13 PM >>>

All,

An air quality coordination meeting has been scheduled for April 27, 2006 at 10:00 AM at ODOT Central Office conference room GA. The primary purpose of this meeting is to discuss development of 2002 mobile source inventories for use in developi ng the Ohio 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP Attainment Demonstrations. See meeting agen da below. OEPA is working to ward a June 15, 2006 schedule for submitting the 2002 invent ories to US EPA.

A key component of the meeting will be to review a nd confirm the MOBILE6.2 i nput parameters, by Ohio a/q area, for use in developing the 2002 mobile inve ntories. See draft templa te below. The Ohio MPO travel demand models will be used to generate t he 2002 VMT inputs to MOBILE. Thanks, DM

DM

### 31 IMPORTANT NOTICE: The following tables are not to be used for inventory purposes as the data is subject to change. For the cu rrent input table, contact Ohio EPA, Division

of Air Pollution Control.

Table 4-5 Mobile Inputs



## Cleveland-Akron 2005 Ozone M6.2 Inputs

Includes the following counties: Ashtabula, Cuyahoga, Geauga, Lake, Lorain, Medina, Portage, Summit



### State Programs

Input

Stage II Refueling 93/3/86/86

Anti-tampering Programs 96/78/50/22222/21111111/1/12/098./12111112

I/M Programs Yes Exclude Ashtabula County - No I/M program Program 1 2004 2050 2 T/O OBD I/M

Model Years 1 1996 2050

Vehicles 1 22222 21111111 1 Stringency 1 30.0 Compliance 1 98.0

Waiver Rates 1 1.0 1.0 Cutpoints
Exemption Age 1 25

Grace Period 1 4

NO TTC Credits

Effectiveness

DESC file

Program 2 2004 2050 2 T/O EVAP OBD & GC

Model Years 2 1996 2050

Vehicles 2 22222 11111111 1 Stringency Compliance 2 98.0

Waiver Rates 2 1.0 1.0 Cutpoints
Exemption Age 2 25

Grace Period 2 4

NO TTC Credits

Effectiveness

DESC file

Program 3 2001 2003 2 T/O ASM 2525 PHASE-IN

### 32 Model Years 3 1996 2003

Vehicles 3 22222 21111111 1 Stringency 3 30.0 Compliance 3 98.0

Waiver Rates 3 3.0 1.0 Cutpoints
Exemption Age 3 25

Grace Period 3 2

NO TTC Credits

Effectiveness

DESC file

Program 4 2001 2050 2 T/O ASM 2525 PHASE-IN

Model Years 4 1975 1995

Vehicles 4 22222 21111111 1 Stringency 4 30.0 Compliance 4 98.0

Waiver Rates 4 3.0 1.0 Cutpoints
Exemption Age 4 25

Grace Period 4 4

NO TTC Credits

Effectiveness

DESC file

Program 5 1998 2000 2 T/O LOADED/IDLE

Model Years 5 1975 2000

Vehicles 5 22222 21111111 1 Stringency 5 30.0 Compliance 5 98.0

Waiver Rates 5 3.0 1.0 Cutpoints
Exemption Age 5 25

Grace Period 5 2

NO TTC Credits

Effectiveness

DESC file

Program 6 1996 1997 2 T/O IM240

Model Years 6 1975 1997

Vehicles 6 22222 21111111 1 Stringency 6 30.0 Compliance 6 98.0

Waiver Rates 6 3.0 1.0 Cutpoints 6 CUTPOINT.D
Exemption Age 6 25

Grace Period 6 2

NO TTC Credits

Effectiveness

DESC file

### 33 Program 7 1996 2050 2 T/O GC

Model Years 7 1975 1995

Vehicles 7 22222 21111111 1 Stringency Compliance 7 98.0

Waiver Rates 7 3.0 1.0 Cutpoints
Exemption Age 7 25

Grace Period 7 2

NO TTC Credits

Effectiveness

DESC file



### Fuel Commands

Fuel Program 1

Oxygenated Fuels 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.036 2

Fuel RVP 9



### Alternative Emission Regulati ons and Control Measures

Rebuild Effects 0.1



### External Conditions Commands

Calendar Year 2005

Evaluation Month 7

Min/Max Temperature National Climatic Data Center



### Vehicle Fleet Characteristic Commands

Registration Distribution Variable

### 34 

## Cincinnati-Dayton-Springfield 2005 Ozone M6.2 Inputs

Includes the following counties:

Ohio : Butler, Clark, Clermont, Clinton, Greene, Hamilton, Miami, Montgomery,

Warren

Indiana : Lawrenceburg Twp., Dearborn County
Kentucky : Boone, Campbell and Kenton counties



### State Programs

Input

Note: Indiana and Kentucky inputs may not coincide with Ohio inputs

Stage II Refueling 93/3/86/86

Anti-tampering Programs 96/78/05/22222/21111111/1/12/098./12111112

I/M Programs Yes
Excludes Clinton Co. and Miami Co., OH, Dearborn County, IN - No I/M program Note: I/M inputs for Kentucky counties are not included Program 1 2004 2050 2 T/O OBD I/M

Model Years 1 1996 2050

Vehicles 1 22222 21111111 1 Stringency 1 30.0 Compliance 1 98.0

Waiver Rates 1 1.0 1.0 Cutpoints
Exemption Age 1 25

Grace Period 1 2

NO TTC Credits

Effectiveness

DESC file

Program 2 2004 2050 2 T/O EVAP OBD & GC

Model Years 2 1996 2050

Vehicles 2 22222 11111111 1 Stringency Compliance 2 98.0

Waiver Rates 2 1.0 1.0 Cutpoints
Exemption Age 2 25

Grace Period 2 2

NO TTC Credits

Effectiveness

DESC file

Program 3 2001 2003 2 T/O ASM 2525 PHASE-IN

Model Years 3 1996 2003

Vehicles 3 22222 21111111 1 Stringency 3 30.0 Compliance 3 98.0

### 35 Waiver Rates 3 3.0 1.0 Cutpoints
Exemption Age 3 25

Grace Period 3 2

NO TTC Credits

Effectiveness

DESC file

Program 4 2001 2050 2 T/O ASM 2525 PHASE-IN

Model Years 4 1975 1995

Vehicles 4 22222 21111111 1 Stringency 4 30.0 Compliance 4 98.0

Waiver Rates 4 3.0 1.0 Cutpoints
Exemption Age 4 25

Grace Period 4 4

NO TTC Credits

Effectiveness

DESC file

Program 5 1998 2000 2 T/O LOADED/IDLE

Model Years 5 1975 2000

Vehicles 5 22222 21111111 1 Stringency 5 30.0 Compliance 5 98.0

Waiver Rates 5 3.0 1.0 Cutpoints
Exemption Age 5 25

Grace Period 5 2

NO TTC Credits

Effectiveness

DESC file

Program 6 1996 1997 2 T/O IM240

Model Years 6 1975 1997

Vehicles 6 22222 21111111 1 Stringency 6 30.0 Compliance 6 98.0

Waiver Rates 6 3.0 1.0 Cutpoints 6 CUTPOINT.D
Exemption Age 6 25

Grace Period 6 2

NO TTC Credits

Effectiveness

DESC file

Program 7 1996 2050 2 T/O GC

Model Years 7 1975 1995

Vehicles 7 22222 21111111 1

### 36 Stringency Compliance 7 98.0

Waiver Rates 7 3.0 1.0 Cutpoints
Exemption Age 7 25

Grace Period 7 2

NO TTC Credits

Effectiveness

DESC file



### Fuel Commands

Fuel Program 1

Oxygenated Fuels 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.036 2

Fuel RVP 9



### Alternative Emission Regulati ons and Control Measures

Rebuild Effects 0.1



### External Conditions Commands

Calendar Year 2005

Evaluation Month 7

Min/Max Temperature National Climatic Data Center



### Vehicle Fleet Characteristic Commands

Registration Distribution Variable

### 37 

## Other Areas ( excluding NOACA/AMATS 

## and OKI/MVRPC 

## ) Ozone M6.2 Inputs

Includes the following counties:

Ohio : Belmont, Columbiana, Delaware, Fairfield, Franklin, Jefferson, Knox, Licking,
Lucas,Madison, Mahoning, Pickaway, Trumball, Wood



### Fuel Commands

Input

Fuel Program 1

Oxygenated Fuels 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.036 2

Fuel RVP 9



### Alternative Emission Regulati ons and Control Measures

Rebuild Effects 0.1 (0.30 for 2018)



### External Conditions Commands

Calendar Year All

Evaluation Month 7

Min/Max Temperature National Climatic Data Center



### Vehicle Fleet Characteristic Commands

Registration

Distribution Variable



### 4.5 Ohio’s Mobile Emission Data Processed by LADCO (Lake Michigan Air Director’s Consortium):

2005 TDM and Mobile6 input data were provided to LADCO for processing. The data was processed by LADCO with T3 to prepare it as an input into the ConCEPT model.

T3 and ConCEPT are described as follows.

### 38 4.5.1 T3--Development of Link-Level Mobile Source Emission Inventories:

Highly resolved emission inventories for on- road mobile sources are needed for air quality modeling to develop the necessary technical support for new State Implementation Plans (SIPs) fo r regional haze, fine particles , and ozone. Emissions for on-road motor vehicles are estimated using vehi cle miles traveled, tr ip starts and ends, speed, and other activity data developed by State Agencies and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) using transportati on demand models (TDMs), and emission

factors from EPA's MOBILE6 model. To s upport this modeling in the upper Midwest, ENVIRON, working with LADCO, State DOTs, and local MPOs, has developed a software tool (the TDM Transformation Tool, or "T3") that takes TDM output from approximately twenty transportation networ ks using a variety of models, applies appropriate data transformations , and outputs link- and county-le vel activity data in a uniform format for input to the CONCEPT emissions processing model (a new emissions processing model also developed wit h funding from LADCO). In a parallel effort, analyses of extensive automatic tra ffic recorder (ATR) dat a collected by State DOTs were conducted to develop temporal profiles (hour of day , day of week, and month of year) of vehicle counts and vehicl e mix by roadway type for developing the

detailed on-road emissi on inventories.

T3 provides a conduit from the projections of traffic demand model ers regarding vehicle types, road networks, and vehicle activity to the activity data required by emissions modelers. The primary goals of T3 are to provide an easy mechanism for incorporating TDM model outputs in as "raw" a format as possible, while simult aneously providing a great degree of flexibility in representing t he TDM projections in terms acceptable to most air quality models. These goal s have been achieved through the use of a dimensional transformation approach, w here the dimensions of the various

transformations are user-defined - hence the name of the tool.

By Stella Shepard, Alison K. Pollack, John Haasbeek, ENVIRON International

Corporation, 101 Rowland Way, Su ite 220, Novato, CA. 94945 & Mark Janssen, Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO ), 2250 E. Devon Avenue # 250, Des Plaines, IL 60018, janssen@ladco.org

4.5.2 ConCEPT--Consolidated Community Emissions Processing Tool an OpenSource Tool for the Emi ssions Modeling Community:

The new CONCEPT (CONsolidated Communi ty Emissions Processing Tool)

Emissions Processor is now available for use by the emissions modeling community. Developed as joint project between Alpine Geophysics, LLC and ENVIRON Corporation, with Midwest RPO and joint RPO funding, the CONCEPT model combines the best attributes of current emissions modeling syste ms into an open source model highlighting the following features:

• Open Source. Writt en primarily in PostgreSQL, th e software required for running

### 39 CONCEPT is in the public dom ain. The model itself is GNU Public License (GPL) compliant and users are encouraged to make additions and enhancements to the modeling system.

• Transparent. The database structur e of the model makes the system easy to understand, and the modeling codes themselv es are extremely well documented to encourage user participation in the customizing the system for specific modeling requirements.

• Quality Control. The CONCEPT model structure an d implementation allows for multiple levels of QA analysis during every step of the emissions calculation process. Using the database structures, an emissions modeler can easily trace a process or facility and review the calculat ion procedures and assumptions for any emissions value.

The CONCEPT model includes modules for the major emissions source categories: area source, point source, on-ro ad motor vehicles, non-road motor vehicles and biogenic emissions, as well as a num ber of supporting modules, including spatial allocation factor development, speciation pr ofile development, growth and control for point and area sources, and CEM point sour ce emissions handling. The emissions modeling community has alr eady begun development of addi tional CONCEPT support modules including CEM preproce ssing software, graphical QA tools, and an interface to

the traffic demand models for on-road mo tor vehicle emissions estimation.

By Cyndi Loomis, James G. Wilkinson, Alpine Geophysics, LLC, & John Haasbeek, Alison Pollack, ENVIRON Corporation. & Mark Janssen, Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO), 2250 E. Devon Av enue # 250, Des Plaines, IL 60018, janssen@ladco.org

4.5.3 LADCO Ohio Data Outputs for 2005:

The following LADCO outputs and documents can be found at: www.ladco.org/tech/e mis/net05/index.html

Table 4-6 LADCO Data Output

Sta

te Network T3 Descripti

on DOC M6 Inpu

ts VM

T vs

HP

MS

Exc

el Average Day

VMT (this

should

match

conformi

ty inventory ) Co

unt

y
Em

issi

on

s
Re

por

t All

Pollut

ants

After Speci

ation Dropped

VMT M6

Run

Summ

ary Pollut

ant

T otals (Short ) Raw

Summ

ary (pol,ve

h, etype) Hourly Tempo

ral

Summ

ary Hourly

Veh

Mix

Summ

ary Hourly Speed

Summ

ary (with

volum

e/ capaci ty)

OH AKRON AKRON OH OH AKRON 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

### 40 OH CANTON CANTON OH OH CANTON 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

OH CINCI CINCI OH OH CINCI 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

OH CLEVE CLEVE OH OH CLEVE 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

OH COLUMB

US COLUMB

US OH OH COLUMB

US 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

OH SPRING

FLD SPRING

FLD OH OH SPRING

FLD 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

OH TOLEDO TOLEDO OH OH TOLEDO 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

OH YNGSTO

WN YNGSTO

WN OH OH YNGSTO

WN 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

OH STATEW

D STATEW

D OH OH STATEW

D 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1



### Additional Documents on LADCO Web Page:

“Comparison to EPA's Default Model NMIM”

“How we Build the 2005 Vmt/Networks”

“Spreadsheet/Graphics on Vehicle Mix”

“Background on the T3 Tool “

4.6 MPO Contact Table

Table 4-7 County Summary Ta ble of MPOs by County

FIPS County Model Network MPO Contact Person

39001 Adams Statewide

39003 Allen Statewide Lima Allen County Regional Planning Commission Tom Mazur

39005 Ashland Statewide

39007 Ashtabula Statewide

39009 Athens Statewide
39011 Auglaize Statewide

39013 Belmont Statewide Bel-O-Mar Regional Council and Interstate Planning

Commission Rakesh Sharma

39015 Brown Statewide

39017 Butler Cincinnat/Dayton Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of

Governments Andy Reser

39019 Carroll Statewide
39021 Champaign Statewide

39023 Clark Springfield Coordinating Committee of the Clark County-Springfield Eric Ottoson

### 41 Transportation Study

39025 Clermont Cincinnat/Dayton Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of

Governments Andy Reser

39027 Clinton Statewide

39029 Columbiana Statewide

39031 Coshocton Statewide

39033 Crawford Statewide

39035 Cuyahoga Cleveland Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency Bill Davis

39037 Darke Statewide

39039 Defiance Statewide

39041 Delaware Columbus Mid-Ohio Regional Planning

Commission Nick Gill

39043 Erie Statewide

39045 Fairfield Statewide
39047 Fayette Statewide

39049 Franklin Columbus Mid-Ohio Regional Planning

Commission Nick Gill

39051 Fulton Statewide

39053 Gallia Statewide

39055 Geauga Cleveland Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency Bill Davis

39057 Greene Cincinnat/Dayton Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission Ana Ramirez

39059 Guernsey Statewide

39061 Hamilton Cincinnat/Dayton Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of

Governments Andy Reser

39063 Hancock Statewide

39065 Hardin Statewide

39067 Harrison Statewide
39069 Henry Statewide
39071 Highland Statewide
39073 Hocking Statewide

39075 Holmes Statewide

39077 Huron Statewide

39079 Jackson Statewide

39081 Jefferson Statewide Brooke-Hancock-Jefferson Transportation Study Policy

Committee Mike Proprocki

39083 Knox Statewide

39085 Lake Cleveland Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency Bill Davis

39087 Lawrence Statewide KYOVA Interstate Planning

Commission

39089 Licking Columbus Licking County Area Transportation Study Matthew Hill

39091 Logan Statewide

39093 Lorain Cleveland Northeast Ohio Areawide Bill Davis

### 42 Coordinating Agency

39095 Lucas Toledo Toledo Metropolitan Area
Council of Governments Sujatha Mohanakrishnan

39097 Madison Statewide

39099 Mahoning Youngstown Eastgate Regional Council

of Governments R.P. Samulka

39101 Marion Statewide

39103 Medina Cleveland Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency Bill Davis

39105 Meigs Statewide

39107 Mercer Statewide

39109 Miami Cincinnat/Dayton Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission Ana Ramirez

39111 Monroe Statewide

39113 Montgomery Cincinnat/Dayton Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission Ana Ramirez

39115 Morgan Statewide

39117 Morrow Statewide
39119 Muskingum Statewide

39121 Noble Statewide

39123 Ottawa Statewide
39125 Paulding Statewide
39127 Perry Statewide
39129 Pickaway Statewide

39131 Pike Statewide

39133 Portage Akron Akron Metropolitan Area Transportation Study Jason Segedy

39135 Preble Statewide

39137 Putnam Statewide

39139 Richland Statewide Richland County Regional Planning Commission John Adams

39141 Ross Statewide
39143 Sandusky Statewide

39145 Scioto Statewide

39147 Seneca Statewide
39149 Shelby Statewide

39151 Stark Canton Stark County Regional Planning Commission Dan Slicker

39153 Summit Akron Akron Metropolitan Area Transportation Study Jason Segedy

39155 Trumbull Youngstown (partial county model

coverage) Eastgate Regional Council

of Governments R.P. Samulka

39157 Tuscarawas Statewide

39159 Union Statewide

39161 Van Wert Statewide

39163 Vinton Statewide

39165 Warren Cincinnat/Dayton Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of

Governments Andy Reser, OKI

+

### 43 + Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission Ana Ramirez, MVRPC

39167 Washington Statewide Wood-Washington-Wirt Interstate Planning

Commission
39169 Wayne Statewide

39171 Williams Statewide

39173 Wood Toledo Toledo Metropolitan Area

Council of Governments Sujatha Mohanakrishnan

39175 Wyandot Statewide 

### NOTE: Complete MPO information can be found at, www.dot.state.oh.us/urban/mpomap.htm and at www.dot.state.oh.us/urban/mpolist.htm#Cleveland

.



## SECTION 5

MARINE, AIRCRAFT and RAIL (MAR) SOURCES

MAR sources are non-road sour ces which are significant enoug h in terms of emissions to be considered separately from the rest of the non-road sources. The MAR inventory consists of commercial marines, aircraft and locomotive sources. The marine and locomotive inventory is generated by Environ 1 

### under contract with LADCO and the aircraft inventory is generated by Ohio EPA.

5.1 Marine Vessel Sources

The approach to commercial marine emi ssion estimates needed to be flexible because the activity data was available in many fo rmats. Emission esti mates were determined either by multiplying engine power, load factor, hours per ye ar of operation, or on the basis of the number of gall ons of fuel consumed.

Emissions were determined for ten subclasses of vessel types: Deep draft vessels (DDV) at port, DDV mid-late, push boats (rivers /lakes), tugs, ferries, other special (excursion) vessels, support vessels, dredges, commercial fishing, and military vessels (Coast Guard). These were linked to various Ohio lakes and rivers.

Because of the large variety of methodologie s employed, inventory tables for the ten subcategories are detailed in the comp lete inventory prepared and published by

ENVIRON Internati onal Corporation: LADCO 2005 COMMERCIAL MARINE

EMISSIONS , by Christian E. Li ndhjem, March, 2007.

Emission totals produced by ENVIRON were provided to LADCO to submit to EPA for Ohio’s State Implementation Plan (SIP).

### 44 5.2 Rail Sources

The primary activity unit used to determine em issions is gallons of fuel consumed.

Emission rates were derived from EPA doc uments provided as support documentation

for the 1997 locomotive emission standards (EPA, 1997). Gallons of fuel consumed were based on rail activity.

Rail activity was broken down into four Source Category Codes (SCC). Class I, linehaul rail: Large interstate railroad companies like Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern. Class I,II, III, switching rail: Yard operations. Class II, III line haul: Regional and local railroads. And Passenger rail: AMTRAK.

Class I, line-haul represents 84.3% of fuel used and the larges t emission’s category. The complete emission’s inventory was prepared and published by ENVIRON International Corporation: LADCO 2005 LOCOMOTIVE EMISSIONS , by Christian E. Lindhjem, February, 2007.

Emission totals produced by ENVIRON were provided to LADCO to submit to EPA for Ohio’s State Implementation Plan (SIP).

EPA. 1997: "Locomotive Emission Standards." Regulatory Support Document, United States
Environmental Protection Agency, O ffice of Mobile Sources, April. And EPA 1997, Emission Factors for

Locomotives," Environmental Protecti on Agency, EPA420-F-97-051, December.



### 5.3 Aircraft Sources

INTRODUCTION:

The aircraft emission’s inventory is derived by taking the number of Landings and Take Offs (LTOs) per year and multiplying by an emission fact or. In the Ohio inventory when specific aircraft models and engine type emission factors are known they were used. For the rest of the inventory the emission factors came from USEPA’s fleet average emissions data. Those results are t hen compiled as tons per year per pollutant by county. The following de scribes the components, met hodology, and concludes with a description of an Access based aircraft emission calculator.

COMPONENTS:

I. Ohio Airports: A list of both towered and non-towered airpor ts in Ohio is obtained from the Ohio Department of Transportation. See: www.dot.state.oh.us/aviation/ In conversation

with ODOT two individuals stated that the 16 4 airports listed covered over 90% of the airports in Ohio. See Table 1.

### 45 II. Number of Operations/LTOs by Airport/County:

The ODOT list contained the number of operations a year per airport. An operation is either a landing or a take-off. A Landing and Take Off (LTO) is required for

FAA EDMS calculations. LTOs were deriv ed simply by dividing the number of operations by two. These were totaled by county.

Table 5-1 Number of operations and LTOs for 2005

County Airport Name ID Total Operations LTOs/Year

Adams Alexander Salamon AMT 5210 2605

Allen Allen County AOH 32500 16250

Ashland Ashland County 3G4 49240 24620

Ashtabula Ashtabula County HZY 16886 8443

Ashtabula Germack 7D9 840 420

Athens Ohio University UNI 51600 25800

Auglaize Neil Armstrong AXV 29456 14728

Belmont Barnesville-Bradfield 6G5 10150 5075

Belmont Alderman 2P7 6150 3075

Brown Brown County GEO 5157 2578.5

Butler Butler County Regional HAO 61687 30843.5

Butler Hook Field Municipal MWO 40050 20025

Butler Miami University OXD 16708 8354

Carroll Carroll County -Tolson TSO 34950 17475

Carroll Parsons 5D6 2674 1337

Champaign Grimes Field I74 23480 11740

Champaign Weller 38I 300 150

Clark Springfield-Beckley Municipal SGH 64033 32016.5

Clark Mad River I54 15350 7675

Clermont Clermont County I69 35741 17870.5

Clinton Airborne Airpark ILN 52000 26000

Clinton Clinton Field I66 29360 14680

Clinton Hollister Field 2B6 161 80.5

Columbiana Columbiana County Ø2G 31146 15573

Columbiana Koons 8G8 2546 1273

Coshocton Richard Downing I4Ø 19550 9775

Coshocton Tri-City 8ØG 8085 4042.5

Crawford Port Bucyrus 17G 24871 12435.5

Crawford Galion Municipal GQQ 5216 2608

Cuyahoga Burke Lakefront BKL 97100 48550

Cuyahoga Cleveland-Hopkins International CLE 234356 117178

Cuyahoga Cuyahoga County CGF 79774 39887

Darke Darke County VES 9238 4619

Defiance Defiance Memorial DFI 9130 4565

Delaware Delaware Municipal DLZ 39300 19650

Delaware Packer 5E9 3181 1590.5

Erie Hinde 88D 1350 675

Erie Kelleys Island 89D 25495 12747.5

Erie Griffing-Sandusky SKY 112100 56050

### 46 Erie Wakeman I64 17324 8662

Fairfield Miller's Farm 7B4 360 180

Fairfield Fairfield County LHQ 43066 21533

Fayette Fayette County I23 29405 14702.5

Franklin Ohio Stat e University OSU 134459 67229.5

Franklin Port Columbus International CMH 218438 109219

Franklin Rickenbacker International LCK 96200 48100

Franklin Bolton Field TZR 69149 34574.5

Franklin Columbus Southwest Ø4I 11833 5916.5

Franklin Darby Dan 6I6 11260 5630

Fulton Fulton County USE 21123 10561.5

Gallia Gallia-Meigs Regional GAS 12200 6100

Geauga Gates 7D8 4200 2100

Geauga Geauga County 7G8 5350 2675

Greene Greene County - Lewis A. Jackson I19 37400 18700

Greene Bloom 14I 100 50

Guernsey Cambridge Municipal CDI 6040 3020

Hamilton Lunken LUK 129430 64715

Hamilton Blue Ash ISZ 35000 17500

Hamilton Cincinnati West I67 30197 15098.5

Hancock Bluffton 5G7 71980 35990

Hancock Findlay FDY 19800 9900

Hancock Priebe 7D5 3850 1925

Hardin Ada ØD7 331 165.5

Hardin Hardin County I95 6562 3281

Hardin Elliott's Landing O74 1560 780

Harrison Harrison County 8G6 11900 5950

Henry Henry County 7W5 15637 7818.5

Highland Highland County HOC 18325 9162.5

Holmes Holmes County 1ØG 21400 10700

Huron Huron County 5A1 10100 5050

Huron Willard 8G1 2715 1357.5

Jackson James A. Rhodes I43 6053 3026.5

Jefferson Jefferson County Airpark 2G2 15969 7984.5

Jefferson Eddie Dew Memorial 1G8 3540 1770

Knox Knox County 4I3 20150 10075

Knox Wynkoop 6G4 4691 2345.5

Lake Concord Airpark 2G1 4510 2255

Lake Willoughby Lost Nation Municipal LNN 45085 22542.5

Lawrence Lawrence County Airpark HTW 41910 20955

Licking Newark-Heath VTA 12457 6228.5

Logan Bellefontaine Regional EDJ 8325 4162.5

Lorain Columbia 4G8 5150 2575

Lorain Elyria 1G1 14300 7150

Lorain Lagrange 92D 1155 577.5

Lorain Lorain County Regional LPR 62000 31000

Lorain Reader-Botsford Airfield 67D 18700 9350

Lucas Toledo Express TOL 94600 47300

### 47 Madison Madison County UYF 41410 20705

Mahoning Salem Airpark 38D 16920 8460

Mahoning Tri-City 3G6 10555 5277.5

Mahoning Elser Metro 4G4 49232 24616

Mahoning Lansdowne Ø4G 750 375

Marion Marion Municipal MNN 42650 21325

Medina Medina Municipal 1G5 79685 39842.5

Medina Wadsworth Municipal 3G3 41025 20512.5

Medina Weltzien Skypark 15G 79130 39565

Mercer Lakefield CQA 16212 8106

Miami Hartzell Field I17 10200 5100

Miami Troy Skypark 37I 4264 2132

Miami Waco Field 1WF 0 0

Monroe Monroe County 4G5 3324 1662

Montgomery Brookville Air-Park I62 29359 14679.5

Montgomery James M. Cox Dayton Intl DAY 134524 67262

Montgomery Dayton Wright Brothers MGY 89045 44522.5

Montgomery Moraine Airpark I73 12938 6469

Montgomery Dahio Trotwood I44 1853 926.5

Montgomery Phillipsburg 3I7 68000 34000

Morgan Morgan County I71 5725 2862.5

Morrow Morrow County 4I9 19108 9554

Muskingum Zanesville Municipal ZZV 33312 16656

Muskingum Parr 42I 16150 8075

Noble Noble County - Mike Brienza Field I1Ø 5950 2975

Ottawa Middle Bass-East Point 3W9 1300 650

Ottawa Middle Bass Island 3T7 6500 3250

Ottawa North Bass Island 3X5 1000 500

Ottawa Carl R. Keller Field PCW 20890 10445

Ottawa Put-In-Bay 3W2 15140 7570

Paulding Paulding 2H8 2100 1050

Perry Crooksville I84 400 200

Perry Perry County I86 4550 2275

Pickaway Pickaway County CYO 35450 17725

Pickaway Clarks Dream Strip Ø3I 2770 1385

Pike Pike County EOP 2012 1006

Portage Freedom Air Field 7D6 1623 811.5

Portage Farview 86D 3353 1676.5

Portage Mills 7E3 1050 525

Portage Portage County 29G 9621 4810.5

Putnam Ruhe's R47 13250 6625

Putnam Putnam County OWX 11910 5955

Putnam Ohio Dusting Co. 6C2 2995 1497.5

Richland Mansfield Lahm Regional MFD 57518 28759

Richland Shelby Community 12G 2012 1006

Ross Ross County RZT 50150 25075

Sandusky Fremont 14G 37450 18725

Sandusky Sandusky County Regional S24 6148 3074

### 48 Scioto Greater Portsmouth Regional PMH 45830 22915

Seneca Bandit Field 5D9 140 70

Seneca Fostoria Metropolitan FZI 7900 3950

Seneca Weiker 82D 320 160

Seneca Seneca County 16G 60165 30082.5

Shelby Sidney Municipal I12 20500 10250

Stark Barber 2D1 13750 6875

Stark Miller Airport 4G3 8000 4000

Stark Beach City 2D7 6112 3056

Summit Akron Fulton International AKR 26000 13000

Summit Akron-Canton Regional CAK 120441 60220.5

Summit Mayfield 1D4 450 225

Summit Kent State University 1G3 72500 36250

Trumbull Braceville 41N 425 212.5

Trumbull Warren 62D 14738 7369

Trumbull Youngstown-W arren Regional YNG 98298 49149

Tuscarawas Harry Clever Field PHD 54880 27440

Union Union County MRT 31886 15943

Van Wert Van Wert County VNW 20516 10258

Vinton Vinton County 22I 5225 2612.5

Warren Warren County I68 24951 12475.5

Warren Red Stewart Airfield 4ØI 16800 8400

Wayne Wayne County BJJ 96520 48260

Williams Williams County ØG6 10010 5005

Wood Wood County 1GØ 27405 13702.5

Wood Bordner 3D8 2200 1100

Wood Deshler Municipal 6D7 2000 1000

Wood Metcalf TDZ 90700 45350

Wyandot Wyandot County 56D 7410 3705



### III. Aircraft Models and Number of LTO/yr:

Specific aircraft models by airport (generally t he larger airports) is obtained from “Table 7” provided by the United States Departm ent of Transportation, Office of Airline Information. This provided the number of LTO’s for each aircraft model per year per airport.

Table 2. Sample from “Table 7.” This is the all community total of aircraft models for the Akron/Canton area. “All Service” departure s were used as the number of LTOs per year for that model. Listed in the original table are airc raft model by airport and number

of services/LTOs.

### 49 **TOTAL DEPARTURES PERFORMD**

**Aircraft Scheduled Non-Sched All**

**Model Service Service Service**

A-318 1 1

A319 384 384

BOEING 717-200 3850 3850

BOEING 727-100 1 1

BOEING 727-200 5 5

BOEING 737-100/200 74 74

BOEING 737-200C 3 3 6

BOEING 737-300 2 2

BOEING 737-700/LR 212 212

BOEING 737-800 5 5

BOEING 757-200 4 4

BOEING 767-300/ER 4 4

CANADAIR RJ-100/ER 542 3 545

CANADAIR RJ-700 2881 2881

CONVAIR CV-580 3 3

DASSAULT FALCON 7 7

DHC8-100 DASH 8 2 2

DOUGLAS DC-9-15F 13 13

DOUGLAS DC-9-30 6 6

EMBRAER-145 144 144

RJ-200ER/RJ-440 5519 5519

SAAB-FAIRCHD 340/B 1804 1804

ALL TYPES 15342 130 15472

IV. Emission Factors: Where there was specific aircraft model data the emission factors were derived using the FAA’s Emission Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS). EDMS is a combined emissions and dispersion model for assessing ai r quality at civilian airports and military air bases. The model was developed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in cooperation with the Unit ed States Air Force (USAF). The model is used to produce an inventory of emissions generated by source s on and around the airport or air base, and to calculate pollutant concentrations in these environments.

### 50 Table 5-2 EDMS Aircraft Emissions Emissions provided by Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. (The few

aircraft in Ohio not included in the table had emissions derived by EDMS 5.0 in-house.)

EDMS Aircraft Emissions/LTO by Aircraft Type
EDMS 4.5 Emissions Inventory Report of 2005 Aircraft Inventory Emissions Factors

Year 2005 Lbs Emitted Per LTO

Aircraft Type CO NOx HC VOC SO2 PM2.5 PM10

A- 318 19.8 18.7 4.0 4.4 1.5 0.0 0.0

A-300-600/R/CF/RCF 27.1 56.4 2.0 2.2 4.0 0.2 0.2

A-300B/C/F-100/200 30.2 52.5 3.5 3.7 3.3 0.2 0.2

A-310-200C/F 32.6 52.5 7.3 7.9 3.3 0.2 0.2

A-319 19.8 18.7 4.0 4.4 1.5 0.0 0.0

A320-100/200 13.7 19.8 1.3 1.3 1.8 0.2 0.2

A-321 16.8 36.8 3.1 3.3 2.2 0.0 0.0

A-330-200 29.8 61.5 0.4 0.4 4.4 0.2 0.2

AVROLINER RJ85 24.7 9.5 2.9 3.3 1.3 0.2 0.2

BAE-146-300 24.7 9.0 3.1 3.3 1.3 0.2 0.2

BEECH 1900 A/B/C 11.0 1.1 3.3 3.5 0.2 0.0 0.0

BEECH KINGAIR C90 1.8 0.9 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0

717-200 11.7 23.4 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0

727-100 21.4 23.1 4.6 5.1 2.9 0.4 0.4

727-100C/QC 44.5 19.8 4.6 5.1 2.4 1.1 1.1

727-200 19.6 27.3 2.9 3.1 3.3 1.1 1.1

737-100/200 14.1 16.1 2.2 2.4 2.0 0.7 0.7

737-200C 13.9 17.4 6.8 7.5 2.0 0.9 0.9

737-300 28.7 15.9 1.8 2.0 1.8 0.0 0.0

737-400 26.5 18.5 1.5 1.5 1.8 0.0 0.0

737-500 24.7 21.2 1.3 1.3 2.0 0.0 0.0

737-700/LR 17.6 20.1 2.0 2.0 1.8 0.4 0.4

737-800 15.7 27.1 1.5 1.8 2.0 0.7 0.7

737-900 15.7 27.1 1.5 1.8 2.0 0.7 0.7

747-100 252.6 108.5 106.7 116.8 7.1 0.4 0.4

747-200/300 60.6 104.7 7.1 7.7 6.8 0.7 0.7

747-400 67.0 105.6 5.7 6.4 7.3 0.7 0.7

757-200 24.7 35.7 2.0 2.2 2.6 0.4 0.4

757-300 27.1 33.1 0.4 0.4 3.1 0.2 0.2

767-200/ER 32.6 52.5 7.3 7.9 3.3 0.2 0.2

767-300/ER 32.0 62.2 2.6 2.9 4.0 0.4 0.4

777 32.8 85.1 5.1 5.7 4.4 0.4 0.4

CANADAIR RJ100/ER 16.3 4.9 1.5 1.8 0.7 0.0 0.0

CANADAIR RJ-700 12.6 9.3 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0

CESSNA 208 1.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

CONVAIR CV-580 36.2 0.9 8.8 9.5 0.7 0.0 0.0

DASSAULT FALCON 13.7 2.6 2.4 2.6 0.2 0.0 0.0

DHC8-100 DASH 8 5.1 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0

DORNIER 328 JET 1.3 6.6 11.9 12.6 0.7 0.0 0.0

DOUGLAS DC-10-10 102.5 76.7 38.6 42.1 4.2 0.0 0.0

DOUGLAS DC-10-30 45.4 78.7 5.3 5.7 5.1 0.4 0.4

### 51 DOUGLAS DC-10-40 131.8 81.8 30.2 33.1 6.0 0.7 0.7

DOUGLAS DC-8-63 263.5 25.6 219.1 239.9 4.2 5.1 5.1

DOUGLAS DC-8-71 53.6 34.6 3.1 3.3 3.7 0.0 0.0

DOUGLAS DC-8-73 53.6 34.6 3.1 3.3 3.7 0.0 0.0

DOUGLAS DC-9-10 14.1 14.6 3.7 4.0 1.8 0.2 0.2

DOUGLAS DC-9-15F 14.1 14.6 3.7 4.0 1.8 0.2 0.2

DOUGLAS DC-9-30 14.1 14.6 3.7 4.0 1.8 0.2 0.2

DOUGLAS DC-9-40 39.7 16.5 10.8 11.9 2.0 1.3 1.3

DOUGLAS DC-9-50 12.6 20.1 1.8 1.8 2.2 0.9 0.9

EMBRAER-135 12.8 5.5 1.1 1.3 0.7 0.0 0.0

EMBRAER-140 13.7 6.0 1.3 1.3 0.7 0.0 0.0

EMBRAER-145 6.4 6.8 1.1 1.1 0.7 0.0 0.0

EMBRAER-170 9.0 9.7 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0

F28-4000/6000 76.7 10.4 77.2 84.4 1.5 0.0 0.0

JETSTREAM 41 4.6 2.0 0.4 0.7 0.2 0.0 0.0

L-101101/100/200 33.3 112.0 6.2 6.8 5.7 1.3 1.3

LEAR-25 75.2 0.7 7.9 8.4 0.2 0.0 0.0

LOCKHEED L100-30 48.7 9.9 19.6 21.4 1.8 0.0 0.0

MD-11 47.8 93.3 4.0 4.4 6.0 0.7 0.7

MD-80, 1, 2, 3, 7, 8 16.3 20.3 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.2 0.2

MD-90 12.1 23.8 0.2 0.2 2.0 0.2 0.2

RJ-200ER/RJ-440 16.3 4.9 1.5 1.8 0.7 0.0 0.0

SAAB-FAIRCHD 340/B 4.2 1.5 1.5 1.5 0.2 0.0 0.0



### NOTE: Where specific aircraft model data was not available fleet emissions were used. EPA default fleet average emissi on factors were taken from “Documentation for Aircraft, Commercial Marine Vessel, ,Locomotive, and Other Non-road Components of the National Emissions Inventory. 2005, s ee Appendix A, Aircraft Emission Estimation Methodology.” Specific model LTOs were subtracted from county LTO totals to eliminate double counting those LTOs.

Table 5-3 Fleet Emissi on Factor Categories

Fleet emission factors were br oken down into three categories. Itinerant General, Local General, and Military.

Table 5-3a Fleet Average Emission Factor s for Itinerant General Aircraft.

(Taken from : Table A-5)
Pollutant Emission Factors (lbs/LTO)

HC 1.234

NOx 0.158

CO 28.13

SOx 0.015

PM10 0.60333

Note: Air taxi HC emissions * VOC/HC ( 0.9914) conversion factor = air taxi VOC estimate

### 52 Table 5-3b Fleet Average Emission Factor s for Local General Aircraft.

(Taken From: Table A-11)
Pollutant Emission Factors (lbs/LTO)

HC 0.394

NOx 0.065

CO 12.014

SOx 0.01

PM10 0.2367

Note: GA HC emissions * VOC/HC( 0.9708) conversion factor = GA VOC estimate

Table 5-3c Fleet Average Emission Fa ctors for Military Aircraft.

(Taken from: Table A-17)
Pollutant Emission Factors (lbs/LTO

HC 1.234

NOx 0.158

CO 28.13

SOx 0.015

PM10 0.60333

Note: Military HC emissions * VOC/HC( 1.1046) conversion factor = Military VOC estimate

METHODOLOGY

Introduction

The following information was considered in the development of emission estimates:

1. Commercial scheduled and non-scheduled ai rcraft air carrier activity and commercial air freight activity by aircraft model types,

2. General aviation and air taxi annual loca l and itinerant operations for year 2005,

3. Military annual local and iti nerant operations for year 2005.

Due to the need to have aircraft operations in formation expressed as landing/take off (LTO) cycles, the following assumptions were made:

1. For commercial aircraft and commercial ai r freight activity, t he number of annual aircraft annual LTO cycles was assu med to be equal to the number of

### 53 departures. The daily LTO cycle frequency was then obtained by dividing the yearly LTO cycles by 365.

2. For general aircraft annual local and iti nerant airport operations, each respective operations total was divided by 2 to obt ain the corresponding year local and itinerant LTO cycles. The expected daily local and itinerant LTO cycles then were obtained by dividing these annual totals by 365.

3. For military annual local and itinerant operat ions, each respective operations total was divided by 2 to obtain the correspondi ng year local and itinerant LTO cycles. The expected military daily local and iti nerant LTO cycles then were obtained by dividing these annual totals by 365.

Airport LTO cycles were further categoriz ed into commercial aircraft by plane and engine type, general aviation itinerant aircraft of unknown aircraft type, general aviation

local aircraft of unknown aircraft type, and military aircraft. This was necessary in order to utilize the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Av iation Administration EDMS Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System . Commercial and air freight aircraft emission factors per LTO cycle were det ermined using EDMS for each commercial aircraft type models where possible were used at each towered airport. Default commercial aircraft engine type, and Enviro nmental Protection Agency (EPA) default time in mode values for takeoff, approach, and landing roll times were used in the

EDMS model simulations.

For those aircraft types that could not be determined using the EDMS emissions model, aircraft emission factors based upon EPA alter native fleet average procedures were

then used to estimate their emissions. These included general aviation and air taxi itinerant aircraft of unknown aircraft type, general aviation local aircraft of unknown aircraft type, and military aircraft. Conversion from total hydrocarbons to volatile organic compounds was performed and based upon the EPA guidance

.



### APPROACH

1. A list of more than 90% of the airports was obtained fr om the Ohio Department of Transportation. These were classed by airport, county, aircraft flight classification, and the total number of op erations per year.

2. The number of oper ations (a landing or a take off) were then divided by two giving the number of LTOs per year per airport. These airports were combined by county for the total number of LTOs per year, per county.

3. In dialog with ODOT it was determined that the following Ohio flight groups of aircraft be combined to match the three categorie s used by the USEPA in calculating

emissions.

### 54 Itinerant (General, air carrier, commuter, ai r taxi, general aviation itinerant)

Local (General aviation local)

Military (Military)

4. LTOs for specific models of aircraft per airport were ta ken from the FAA Table 7.

See Table 2 above. These were then combined to gi ve the number of LTOs per aircraft model per county. Specific model LTOs were subtracted from county totals to avoid double counting those LTOs.

5. Emission factors were det ermined from the FAA’s EDMS pr ogram for specific aircraft model and engine type. See IV. Emission factors above. The aircraft emission table provided by Michigan has the emission factors for most of the aircraft fl own in Ohio. . Where specific aircraft model data was not available USEPA average fleet emissions

were used.

6. Emission factors times LTOs by count y yielded tons per y ear per county.

Table 5-4 Pollutant by County (Sample)

County POLLUTANT ACTIVITY(LTOS/YEAR) ACTIVITY(LTOS/DAY) EMISSIONS(TON/YEAR)

ADAMS CO 2605 7.136986 24.552325

ADAMS HC 2605 7.136986 0.977285

ADAMS NOX 2605 7.136986 0.136045

ADAMS PM10-PRI 2605 7.136986 0.513114825

ADAMS PM25-PRI 2605 7.136986 0

ADAMS SOX 2605 7.136986 0.0157875

ADAMS VOC 2605 7.136986 0.96314234

ALLEN CO 16250 44.52055 147.945065

ALLEN HC 16250 44.52055 5.841097

ALLEN NOX 16250 44.52055 0.827189

ALLEN PM10-PRI 16250 44.52055 3.081191265

ALLEN PM25-PRI 16250 44.52055 0

ALLEN SOX 16250 44.52055 0.0984575

ALLEN VOC 16250 44.52055 5.769568254

ASHLAND CO 24620 67.45205 173.67794

ASHLAND HC 24620 67.45205 6.19414

ASHLAND NOX 24620 67.45205 0.94895

ASHLAND PM10-PRI 24620 67.45205 3.532515

ASHLAND PM25-PRI 24620 67.45205 0

ASHLAND SOX 24620 67.45205 0.1311

ASHLAND VOC 24620 67.45205 6.07175247

ASHTABULA CO 8863 24.28219 78.115087

ASHTABULA HC 8863 24.28219 3.042551

ASHTABULA NOX 8863 24.28219 0.431593

### 55 ASHTABULA PM10-PRI 8863 24.28219 1.623493455

ASHTABULA PM25-PRI 8863 24.28219 0

ASHTABULA SOX 8863 24.28219 0.0520325

ASHTABULA VOC 8863 24.28219 2.99420213

ATHENS CO 25800 70.68493 196.874985

ATHENS HC 25800 70.68493 7.267183

ATHENS NOX 25800 70.68493 1.081521

ATHENS PM10-PRI 25800 70.68493 4.037266335

ATHENS PM25-PRI 25800 70.68493 0

ATHENS SOX 25800 70.68493 0.1420925

ATHENS VOC 25800 70.68493 7.128180006



### 7. Emissions were then summed by pollut ants in each county by SCC aircraft category type so data could be provided to LADCO in the EPA prescribed NEI – NIF format.

DATA ERROR

The first aircraft emission inventory submitt ed to LADCO in April, 2007 contained an error. The inventory submitted in May, 2007 has the error corrected. The error was the result of a carry-over func tion in Access that picked up the number of operations as

instead of LTOs....which made the in ventory exactly twice as lar ge as what it really was.

ACCESS CALCULATOR

Introduction:

Our database programmer set up Access applic ation to calculate Ohio’s aircraft emission inventory, and export those results to Excel. His utility allows for easy

modification of the aircraft data to match futu re data scenarios. Ou tput to Excel also

allows for additional data manipulation and importation.

### 56 Interface:

Through this interface the following sets of data can be edited/updated: Airport activity, emission factors, specific airport emissi ons, state/county FIPS, detailed aircraft information, airport informati on, and aircraft SCCs. Once the final emissions have been calculated and summed, then the data can be expo rt via the export function on the Main

Menu

.

# A TTACHMENT 

# C

# C ENTRAL 

# O HIO 

# O N



# - R OAD 

# M OBILE 

# E MISSION 

# E STIMATES


# P REPARED FOR


# O HIO 

# E NVIRONMENTAL 

# P ROTECTION 

# A GENCY 

# C ENTRAL 

# O HIO 

# R E



# - DESIGNATION 

# R EQUEST FOR THE



# PM 2. 5 S TANDARD



# Franklin, Delaware, Licking, Fairfield, and Coshocton

(Franklin Twp) County Areas

M AY 

### , 2011

Mid

- Ohio Regional Planning Commission 111 Liberty Street
Columbus, Ohio 43215

614

- 228

- 2663

www.morpc.orgCentral Ohio On

- Road Mobile Emission Estimates May , 20 11 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUN D

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

1.1 I NTRODUCTION

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

1.2 B ACKGROUND

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

1.3 G EOGRAPHIC A REA OF A N ALYSIS

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

2.0 QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS

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

2.1 A NALYSIS Y EARS

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

2.2 G ENERAL M ETHODOLOGY

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

2.3 T RAVEL D EMAND M ODEL

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

2.3.1 I NDEPENDENT V ARIABLES

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

2.3.2 M ODEL N ETWORKS

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

2.3.3 L OADED H IGHWAY N ETWORKS

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

2.3.4 I NTRA Z ONAL T RIPS

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

2.4 E MISSION F ACTOR G ENERATION

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

2.5.1 A REAS WITH R EGIONAL M ODEL

................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 22

2.5.2 A REAS WITHOUT R EGIONAL M ODEL

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 24

3.0 SUMMARY OF R ESULTS

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 25

3.1.1 A REAS WITHIN T HE R EGIONAL T RAVEL D EMAND M ODEL

................................ ................................ ................. 25

3.1.2 A REA PARTIALLY WITHIN T HE R EGIONAL T RAVEL D EMAND M ODEL

................................ ................................ . 26

3.1.3 A REA OUTSIDE R EGIONAL T RAVEL D EMAND M ODEL

................................ ................................ ........................ 27

3.2 E MISSIONS S UMMARY FOR THE C OLUMBUS PM 2.5 NON

- ATTAINMENT A REA

................................ .................... 27

APPENDIX

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 29Central Ohio On

- Road Mobile Emission Estimates May , 20 11 iii LIST OF TABLE S

T ABLE 1

– MOVES I NPUTS

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

T ABLE 2

– T EMPERATURE AND R ELATIVE H UMIDITY D ATA

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

T ABLE 3

– R AMP F RACTIONS

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

T ABLE 4

– S OURCE T YPE P OPULATION FOR YEAR 2005

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

T ABLE 5

– V E HICLE A GE D ISTRIBUTION

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

T ABLE 6

– R OAD T YPE D ISTRIBUTION

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

T ABLE 7

– Y EARLY HPMS VMT FOR 2005

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

T ABLE 8

– H OURLY VMT F RACTIONS

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

T A BLE 9

– S AMPLE E MISSION F ILE (R ATE PER D ISTANCE ) FOR YEAR 2005

................................ ................................ .. 21

T ABLE 10

– S AMPLE E MISSION F ILE (R ATE PER V EHICLE ) FOR YEAR 2005

................................ ................................ .. 21

T ABLE 11: E MISSION E STIMATIONS FOR O N

- R OAD M OBILE S OURCES

- F RANKLIN C OUNTY

................................ ....... 25

T ABLE 12: E MISSION E STIMATIONS FOR O N

- R OAD M OBILE S OURCES

- D ELAWARE C OUNTY

................................ ..... 25

T ABLE 13: E MISSION E STIMATIONS FOR O N

- R OAD M OBILE S OURCES

- L ICKING C OUNTY

................................ .......... 25

T ABLE 14 A : E MISSION E STIMATIONS FOR F AIRFIELD C OUNTY WITHIN THE T RAVEL D EMAND M ODEL A REA

.............. 26

T ABLE 14 B : E MISSION E STIMATIONS FOR F AIRFIELD C OUNTY OUTSIDE OF THE T RAVEL D EMAND M ODEL A REA

- USING

HPMS DATA

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 26

T ABLE 14 C : E MISSION E STIMATIONS FOR F AIRFIELD C OUNTY

- SUM OF EMISSIONS FRO M BOTH THE T RAVEL D EMAND

M ODEL AREA AS WELL AS THE HPMS AREA

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 26

T ABLE 15: E MISSION E STIMATIONS FOR F RANKLIN T WP IN C OSHOCTON C OUNTY

– USING ONLY HPMS

.................... 27

T ABLE 16: PM 2.5 E MISSION I NVENTORY S UMMARY

- B ASE Y EAR 2005, A TTAINMENT YEAR 2008, I NTERIM (B UDGET ) YEAR 2015, MAINTENANCE YEAR 2022, AND TP LAN H ORIZON Y EAR 2035 ( TONS / YEAR )

.................. 27

T ABLE 17: NO X E MISSION I NVENTORY S UMMARY

- B ASE Y EAR 2005, A TTAINMENT YEAR 2008, I NTERIM (B UDGET )

YEAR 2015, MAINTENANCE YEAR 2022, AND TP LAN H ORIZON Y EAR 2035 ( TONS / YEAR )

................................ ... 28

T ABLE 18: SO 2 E MISSION I NVENTORY S UM MARY

- B ASE Y EAR 2005, A TTAINMENT YEAR 2008, I NTERIM (B UDGET )

YEAR 2015, MAINTENANCE YEAR 2022, AND TP LAN H ORIZON Y EAR 2035 ( TONS / YEAR )

................................ ... 28

LIST OF FIGURES

F IGURE 1: C OLUMBUS / N EWARK P M2.5 N ONATTAINMENT A REA

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

F IGURE 2: P OPULATION G ROWTH

– MORPC/LCATS M ODEL A REA

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

F IGURE 3: E MPLOYMENT G ROWTH

– MORPC/LCATS M ODEL A REA

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

F IGURE 4: V EHICLE T RIPS ( PER D AY ) GROWTH

– MORPC/LCATS M ODEL A REA

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

F IGURE 5: VMT (V EHICLE M ILES OF T RAVEL ) GROWTH

– MORPC/LCATS M ODEL A REA

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

30Central Ohio On

- Road Mobile Emission Estimates May , 20 11 1 

## 1.0 Introduction & Backgroun d

1.1 Intro duction

This Report documents the on

- road mobile emission estimates for the Columbus and Central Ohio area, in conjunction with th e Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA ) State Implementation Plan (SIP ) Central Ohio re

- designation request requirement for the PM2.5

standards. The criteria pollutants analyzed are PM 2.5 (fine particulate matter present in air),

NOx (Oxides of Nitrogen), and SO2 (Sulphur dioxide). T his report presents the summary of on

road mobile emissions for the analysis years of 200 5, 2008 , 20 15 & 20 2 2 of PM 2.5

, NOx and

SO2 criteria pollutant s

. In addition year 2035 estimates are provided as it will be the horizon year for the next Transportation Plan update. The emissions documented here are the

emissions due to on

- road vehicles for the counties in the nonattainment area of Central Ohio. EPA’s Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) 2010 model was used to generate the

vehicle emission rates. The methodologies in computing emissions and forecasting models

used are also summarized in this repor t

.



### 1.2 Background

The nonattainment areas for the 1997 PM 2.5 (annual fine particulate) NAAQS (national ambient air quality standards) were designated in the January, 2005 Federal Register [70 FR 944], effective April 2005

. As a result of the PM 2.5 standard, Franklin, Delaware, Licking and Fairfield counties and Franklin Township in Coshocton County were designated nonattainment for PM 2.5 under the annual standard. The CAAA defines nonattainment areas as geographic regions of the coun try that do not meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). In nonattainment areas, air quality implementation plans must be developed that identify strategies and programs that nonattainment areas will implement to provide the emission

reduct ions needed for the areas to meet the NAAQS. In Ohio, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) is the lead agency for coordinating development of the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP includes actions done on a statewide basis as well a s actions done within each specific nonattainment area of the state to achieve the air quality

standards. Currently the annual standard for PM 2.5 is 15.0 μ g/m 3 and

, the 24

- hour standard

for PM 2.5 is 35 μ g/m 3

.

A n updated model for estimating emissions w as released in 2010 , by EPA called the Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) 2010 model

. The Federal Register includes EPA’s announcement of the approval and availability of MOVES2010 for SIPs and regional emissions analyses in all states except Califo rnia.

PM2.5 Nonattainment Area Designation April 14, 2005, U.S. EPA issued final designations with regard to the PM2.5 standard. Franklin, Delaware, Licking, Fairfield C ounties and Franklin Twp in Coshocton County were designated

as a non

- attainment are a for the annual PM2.5 standard.Central Ohio On

- Road Mobile Emission Estimates May , 20 11 2 

### 1.3 Geographic Area of Analysis

The PM2.5 non

- attainment area is illustrated in Figure 1 as the shaded area. The non

attainment area is divided into a modeled area comprised of Franklin, Delaware and Licking C ounti es and part of Fairfield County, and into the donut area which includes the remainder of Fairfield County, and Franklin Twp in Coshocton County, as shown in Figure 2. The model coverage area will use the post

- processors link

- level procedures to compute the emissions, while the non

- modeled donut areas will utilize the ODOT HPMS county level VMT by functional class data.

F IGURE 1 : C OLUMBUS / N EWARK PM2.5 N ONATTAINMENT A REACentral Ohio On

- Road Mobile Emission Estimates May , 20 11 3 

## 2.0 QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS

The methodologies used and background information for estimating on

- road mobile emissions

are discussed in the following sections for the PM 2.5 non

- attainment area

.



### 2.1 Analysis Years

Year 200 5 is the base year of analysis

. 200 8 is an attainment year, being one of the clean air quality data monitori ng years of 2006, 2007 & 2008, showing attainment of the Annual PM2.5

standard

. Year 20 1 5 is an interim analysis year

, and 20 2 2 is final maintenance budget year , as USEPA requires data 10 years beyond approval of redesignation

. Year 2035 a horizon year

ana lysis in included in this report. Thus, the years 200 5 , 200 8

, 201 5

, 20 2 2 , 2035 were used for

the on

- road mobile emissions estimates

.



### 2. 2 General Methodology

Evaluating emissions for current as well as future years requires several data inputs

, discuss ed

in the following sections . A mong these

, vehicle travel characteristics data can be obtained from regionally maintained travel demand model. Travel demand model provides daily traffic volumes, congested travel times, speeds, v/c (volume to capacity rati os), VMT (vehicle miles traveled), VHT (vehicle hours traveled) among other travel characteristics data used in evaluating emissions in this report. Areas that are not within the regional travel demand model boundary utilized HPMS (Highway Performance Mon itoring Systems) based travel

characteristics data. Thus , the travel demand model is used in evaluating emissions for

Franklin C ounty, Delaware C ounty, and Licking C ounty. Both the travel demand model as well

as HPMS is used in evaluating emissions for F airfield C ounty. HPMS only is used for the Franklin Township in Coshocton C ounty , in evaluating emissions. Each of the aforementioned process is detailed further in sections 2.5.1 and 2.5.2.



### 2.3 Travel Demand Model

For these analyses the latest plan ning assumptions available for the Central Ohio area were used. For the travel demand model, model validation is a joint process between MORPC, LCATS and the ODOT Office of Technical Services. In December 2004, a new complete validated model was accepted and installed for use at MORPC. The new model covers all of the MORPC and LCATS area including portions of Pickaway, Madison and Union Counties along with additional portions of Fairfield County outside of the MORPC MPO area. Further, MORPC continuously updates the highway and transit network information and maintains accurate networks for future year analysis. A validation of the model to 2005 traffic countdata was completed in 2009. The model is a multi

- step tour

- based model, incorporating more

advanc ed simulation methods than compared to traditional four step model. Thus

, model inputs were tested for quality control and quality assurance. Forecasted variables such as population, employment, traffic counts, roadway network, etc. were developed by MOR PC in coordination

with LCATS and used for the analysis.

Due to the advance simulation methods incorporated, there is some variation in model results from one complete model run to another with all of the same input data. MORPC performed a

check on this variability with regard to on

- road mobile emission estimates. The emission

estimates for several model runs were calculated. The variation in the emission estimates wereCentral Ohio On

- Road Mobile Emission Estimates May , 20 11 4 less than one

- tenth of one percent (0.1%) . Thus it was determined that the variabilit y due to the

simulation is insignificant.

2. 3

. 1 Independent Variables

Independent variables (land use/socio

- economic data) were developed as well as interpolated for intermediate years of analysis

. T rip tables for the analysis years 200 5

, 200 8 , 20 1 5

, 20 2 2

and 203 5 were developed. MORPC continually monitors land use, population and employment information. MORPC performs complete land use inventories every five years. The complete documentation of the process and future forecasts is provided in 2008

- 2 030 Transportation Plans completed in May 2008 by MOPRC and LCATS

.

Figure 2 illustrates population growth trends for the travel demand model area, indicating a growth in population of 1. 6 million from year 200 5 to 2

. 1 million in the year 20 3 5 , with

popu lation estimates of 1. 65 , and 1. 79 million in the years 200 8

, and 2015 respectively.

Figure 3 illustrates employment growth trends for the travel demand model area, indicating a growth in employment of 851,000 from year 200 5 to 1, 283 ,000 in year 20 3 5 , wit h employment

of 875 ,000 in year 200 8

, and an estimated employment of 940 ,000 in the year 20 1 5.

2. 3

. 2 Model Networks

MORPC staff in conjunction with LCATS and ODOT continuously u pdate the model networks to accurately reflect projects in the current TIP and Long Range Plan. The model networks developed for this emission estimates were for the analysis years 200 5 , 20 08 , 20 15

, 2022 and

20 3 5

.

Figure 4 illustrates typical daily vehicle trips growth trends for the travel demand model area, indicating a gro wth of 4

. 7 million daily vehicle trips from year 200 5 to 6. 9 million daily vehicle trips in year 20 3 5 , with 5

. 0 , and 5. 5 daily million vehicle trips in the years 200 8

, and 20 15 respectively.

Figure 5 illustrates VMT (vehicle miles of travel) growth trends for the travel demand model

area, indicating a growth of 43

. 1 million daily VMT from year 200 5 to 6 9

. 0 million daily VMT in year 20 3 5 , with 4 7

. 0

, and 5 2

. 9 million daily VMT in the years 200 8

, and 20 1 5 respectively.Central Ohio On

- Road Mobile Emission Estimates May , 20 11 5 F IGURE 2 : P OPULATION G ROWT H

– MORPC/LCATS M ODEL A REA

F IGURE 3 : E MPLOYMENT G ROWTH

– MORPC/LCATS M ODEL A REACentral Ohio On

- Road Mobile Emission Estimates May , 20 11 6 F IGURE 4 : V EHICLE T RIPS ( PER D AY ) GROWTH

– MORPC/LCATS M ODEL A REA

F IGURE 5 : VMT (V EHICLE M ILES OF T RAVEL ) GROWTH

– MORPC/LCATS M ODEL A REACentral Ohio On

- Road Mobile Emission Estimates May , 20 11 7 2. 3

. 3 Loaded Highway Net works

Trip assignment was run for 200 5, 2008, 2015, 2022 and 203 5 using CUBE. Land use data inputs for corresponding networks were developed. The assignments produced a loaded highway network for each analysis year. These loaded network files includes t otal volume for

each link in the network. Programming scripts in CUBE (a model software), illustrated in Appendix A, incorporate ODOT’s CMAQ process , discussed in more detail in Section 2.5.1

. The loaded highway network for each year was split into separ ate files for each county. Each county network was run independently through the CMAQ process for each analysis year

, which combined the volumes and emission factors for computing VOC and NOx emissions for the entire county

.

2. 3

. 4 IntraZonal Trips

Intr azonal trips are the trips that are generated within a traffic analysis zone (TAZ) , that use

local roads

. Intrazonal trips do not get loaded onto the highway network s so Cube/Voyager emission calculation script requires a separate input file to account fo r these trips. Input files

for evaluating intrazonal emissions are intrazonal trips file, intrazonal area file, and intrazonal

emission s factor file . T hese input files for the areas within the travel demand model area are

for Franklin C ounty , Licking C ou nty

, Delaware C ounty , as well as for partial areas of Fairfield

C ounty

. The intrazonal trips were extracted from the trip tables using a post

- processor Cube/Voyager script.

2.4 Emission Factor Generation

Base and Attainment Years

Using MOVES, emiss ion factor files were generated for base year

- 2005 and attainment year

2008 to represent the programs being implemented in the r egion. Programs and corresponding MOVES parameters were developed in consultation with OEPA.

Future Years

Emission factors were also generated for two future year scenarios: 2015 and 2022. All assumptions are the same as those used to generate 2005 emission factors and are further illustrated in this section using year 2005 as an example.

Technical Details

Table 1 summarize s the settings used in the MOVES run specification file and the MOVES County

- Data Manager. Further details in specific inputs that are not using default values are provided below.Central Ohio On

- Road Mobile Emission Estimates May , 20 11 8 

### Table 1

– MOVES Inputs

RunSpec Parameter Settings

MOVES Version 2010/ 08/26

Scale Custom Domain
MOVES Modeling Technique Emission Factor Method Rates per Distance Rates per Vehicle Time Span Time Aggregation: Hour 1 Month representing average annual temperatures All hours of day selected 16 speed bins Weekdays only Geogr aphic Bounds Franklin

, Delaware, Licking, Fairfield Cou nties , and Franklin Township in Coshocton County. Vehicles/Equipment All source types, gasoline and diesel
Road Type All road types including off

- network

Pollutants and Processes NO

x , All PM 2.5 cat egories, SO 2 , Total Energy Consumption
Strategies None
General Output Units = grams, joules and miles
Output Emissions Time = hour, Location = custom area, on

- road emission rates by road type and source use type.

Advance Performance None

County Data Manager Sources

Source Type Population Combination of local and default data Local data (2010) ODOT from motor vehicle registration Default data used for source types 41, 51, 54, 61, and 62 Future year growth rate based on MPO model Household growth rate

. Vehicle Type VMT Combination of local and default data HPMSVTypeYear VMT = daily VMT from travel demand

model

monthVMTFraction = default dayVMTFraction=default

hourVMTFraction=local I/M Program None

Fuel Formulation Default
Fuel Supply Default

Futur e runs will be modified for reformulated gas, RVP, etc. for summer analyses Metereology Data Local data obtained from NOAA National Climatic Data Center. Data will consist of monthly high and low temperatures and daily relative humidity for 2002. Ramp F raction Using the base year travel demand model for VHT fractions.

Future fractions will be assumed constant Road Type Distribution Use ODOT county summary VMT categorized by federal

functional classes Age Distribution Combination of local and default d ata. Local data (2010) ODOT from motor vehicle registrationCentral Ohio On

- Road Mobile Emission Estimates May , 20 11 9 Default data used for source types 41, 51, 54, 61, and 62 The same age distribution will be used for all analysis years Average Speed Distribution Default
Alternative Fuel Type DefaultCentral Ohio On

- Road Mobile Emission Estimates May , 20 11 10 

### Temper ature and Relative Humidity

Temperatures used for the single season approach are representative of 12 months in

2002 based on NOAA data from the National Climate Data Center web si te. Data for Port Columbus International Airport was used because it was th e most complete compared to other airports in the non

- attainment area. To get the correct fo r mat for MOVES, the data was entered into a spreadsheet provided by EPA which was designed to convert Mobile6 data to MOVES. An average annual hourly temperature

a nd relative humidity distribution profile can be seen in Table 2

.

Table 2

– Temperature and Relative Humidity Data

Hour Average

Temperature Average Relative Humidity

1 48.9 73.0

2 47.8 75.0

3 46.9 77.0

4 46.2 80.0

5 45.7 81.0

6 45.1 81.0

7 44.6 80. 0

8 45.0 77.0

9 47.5 73.0

10 51.5 67.0

11 55.6 64.0

12 59.1 61.0

13 62.2 57.0

14 63.9 56.0

15 64.4 53.0

16 64.6 53.0

17 64.2 54.0

18 63.0 55.0

19 61.0 57.0

20 58.4 63.0

21 55.9 67.0

22 53.6 70.0

23 52.0 72.0

24 50.4 75.0



### Ramp Fraction

Ra mp fractions were derived using the base year travel demand model VHT fractions. Ramp fractions can be seen in Table 3 . Base year fractions were assumed to apply to future years.

Table 3

– Ramp Fractions

R oadTypeID R oad Desc ription R amp Fraction

2 Rural Restricted Access 0.0 2

4 Urban Restricted Access 0.1 3Central Ohio On

- Road Mobile Emission Estimates May , 20 11 11 

### Source Type Population Source type population is based on a combination of local and MOVES default data. Local data was provided by ODOT based on 2010 motor vehicle registration. Default

data is u sed for source types 41, 51, 54, 61, and 62. Future year growth rate is based

on MPO model growth in cars which is an independent variable to the travel demand

model. Table 4 shows source type population for the analyzed counties in 2005.

Table 4

– Sour ce Type Population for year 2005

Source Type

ID sourceTypeName Franklin

Delaware Licking Fairfield

11 MotorCycle 54,404 6,766 8,866 2,408

21 Passenger Car 865,890 95,682 126,434 35,373

31 Passenger Truck 378,217 44,111 57,889 16,305

32 Light Commercia l Truck 11,382 1,328 1,742 491

41 Intercity Bus 290 65 82 23

42 Transit Bus 78 18 22 6

43 School Bus 1,557 351 439 124

51 Refuse truck 225 38 48 13

52 Single Unit Short

- haul Truck 202 34 43 12

53 Single Unit Long

- haul Truck 261 43 56 15

54 Motor Hom e 1,085 181 231 64

61 Comb Short

- haul Truck 3,098 643 892 152

62 Comb Long

- haul Truck 3,562 739 1,025 175



### Vehicle Age Distribution Vehicle age distribution information was derived using Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicle registration data for year 2010. T he data was given to OEPA who supplied a VIN decoder that allowed ODOT to create correctly formatted MOVES inputs. MOVES default data is used for source types 41, 51, 54, 61, and 62. The registration data for

all three counties in the non

- attainment area were combined to create a regional vehicle age distribution file, see Table 5 . The same age distribution will be used for all analysis

yearsCentral Ohio On

- Road Mobile Emission Estimates May , 20 11 12 

### Table 5

– Vehicle Age Distribution

Year

ID Source Type ID Age

ID Age

Fraction Source

Type ID Age

ID Age

Fracti on Source

Type ID Age

ID Age

Fraction

2005 11 0 0.0017 21 8 0.0599 31 16 0.0300

2005 11 1 0.0228 21 9 0.0580 31 17 0.0256

2005 11 2 0.0552 21 10 0.0634 31 18 0.0157

2005 11 3 0.0765 21 11 0.0615 31 19 0.0118

2005 11 4 0.0864 21 12 0.0562 31 20 0.0084

2005 11 5 0.0820 21 13 0.0527 31 21 0.0077

2005 11 6 0.0664 21 14 0.0460 31 22 0.0062

2005 11 7 0.0839 21 15 0.0465 31 23 0.0048

2005 11 8 0.0584 21 16 0.0383 31 24 0.0031

2005 11 9 0.0540 21 17 0.0318 31 25 0.0024

2005 11 10 0.0 442 21 18 0.0269 31 26 0.0015

2005 11 11 0.0333 21 19 0.0209 31 27 0.0009

2005 11 12 0.0260 21 20 0.0162 31 28 0.0005

2005 11 13 0.0204 21 21 0.0127 31 29 0.0003

2005 11 14 0.0195 21 22 0.0092 31 30 0.0037

2005 11 15 0.0188 21 23 0.0069 32 0 0.0059

2005 11 16 0.0153 21 24 0.0057 32 1 0.0452

2005 11 17 0.0128 21 25 0.0042 32 2 0.1089

2005 11 18 0.0091 21 26 0.0031 32 3 0.0740

2005 11 19 0.0085 21 27 0.0017 32 4 0.0699

2005 11 20 0.0078 21 28 0.0011 32 5 0.0388

2005 11 21 0.00 78 21 29 0.0010 32 6 0.0331

2005 11 22 0.0074 21 30 0.0321 32 7 0.0376

2005 11 23 0.0106 31 0 0.0071 32 8 0.0370

2005 11 24 0.0156 31 1 0.0277 32 9 0.0441

2005 11 25 0.0144 31 2 0.0494 32 10 0.0557

2005 11 26 0.0126 31 3 0.0584 32 11 0.055 7

2005 11 27 0.0163 31 4 0.0676 32 12 0.0472

2005 11 28 0.0237 31 5 0.0828 32 13 0.0456

2005 11 29 0.0163 31 6 0.0800 32 14 0.0385

2005 11 30 0.0723 31 7 0.0727 32 15 0.0609

2005 21 0 0.0075 31 8 0.0752 32 16 0.0476

2005 21 1 0.0279 31 9 0 .0613 32 17 0.0340

2005 21 2 0.0396 31 10 0.0647 32 18 0.0273

2005 21 3 0.0489 31 11 0.0622 32 19 0.0155

2005 21 4 0.0508 31 12 0.0515 32 20 0.0156

2005 21 5 0.0537 31 13 0.0433 32 21 0.0156

2005 21 6 0.0561 31 14 0.0373 32 22 0.0118

2005 21 7 0.0595 31 15 0.0362 32 23 0.0095Central Ohio On

- Road Mobile Emission Estimates May , 20 11 13 Year

ID Source Type ID Age

ID Age

Fraction Source

Type ID Age

ID Age

Fracti on Source

Type ID Age

ID Age

Fraction

2005 32 24 0.0045 42 2 0.0592 43 11 0.0557

2005 32 25 0.0057 42 3 0.0592 43 12 0.0843

2005 32 26 0.0044 42 4 0.0592 43 13 0.0484

2005 32 27 0.0019 42 5 0.0395 43 14 0.0178

2005 32 28 0.0010 42 6 0.0724 43 15 0.0192

2005 32 29 0.0007 42 7 0.0461 43 16 0.0129

2005 32 30 0.0068 42 8 0.0592 43 17 0.0132

2005 41 0 0.0013 42 9 0.0855 43 18 0.0181

2005 41 1 0.0344 42 10 0.0592 43 19 0.0213

2005 41 2 0.0607 42 11 0.1316 43 20 0.0139

2005 41 3 0. 0837 42 12 0.0395 43 21 0.0087

2005 41 4 0.1005 42 13 0.0329 43 22 0.0077

2005 41 5 0.0870 42 14 0.0263 43 23 0.0087

2005 41 6 0.0972 42 15 0.0395 43 24 0.0056

2005 41 7 0.0607 42 16 0.0461 43 25 0.0066

2005 41 8 0.0742 42 17 0.0132 43 26 0.0049

2005 41 9 0.0472 42 18 0.0197 43 27 0.0024

2005 41 10 0.0466 42 19 0.0197 43 28 0.0017

2005 41 11 0.0614 42 20 0.0000 43 29 0.0038

2005 41 12 0.0290 42 21 0.0132 43 30 0.0064

2005 41 13 0.0263 42 22 0.0066 51 0 0.0097

2005 41 14 0.01 89 42 23 0.0132 51 1 0.0290

2005 41 15 0.0162 42 24 0.0000 51 2 0.0258

2005 41 16 0.0229 42 25 0.0329 51 3 0.0839

2005 41 17 0.0142 42 26 0.0000 51 4 0.0968

2005 41 18 0.0081 42 27 0.0129 51 5 0.0226

2005 41 19 0.0175 42 28 0.0000 51 6 0.0 677

2005 41 20 0.0101 42 29 0.0000 51 7 0.0774

2005 41 21 0.0101 42 30 0.0000 51 8 0.0419

2005 41 22 0.0121 43 0 0.0561 51 9 0.0323

2005 41 23 0.0094 43 1 0.0411 51 10 0.0710

2005 41 24 0.0061 43 2 0.0491 51 11 0.0710

2005 41 25 0.0034 43 3 0.0655 51 12 0.0613

2005 41 26 0.0081 43 4 0.0564 51 13 0.0516

2005 41 27 0.0020 43 5 0.0516 51 14 0.0387

2005 41 28 0.0000 43 6 0.0627 51 15 0.0419

2005 41 29 0.0034 43 7 0.0537 51 16 0.0355

2005 41 30 0.0273 43 8 0.0666 51 17 0.0161

20 05 42 0 0.0000 43 9 0.0603 51 18 0.0258

2005 42 1 0.0132 43 10 0.0756 51 19 0.0129Central Ohio On

- Road Mobile Emission Estimates May , 20 11 14 Year

ID Source Type ID Age

ID Age

Fraction Source

Type ID Age

ID Age

Fracti on Source

Type ID Age

ID Age

Fraction

2005 51 20 0.0000 52 29 0.0032 54 7 0.0450

2005 51 21 0.0032 52 30 0.0484 54 8 0.0417

2005 51 22 0.0065 53 0 0.0097 54 9 0.0414

2005 51 23 0.0032 53 1 0.0290 54 10 0.0524

2005 51 24 0.0032 53 2 0.0258 54 11 0.0482

2005 51 25 0.0065 53 3 0.0839 54 12 0.0409

2005 51 26 0.0032 53 4 0.0968 54 13 0.0334

2005 51 27 0.0000 53 5 0.0226 54 14 0.0356

2005 51 28 0.0097 53 6 0.0677 54 15 0.0315

2005 51 29 0.0032 53 7 0.0774 54 16 0.0285

2005 51 30 0.0484 53 8 0.0419 54 17 0.0254

2005 52 0 0.0097 53 9 0.0323 54 18 0.0197

2005 52 1 0.0290 53 10 0.0710 54 19 0.0177

2005 52 2 0.0258 53 11 0.0710 54 20 0.0180

2005 52 3 0.0839 53 12 0.0613 54 21 0.0263

2005 52 4 0.0968 53 13 0.0516 54 22 0.0243

2005 52 5 0.0226 53 14 0.0387 54 23 0.0230

2005 52 6 0.0677 53 15 0.0419 54 24 0.0166

2005 52 7 0.0774 53 16 0.0355 54 25 0.0193

2005 52 8 0.0419 53 17 0.0161 54 26 0.0208

2005 52 9 0.0323 53 18 0.0258 54 27 0.0130

2005 52 10 0.0710 53 19 0.0129 54 28 0.0089

2005 52 11 0.0710 53 20 0.0000 54 29 0.0074

2005 52 12 0.0613 53 21 0.0032 54 30 0.1404

2005 52 13 0.0516 53 22 0.0065 61 0 0.0021

2005 52 14 0.0387 53 23 0.0032 61 1 0. 0135

2005 52 15 0.0419 53 24 0.0032 61 2 0.0306

2005 52 16 0.0355 53 25 0.0065 61 3 0.0385

2005 52 17 0.0161 53 26 0.0032 61 4 0.0509

2005 52 18 0.0258 53 27 0.0000 61 5 0.0527

2005 52 19 0.0129 53 28 0.0097 61 6 0.0590

2005 52 20 0.0000 5 3 29 0.0032 61 7 0.0584

2005 52 21 0.0032 53 30 0.0484 61 8 0.0571

2005 52 22 0.0065 54 0 0.0051 61 9 0.0551

2005 52 23 0.0032 54 1 0.0130 61 10 0.0628

2005 52 24 0.0032 54 2 0.0257 61 11 0.0608

2005 52 25 0.0065 54 3 0.0382 61 12 0.0501

2 005 52 26 0.0032 54 4 0.0413 61 13 0.0542

2005 52 27 0.0000 54 5 0.0472 61 14 0.0390

2005 52 28 0.0097 54 6 0.0501 61 15 0.0435Central Ohio On

- Road Mobile Emission Estimates May , 20 11 15 Year

ID Source Type ID Age

ID Age

Fraction Source

Type ID Age

ID Age

Fracti on Source

Type ID Age

ID Age

Fraction

2005 61 16 0.0430 62 1 0.0485 62 17 0.0079

2005 61 17 0.0314 62 2 0.0193 62 18 0.0039

2005 61 18 0.0269 62 3 0.1 651 62 19 0.0026

2005 61 19 0.0228 62 4 0.0912 62 20 0.0032

2005 61 20 0.0192 62 5 0.1263 62 21 0.0034

2005 61 21 0.0217 62 6 0.0858 62 22 0.0027

2005 61 22 0.0203 62 7 0.0529 62 23 0.0013

2005 61 23 0.0144 62 8 0.0286 62 24 0.0008

2005 61 24 0.0135 62 9 0.0663 62 25 0.0008

2005 61 25 0.0099 62 10 0.1102 62 26 0.0006

2005 61 26 0.0069 62 11 0.0600 62 27 0.0002

2005 61 27 0.0036 62 12 0.0353 62 28 0.0001

2005 61 28 0.0032 62 13 0.0186 62 29 0.0003

2005 61 29 0.0028 62 14 0.01 96 62 30 0.0001

2005 61 30 0.0321 62 15 0.0208

2005 62 0 0.0076 62 16 0.0160

2005Central Ohio On

- Road Mobile Emission Estimates May , 20 11 16 

### Road Type Distribution

Road type distribution is based on the 2008 ODOT, county summary, HPMS VMT data categorized by federal functional class f or the four county non

- attainment area. Road type distribution can be seen in Table 6

.

Table 6

– Road Type Distribution

Source Type ID Road

Type ID Road Type VMT

Fraction Source Type

ID Road

Type ID Road Type VMT

Fraction

11 1 0 43 4 0.37

11 2 0.05 4 3 5 0.46

11 3 0.12 51 1 0

11 4 0.37 51 2 0.05

11 5 0.46 51 3 0.12

21 1 0 51 4 0.37

21 2 0.05 51 5 0.46

21 3 0.12 52 1 0

21 4 0.37 52 2 0.05

21 5 0.46 52 3 0.12

31 1 0 52 4 0.37

31 2 0.05 52 5 0.46

31 3 0.12 53 1 0

31 4 0.37 53 2 0.0 5

31 5 0.46 53 3 0.12

32 1 0 53 4 0.37

32 2 0.05 53 5 0.46

32 3 0.12 54 1 0

32 4 0.37 54 2 0.05

32 5 0.46 54 3 0.12

41 1 0 54 4 0.37

41 2 0.05 54 5 0.46

41 3 0.12 61 1 0

41 4 0.37 61 2 0.05

41 5 0.46 61 3 0.12

42 1 0 61 4 0.37

42 2 0.05 61 5 0.46

42 3 0.12 62 1 0

42 4 0.37 62 2 0.05

42 5 0.46 62 3 0.12

43 1 0 62 4 0.37

43 2 0.05 62 5 0.46

43 3 0.12Central Ohio On

- Road Mobile Emission Estimates May , 20 11 17 

### Vehicle Type VMT and VMT Fractions

The first component of the VMT inputs is the Yearly HPMS VMT, but the travel deman d

model was used instead of ODOT’s HMPS data since it was felt that the model would better predict future year VMT. ODOT’s CMS post

- processor was run for each year to generate congestion reports, which includes total daily VMT. The vehicle type percentag es of the total VMT were based on ODOT’s weigh

- in

- motion (WIM) data. Since there are not enough WIM stations for lower class facil i ties in the non

- attainment area, a statewide average of all ODOT WIM data collectors was used. Daily VMT was

then converted to yearly. Yearly HPMS VMT for 2005 can be seen in Table 7 . The same method was to generate all other analysis years

Table 7

– Yearly HPMS VMT for 2005

HPMS VtypeID Year ID HPMS BaseYear VMT

10 2005 63,454,924

20 2005 11,316,685,100

30 2005 3,491,73 8,286

40 2005 35,690,214

50 2005 263,842,234

60 2005 626,409,929



### Monthly and daily VMT fractions used MOVES default data. The hourly VMT fractions were derived from ODOT WIM data. Hourly VMT fractions vary for each of the five MOVES road types but do not change for each of the 16 MOVES source types. A representative sample of the hour VMT fraction input file can be seen in Table 8 , the entire file is too large to include in this document.

Table 8

– Hourly VMT Fractions

S ource TypeID R oad

TypeID D a yID H ourID H our VMTFraction

11 1 2 1 0.0089

11 1 2 2 0.00564

11 1 2 3 0.00424

11 1 2 4 0.00427

11 1 2 5 0.00695

11 1 2 6 0.01798

11 1 2 7 0.03806

11 1 2 8 0.057

11 1 2 9 0.05773

11 1 2 10 0.05538Central Ohio On

- Road Mobile Emission Estimates May , 20 11 18 S ource TypeID R oad

TypeID D a yID H ourID H our VMTFraction

11 1 2 11 0.05554

11 1 2 12 0.05558

11 1 2 13 0 .05584

11 1 2 14 0.06051

11 1 2 15 0.06765

11 1 2 16 0.07755

11 1 2 17 0.08428

11 1 2 18 0.0797

11 1 2 19 0.06012

11 1 2 20 0.04522

11 1 2 21 0.03646

11 1 2 22 0.02912

11 1 2 23 0.02142

11 1 2 24 0.01486

11 2 2 1 0.0089

11 2 2 2 0.00564

11 2 2 3 0.00424

11 2 2 4 0.00427

11 2 2 5 0.00695

11 2 2 6 0.01798

11 2 2 7 0.03806

11 2 2 8 0.057

11 2 2 9 0.05773

11 2 2 10 0.05538

11 2 2 11 0.05554

11 2 2 12 0.05558

11 2 2 13 0.05584

11 2 2 14 0.06051

11 2 2 15 0.06765

11 2 2 16 0.07755

11 2 2 17 0.08428

11 2 2 18 0.0797

11 2 2 19 0.06012

11 2 2 20 0.04522

11 2 2 21 0.03646

11 2 2 22 0.02912

11 2 2 23 0.02142

11 2 2 24 0.01486Central Ohio On

- Road Mobile Emission Estimates May , 20 11 19 S ource TypeID R oad

TypeID D a yID H ourID H our VMTFraction

11 3 2 1 0.00655

11 3 2 2 0.0037

11 3 2 3 0.00304

11 3 2 4 0.00363

11 3 2 5 0.00792

11 3 2 6 0.02343

11 3 2 7 0.04899

11 3 2 8 0.06319

11 3 2 9 0.05402

11 3 2 10 0.05121

11 3 2 11 0.0528

11 3 2 12 0.05608

11 3 2 13 0.05814

11 3 2 14 0.05875

11 3 2 15 0.06676

11 3 2 16 0.07812

11 3 2 17 0.08469

11 3 2 18 0.08152

11 3 2 19 0.05852

11 3 2 20 0.04343

11 3 2 21 0.03606

11 3 2 22 0.02829

11 3 2 23 0.01883

11 3 2 24 0.01233

11 4 2 1 0.00752

11 4 2 2 0.0044

11 4 2 3 0.00354

11 4 2 4 0.00374

11 4 2 5 0.00705

11 4 2 6 0.02123

11 4 2 7 0.054

11 4 2 8 0.0768

11 4 2 9 0.06545

11 4 2 10 0.05114

11 4 2 11 0.04692

11 4 2 12 0.04916

11 4 2 13 0.05112Central Ohio On

- Road Mobile Emission Estimates May , 20 11 20 S ource TypeID R oad

TypeID D a yID H ourID H our VMTFraction

11 4 2 14 0.0534

11 4 2 15 0.06105

11 4 2 16 0.07421

11 4 2 17 0.08321

11 4 2 18 0.08385

11 4 2 19 0.06062

11 4 2 20 0.04229

11 4 2 21 0.03442

11 4 2 22 0.0292

11 4 2 23 0 .02137

11 4 2 24 0.01431

11 5 2 1 0.00678

11 5 2 2 0.00378

11 5 2 3 0.00295

11 5 2 4 0.0029

11 5 2 5 0.00498

11 5 2 6 0.01422

11 5 2 7 0.03449

11 5 2 8 0.05728

11 5 2 9 0.05435

11 5 2 10 0.04991

11 5 2 11 0.05261

11 5 2 12 0.06098

11 5 2 13 0.06457

11 5 2 14 0.06387

11 5 2 15 0.06812

11 5 2 16 0.07672

11 5 2 17 0.08274

11 5 2 18 0.08284

11 5 2 19 0.06344

11 5 2 20 0.04866

11 5 2 21 0.0407

11 5 2 22 0.03083

11 5 2 23 0.01966

11 5 2 24 0.01262Central Ohio On

- Road Mobile Emission Estimates May , 20 11 21 

### Output Emission Factors

Table 9 shows the first record in a MOVES sample output (rate per distance) emission file for year 2005. For any given month, day of week, hour of the day, pollutant, and process; the rate per distance varies by road type, and speed bin. Rates per distance

emis sions are applied to link and intrazonal VMT.

Table 9

– Sample Emission File (Rate per Distance) for year 2005

Heading: MOVESScenarioID MOVESRunID yearID monthID dayID hourID

Record: OhioCustomDomain 5 2005 4 5 1
Heading: linkID pollutantID processID so urceTypeID SCC fuelTypeID

Record: 990250201 3 1 0 0
Heading: modelYearID roadTypeID avgSpeedBinID temperature relHumidity ratePerDistance

Record: 0 2 1 48.9333 73 18.8177



### Table 10 shows the first record in a MOVES sample output (rate per vehicle) e mission file for year 2005. The rate per vehicle varies for any combinations of month, day of week, hour of the day, pollutant, and process. Rates per vehicle emissions are applied

to the vehicle sou r ce type population.

Table 10

– Sample Emission File ( Rate per Vehicle) for year 2005

Heading: MOVESScenarioID MOVESRunID yearID monthID dayID

Record: OhioCustomDomain 5 2005 4 5
Heading: hourID zoneID pollutantID processID sourceTypeID

Record: 1 990250 3 2 0
Heading: SCC fuelTypeID modelYearID temperatur e ratePerVehicle

Record: 0 0 48.9333 0.067223

PM2.5 Precursors

The annual emission inventories will be developed for the direct PM2.5 pollutants, tail pipe, brake and tire wear and the precursor s NOx, and SO 2 , t hrough the interagency consultation

pr ocess. It is agreed through interagency consultation that no major pollutant is missing from the analysis.

Air Quality Consultation Process

The 1990 Clean Air Act amendments required identification of the consultation procedures that Ohio's air quality and transportation agencies will follow in the conformity process. To fulfill this requirement, the Ohio EPA has adopted Ohio Administrative Code 3745

- 101

- 04 to define the interagency consultation procedures used on air quality issues. These rules define a "straw man" process, whereby the lead agencies in the conformity process assume responsibility for preparing and distributing draft documents, with supporting information, and ensuring that each affected party involved in the conformity process is inclu ded in the consultation process. InCentral Ohio On

- Road Mobile Emission Estimates May , 20 11 22 addition, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between MORPC, LCATS, ODOT and Ohio EPA has been signed to clarify OAC 3745

- 101

- 04 for the Columbus maintenance area. As a

result of SAFETEA

- LU Ohio EPA led the process to update MOU. This process is concluding with signatures from all parties obtained in February/March 2008.

The Columbus non

- attainment area SIP development process employed the consultation procedures embodied in the rules. The procedures used in the cur rent air quality analysis are comparable to the previous on road emission inventory and forecasting process. In addition, MORPC has had various telephone conversations and e

- mail correspondence with Ohio EPA,

ODOT and FHWA. Ohio EPA has also discussed va rious issues with U.S. EPA.

2.5.1 Areas with Regional Model

Post Processing



### C ustom programs developed by ODOT in conjunction with MPO models, were used in computing total emissions . The process uses data on daily and directional traffic

distributions as well as more up to date volume/delay functions from the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). This process, described below, uses rewritten code able to handle the newer model network formats and MOVES generated emission factors.

The first step in th e process involves running postcms10.exe 

### to calculate hourly link volumes based on the percentage of the daily volume (travel demand model output) determined by a link’s facility and area type. Link speeds from the travel demand

model are not used in the analysis. The speeds are estimated as a post

- process to the model based on HCM methods using a link’s volume

- to

- capacity ratio and link group code. The daily to hourly volume conversion percentages and speed tables can be

seen in Appendix A, model script

.

The second step ( movesnet .exe) uses a combination of the MOVES emission factors and the hourly link volumes that are output of the postcms 10 .exe program. The hourly volumes are multiplied by the MOVES emission factor for the corresponding hour of day, speed bin, and roadtype to calculate emissions for every network link for each

hour. The final link on road vehicle emissions for the area is the sum of all individual

link

- hour emissions.

The third step, ( movesveh 

### .exe), calculates vehicle

- based emission s for each source type for each hour of the day. The vehicle source type is based on a combination of local and default data. The final vehicle emissions for each county are the sum of all individual hourly emissions for all vehicle types.

Intrazonal tr ips do not get loaded onto the network, so the fourth step in the process requires a separate method to account for those trips that use local roads to travel

within a zone. The intracal c2 .exe program uses intrazonal trips to estimate VMT using

the area i n square miles and intrazonal trips of each zone. The zone is assumed circular and the radius of the circle is used as the average trip length for theseCentral Ohio On

- Road Mobile Emission Estimates May , 20 11 23 

### intrazonal trips. Intrazonal emissions are then calculated by combining MOVES generated emissions wit h estimated intrazonal VMT. The emission rates are the same

as those used to calculated link based emissions.

The final step is to summarize link, vehicle, and intrazonal emissions for each county, pollutant, and analyzed year, and to multiply annual ave rage daily emissions by 365 to produce an annual estimate. Daily summary emissions for each pollutant, county, and scenario year in the Central Ohio Region can be found in Appendix B through G

. A summary of these emissions are tabulated in Sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.2Central Ohio On

- Road Mobile Emission Estimates May , 20 11 24 2.5.2 Areas without Regional Model

The travel demand forecasting model discussed in the preceding sections does not cover the

entire non

- attainment area . T herefore

, a standard process based on HPMS VMT was employed

for the rest of the area which includ es portions of Fairfield County, and Franklin Township in Coshocton County . This process first requires estimating the proportion of county VMT covered by the model and not covered by the model . This was accomplished using a GIS procedure

, whe reby , the proportion of the number of vehicles from census data

, inside and outside of the model boundary

, was calculated. This information was then combined with countywide average volumes by functional class to obtain the proportion of VMT inside and

ou tside of the model. This computation yields 37 % of the Fairfield county VMT, being inside the

model area. Thus 6 3 % of the HPMS VMT is used as the basis of the off

- model computation for Fairfield County. To obtain forecast year emissions, the base year V MT is projected forward based on a series of standard growth rates as shown in the “HPMS Growth Rates Methodology” based on VMT forecasting procedures developed by ODOT . These growth rates are updated every 5 years using the latest count trends.

Correc tly applying the VMT growth rates is not as straight forward as multiplying the % per year growth by most current year and the number of years. The growth rate is derived for use as a linear growth rate, constant slope. To make the forecast using the sam e slope, the percentage growth must first be applied to the most current HPMS VMT data for year 2009 to convert the percentage into a growth rate (VMT/year) which is the slope of the line

.

VMT by functional classification obtained for outside regional m odel area, this functional classification also provides speed data based on the type of facility. MOVES generated factors of rate per distance as well as rate per vehicle were used to generate emissions for PM2.5,

NOx and SO 2

. A summary of these emissions are tabulated in Sections 3.1. 2 and 3.1. 3Central Ohio On

- Road Mobile Emission Estimates May , 20 11 25 

## 3.0 SUMMARY OF RESULTS

Emission estimates summary of results is presented in the next sections.



### 3.1.1 Areas within The Regional Travel Demand Model

Table 1 1: Emission Estimations for On

- Road Mobile Sour ces

- Franklin County

Franklin County 2005 2008 2015 2022 2035

VMT (miles/yr) 10,874,209,575 11,703,950,570 12,815,874,525 13,709,850,410 15,817,454,215 PM2.5 (tons/yr) 1,232.19 1,076.57 557.77 355.44 353.71
NOx (tons/yr) 38,665.96 32,410.28 15,519.51 7,455.60 3,912.91

SO2 (tons/yr) 625.30 204.36 90.42 87.07 91.42



### Table 1 2: Emission Estimations for On

- Road Mobile Sources

- Delaware County

Delaware County 2005 2008 2015 2022 2035

VMT (miles/yr) 1,583,202,465 1,783,481,615 2,169,135,870 2,542,369,9 05 3,400,567,030
PM2.5 (tons/yr) 151.99 139.75 78.79 53.78 62.16

NOx (tons/yr) 5,372.30 4,716.95 2,500.97 1,308.18 1,114.32

SO2 (tons/yr) 85.14 29.32 14.35 15.14 18.41



### Table 1 3: Emission Estimations for On

- Road Mobile Sources

- Licking County

Licki ng County 2005 2008 2015 2022 2035
VMT (miles/yr) 1,673,357,830 1,832,011,650 2,102,842,745 2,319,527,550 2,787,507,555
PM2.5 (tons/yr) 161.43 140.17 74.25 47.18 48.31

NOx (tons/yr) 5,722.16 4,859.58 2,439.49 1,200.45 924.80

SO2 (tons/yr) 90.22 29.97 1 3.85 13.75 14.94Central Ohio On

- Road Mobile Emission Estimates May , 20 11 26 

### 3.1.2 Area partially within The Regional Travel Demand Model

One c ounty that is partially within regional travel demand model is Fairfield county.

Tables 1 4a, and 1 4b, summarize emissions estimates for Fairfield county, for th e areas within and outside travel demand model area, respectively. Results presented in Table 1 4a is for the area covered by the

travel demand model. Table 1 4b is for the area not covered by the travel demand model. These are derived by using 6 3 % of the t otal county HPMS based VMT as described in section 2.5.2. Table 1 4c presents the emissions for the entire Fairfield county, which is simply sum of emissions from Tables 4a,

and 4b.



### Table 1 4a: Emission Estimations for Fairfield County within the Travel De mand

Model Area

Fairfield County 2005 2008 2015 2022 2035

VMT (miles/yr) 566,150,405 619,077,960 739,401,305 879,105,785 922,565,970
PM2.5 (tons/yr) 54.61 47.84 26.82 17.58 19.22

NOx (tons/yr) 1,896.11 1,612.27 839.62 415.59 332.25
SO2 (tons/yr) 30.35 10.13 4.91 4.94 5.62



### Table 1 4b: Emission Estimations for Fairfield County outside of the Travel

Demand Model Area

- using HPMS data

Fairfield County 2005 2008 2015 2022 2035

VMT (miles/yr) 589,181,905 548,326,360 574,320,200 586,829,115 632,028,160
PM2.5 (tons/yr) 57.49 44.60 20.84 11.64 10.59

NOx (tons/yr) 1,667.94 1,177.02 491.58 209.25 142.09

SO2 (tons/yr) 31.90 8.87 3.69 3.39 3.29



### Table 1 4c: Emission Estimations for Fairfield County

- sum of emissions from

both the Travel Demand Model area as well as the HPMS area

Fairfield County 2005 2008 2015 2022 2035

VMT (miles/yr) 1,155,332,310 1,167,404,320 1,313,721,505 1,465,934,900 1,554,594,130 PM2.5 (tons/yr) 112.09 92.45 47.66 29.22 29.80
NOx (tons/yr) 3,564.05 2,789.29 1,331.20 624.84 474. 34
SO2 (tons/yr) 62.25 19.00 8.60 8.34 8.91Central Ohio On

- Road Mobile Emission Estimates May , 20 11 27 

### 3.1.3 Area outside Regional Travel Demand Model

Tables 1 5, summarizes emissions estimates for Franklin Township in Coshocton county, and the results presented in this Table used methodology based on HPMS data

.



### Table 1 5: Emission Estimations for Franklin Twp in Coshocton County

– using only HPMS

Coshocton (Fr twp) 2005 2008 2015 2022 2035
VMT (miles/yr) 21,735,020 21,389,730 22,829,655 23,091,360 24,030,505 PM2.5 (tons/yr) 2.63 2.15 1.06 0.58 0.55

NOx (t ons/yr) 66.14 49.71 21.10 8.76 5.62
SO2 (tons/yr) 1.31 0.40 0.15 0.15 0.15



### 3.2 Emissions Summary for the Columbus PM 2.5 non

- attainment Area

Tables 16

, 17 and 18 , summarize PM 2.5

, NOx

, and SO 2 emissions estimates respectively for the analysis

ye ars , in the units of tons/ year of emissions. The summary presented in the following tables is from the

aforementioned in Tables 11 through 15

.



### Table 16 : PM 2.5 Emission Inventory Summary

- Base Year 2005, Attainment year 2008, Interim (Budget) year 201 5, maintenance year 202 2, and TPlan Horizon

Year 2035 (tons/

year )

2005 2008 2015 2022 2035

PM 2.5 (tons/yr) Base Yr Attainment

Yr Interim

Yr Maint

enance Yr TPlan

Horizon Yr

Franklin 1,232.19 1,076.57 557.77 355.44 353.71

Delaware 151.99 139.75 78. 79 53.78 62.16

Licking 161.43 140.17 74.25 47.18 48.31

Fairfield 112.09 92.45 47.66 29.22 29.80

Franklin Township (Coshocton county ) 2.63 2.15 1.06 0.58 0.55

Total 1,660.33 1,451.09 759.52 486.21 494.53Central Ohio On

- Road Mobile Emission Estimates May , 20 11 28 

### Table 17 : NOx Emission Inventory Summary

- Base Year 2005, Attainment year 2008, Interim (Budget) year 2015, maintenance year 202 2, and TPlan Horizon Year

2035 (tons/

year )

2005 2008 2015 2022 2035

NOx (tons/yr) Base Yr Attainment

Yr Interim Yr Maint

enance Yr Tplan

Horizon Yr

Franklin 38,665.9 6 32,410.28 15,519.51 7,455.60 3,912.91

Delaware 5,372.30 4,716.95 2,500.97 1,308.18 1,114.32

Licking 5,722.16 4,859.58 2,439.49 1,200.45 924.80

Fairfield 3,564.05 2,789.29 1,331.20 624.84 474.34

Franklin Township (Coshocton county) 66.14 49.71 21.1 0 8.76 5.62

Total 53,390.61 44,825.81 21,812.26 10,597.83 6,431.99



### Table 18 : SO 2 

### Emission Inventory Summary

- Base Year 2005, Attainment year 2008, Interim (Budget) year 2015, maintenance year 202 2, and TPlan Horizon Year

2035 (tons/

year )

2005 2 008 2015 2022 2035

SO2 (tons/yr) Base

Yr Attainment

Yr Interim

Yr Maint

enance Yr Tplan

Horizon Yr

Franklin 625.30 204.36 90.42 87.07 91.42

Delaware 85.14 29.32 14.35 15.14 18.41

Licking 90.22 29.97 13.85 13.75 14.94

Fairfield 62.25 19.00 8.60 8.3 4 8.91

Franklin Township (Coshocton county) 1.31 0.40 0.15 0.15 0.15

Total 864.22 283.05 127.37 124.44 133.82Central Ohio On

- Road Mobile Emission Estimates May , 20 11 29 

## APPENDIX

Appendix A

– Model Script, post processing script

Appendix B

– MORPC Travel Demand Model Emission Run Repor t for 200 5

Appendix C

– MORPC Travel Demand Model Emission Run Report for 200 8

Appendix D

– MORPC Travel Demand Model Emission Run Report for 20 15

Appendix E

– MORPC Travel Demand Model Emission Run Report for 20 2 2

Appendix F

– MORPC Travel Demand M odel Emission Run Report for 20 35

Appendix G

– MORPC

, HPMS ’ VMT and Emissions

Appendix H

– Interagency consultation

- Teleconference call meeting minutesCentral Ohio On

- Road Mobile Emission Estimates May , 20 11 30 

### Appendix A

– Model Script, Figures illustrating Data

A PPENDIX

- F IGURE 1 : CUBE V OYAGER PROGRAM S CRIPT FOR COMPUTING VOC & NO X EMISSIONS

;Input Network File: {cm3neti,filename,"Input Network File
Name",x,"N: \ AQ \ MOVES \ morpc \ model \ AQ \ networks \ 2022 \ AQ_asgn_2022.net","Network File (*.net)|*.net"} ;Output Network File: {cm3neto,filename,"Output Network File
Name",x,"N: \ AQ \ MOVES \ morpc \ model \ AQ \ networks \ 2022 \ AQ_2022out.net","Network File (*.net)|*.net"} ;Output CSV Summary File: {cm3sumo,filename,"Output CSV Summary
File",x,"N: \ AQ \ MOVES \ morpc \ model \ AQ \ networks \ 2022 \ cmaqs22.csv","Report File (*.csv;*.txt)|* .csv;*.txt"} ;Output TXT Report File: {cm3rpto,filename,"Output TXT Report
File",x,"N: \ AQ \ MOVES \ morpc \ model \ AQ \ networks \ 2022 \ cmaq22.rpt","Report File (*.rpt;*.txt)|*.rpt;*.txt"} ;Output CSV Hourly File: {cm3hro,filename,"Output CSV Hourly File (Needed for benefits calc but very big)",x,"NONE","Report File (*.csv;*.txt)|*.csv;*.txt"} ;Note: {cm3junkname,note,"Optional Air Quality Files, Leave Blank When Not Doing Air Quality Calculations"} ;AQ Run Type: {cm3aqtype,combolist,"AQ Run Type","NONE","MOVES","MOBI LE"} ;AQ Comment Line: {cm3aqcom,editbox,"Optional AQ Report Comment",T,"PM2.5 Redesignation Analysis

- morpc"} ;Input Network Emissions Factors: {cm3effile,filename,"Input Network Emissions
Factors",x,"N: \ AQ \ MOVES \ morpc \ model \ factors \ 2022MORPC_rpd.csv","E missions File (*.fac;*.csv)|*.fac;*.csv"} ;Input Vehicle (MOV) or Intrazonal (MOB) Emissions Factors: {cm3ieffile,filename,"Input Vehicle (MOV) or
Intrazonal (MOB) Emissions Factors",x,"N: \ AQ \ MOVES \ morpc \ model \ factors \ 2022MORPC_rpv.csv","Emissions File

(*. crd; *.csv)|*.crd; *.csv"} ;Input area file: {cm3afile,filename,"Input Area
File",x,"N: \ AQ \ MOVES \ morpc \ model \ AQ \ area_taz \ TAZ_areain.txt","Text File (*.txt; *.prn)|*.txt; *.prn"} ;Input Intrazonal Trips File: {cm3ifile,filename,"Input Intrazonal Trips (Matr ix must be OMS format else use
text)",x,"N: \ AQ \ MOVES \ morpc \ model \ AQ \ intra_z \ itrips22.txt","Matrix or Text File (*.txt; *.prn; *.mat;
*.trp)|*.txt; *.prn; *.mat; *.trp"} ;Intrazonal File Type: {cm3iztype,combolist,"Intrazonal File Type","NONE","OMSTABLE","T EXT"} ;Input vehicle file: {cm3vfile,filename,"Input Vehicle File (Moves
Only)",x,"N: \ AQ \ MOVES \ morpc \ model \ factors \ STP2022MORPC.csv","Text File (*.csv)|*.csv"} ;Space: {cm3space,note,"Parameters"} ;Truck PCE: {cm3tpce,editbox,"Truck PCE",N,"2.0"} ;Capacity Field: {cm3capf,comboedit,"Capacity Field","CAP24","CAP1","CAP2","CAP3","CAP4"} ;Hourly/Model Capacity Factor: {cm3kfact,editbox,"Hourly/Model(usually daily) Capacity Factor",N,"1.00"}
;AQ Season Factor: {cm3aqfact,comboedit,"AQ Season Factor (Ozone Only) ","1.00","1.08"} ;Set Priority Code from ADMCLASS?:{cm3pri,combolist,"Set Priority Code from ADMCLASS? (CMSCOST can
use)","NO","SW","OMS"} ;Run Mode: {cm3rmode,combolist,"Run Mode (only use Normal for AQ for now)","NORMAL","4PERIOD_OMS","4PERIOD_SW","4PER IOD_MARKETSEGMENTS_SW"} ;Note: {cm3junkname2,note,"Normal Mode Inputs (if you specify another mode the fields are predetermined)"} ;Volume Field: {cm3volf,comboedit,"Volume Field","VOL24_TOT","V_1","LOADEDVOL","WINTERVOL","SUMMERVOL"}Central Ohio On

- Road Mobile Emission Estimates May , 20 11 31 ;Truck Volume Field: {cm3trkf,comboedit,"Truck Volume Field (leave to none if doing AQ for now)","NONE","VOL24_TRK","VOL24_TRKHV","V2_1"}

;;<<End Parameters>>;;

*if exist tempcms.txt DEL tempcms.txt *if exist summary.rpt DEL summary.rpt *if exist hourly.rpt DEL hourly.rpt

*i f exist cmstext.rpt DEL cmstext.rpt COPY FILE=county.dat

ADA 1 4

ALL 2 3

ASD 3 4

ATB 4 4

ATH 5 4

AUG 6 4

BEL 7 3

BRO 8 4

BUT 9 2

CAR10 4

CHP11 4

CLA12 3

CLE13 2

CLI14 4

COL15 4

COS16 4

CRA17 4

CUY18 1

DAR19 4

DEF20 4

DEL21 2

ERI22 3

FAI23 4

FAY24 4

FRA25 1

FUL26 4

GAL27 4

GEA28 2

GRE29 2

GUE30 4

HAM31 1

HAN32 4

HAR33 4

HAS34 4Central Ohio On

- Road Mobile Emission Estimates May , 20 11 32 HEN35 4

HIG36 4

HOC37 4

HOL38 4

HUR39 4

JAC40 4

JEF41 3

KNO42 4

LAK43 2

LAW44 3

LIC45 3

LOG46 4

LOR47 2

LUC48 2

MAD49 4

MAH50 2

MAR51 4

MED52 2

MEG53 4

MER54 4

MIA55 2

MOE56 4

MOT57 2

MRG58 4

MRW59 4

MUS60 4

NOB61 4

OTT62 4

PAU63 4

PER64 4

PIC65 4

PIK66 4

POR67 2

PRE68 4

PUT69 4

RIC70 3

ROS71 4

S AN72 4

SCI73 4

SEN74 4

SHE75 4

STA76 2

SUM77 2

TRU78 2Central Ohio On

- Road Mobile Emission Estimates May , 20 11 33 TUS79 4

UNI80 4

VAN81 4

VIN82 4

WAR83 2

WAS84 3

WAY85 4

WIL86 4

WOO87 2

WYA88 4

ENDCOPY COPY FILE=dailya.dat

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

PCTADT URB FWY 0.9 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.9 2.2 5.2 7.3 6.4 5.2 4.9 5.1 5.3 5.5 6.1 7.2 8.0 7.9 5.8 4.2 3.4 2.9 2.2 1.5 URB ART 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.6 1.5 3.5 5.7 5.5 5.1 5.3 6.2 6.5 6.4 6.8 7.6 8.2 8.1 6.2 4.8 4.0 3.0 1.9 1.3 RUR FWY 1.4 1.1 0.9 1.0 1.3 2.2 3.7 5.2 5.4 5.4 5.6 5.6 5.7 6.0 6.5 7.1 7.5 7.0 5.6 4.5 3.8 3.2 2.5 2.0 RUR ART 0. 8 0.5 0.4 0.5 1.0 2.4 4.8 6.2 5.5 5.3 5.5 5.8 6.0 6.0 6.7 7.6 8.1 7.7 5.6 4.2 3.5 2.8 1.9 1.3

PCTADT TRK URB FWY 2.1 1.9 1.8 2.0 2.4 3.0 3.9 4.6 5.3 6.0 6.3 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.3 5.8 5.2 4.6 4.1 3.7 3.4 3.1 2.8 2.4 URB ART 1.1 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.6 2.3 3.9 5.9 6.9 6.7 7.1 7.6 7.4 7.2 7.4 7.2 6.0 5.0 3.7 2.8 2.3 1.9 1.5 1.3 RUR FWY 2.6 2.2 2.1 2.3 2.6 3.1 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.1 5.6 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.6 5.3 4.9 4.6 4.3 4.0 3.8 3.5 3.1 RUR ART 1.5 1.3 1.4 1.6 2.2 3.0 4.2 5.3 6.1 6.7 7.0 7.1 7.0 6.9 6.8 6.3 5.5 4.6 3.8 3.1 2.6 2.3 2.1 1.7

PCTDIR URB FWY 38 40 40 46 56 64 70 70 68 62 58 52 52 52 50 46 38 38 46 52 46 42 42 40 URB ART 44 46 44 48 54 62 66 6 8 64 56 54 52 50 50 50 46 40 38 46 52 48 46 46 46 RUR FWY 44 46 48 54 60 68 68 64 58 54 52 50 50 52 52 48 42 40 44 48 48 44 46 44 RUR ART 40 42 44 48 58 66 72 68 60 56 54 50 50 50 50 46 40 38 46 50 46 44 44 44

LOS E VC 0 0.625 1.25 1.875 2.5 3.125 3.75 4.375 5 5.625 6.25 6.875 7.5 8.125 8 .75 9.375 10 10.625 11.25 11.875 12.5 13.125 13.75 14.375

SPEEDVC curve1 75 75 75 75 75 75 74.9 74.8 74.6 74.2 73.5 72.3 70.5 67.8 64.2 59.5 54 47.7 41.2 34.9 28.9 23.7 19.2 15.5 curve2 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 69.9 69.8 69.6 69.2 68.4 67.1 65.1 62.2 58.2 53 47 40.5 33.9 27.7 22.2 17.6 13.8 curve3 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 64.9 64.8 64.4 63.8 62.6 6 0.5 57 52 45.4 37.8 29.9 22.7 16.7 12.1 8.6 curve4 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 59.9 59.8 59.6 59.1 58.2 5 6.7 54.3 50.8 46.1 40.3 33.8 27.3 21.3 16. 2 12.2 curve5 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 54.9 54.7 54.3 5 3.6 52.3 50 46.5 41.5 35.3 28.5 21.9 16.1 11.5 curve6 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 59.9 59.8 59.7 59.4 59.1 58.5 57.7 56.5 55 53.1 50.7 47.9 44.7 41.1 37.3 33.4 curve7 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 54.9 54.9 54.7 54.5 54.2 53.8 53.1 52.2 50.9 49.3 47.3 44.9 42.1 39 35.7 32.2 curve8 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 49.9 49.9 49.8 49.6 49.4 49 4 8.5 47.7 46.7 45.4 43.8 41.8 39.5 36.8 33.9 30.9Central Ohio On

- Road Mobile Emission Estimates May , 20 11 34 curve9 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 44.9 44.8 44.7 44.4 44.1 4 3.6 43 42.1 40.9 39.4 37.6 35.5 33.1 30.5 27.8 curve10 50 50 50 50 49.9 49.8 49.7 49.4 49 48.4 47.5 46.5 45.1 43.5 41.7 39.6 37.3 34.9 32.4 29.8 27.3 24.9 22.6 20.4 curve11 50 50 50 50 50 49.9 49.7 49.4 48.9 48 46.7 44.9 42.5 39.6 36.2 32.6 28.7 25 21.4 18.2 15.3 12.9 10.8 9 curve12 50 50 50 50 50 49.9 49.8 49.6 49.1 48.2 46.8 44.5 41.4 37. 5 32.9 28 23.1 18.7 14.9 11.8 9.2 7.2 5.7 4.5 curve13 40 40 40 40 40 40 39.9 39.8 39.5 39.2 38.6 37.8 36.7 35.3 3 3.5 31.4 29 26.4 23.7 21.1 18 .5 16.1 13.9 12 curve14 40 40 40 40 40 39.9 39.8 39.6 39.1 38.5 37.5 36.1 34.3 32.1 2 9.4 26.5 23.5 20.5 17.7 15.1 12.8 10.7 9 7.6 curve15 40 40 40 40 40 39.9 39.7 39.4 38.8 37.9 36.5 34.7 32.3 29.5 26.4 23.2 20 17 14.3 11.9 9.9 8.2 6.8 5.6 curve16 35 35 35 35 35 34.9 34.8 34.5 34 33.2 32.1 30.5 28.5 26.1 23.5 20.6 17.9 15.2 12.8 10.7 8.9 7.4 6.1 5.1 curve17 35 35 35 35 35 34.9 34.7 34.4 33.9 33.1 32 30.3 28.3 25.8 2 3.1 20.3 17.5 14.9 12.5 10.4 8.6 7.2 5.9 4.9 curve18 35 35 35 35 35 34.9 34.6 34.2 33.5 32.4 30.9 28.8 26.3 23.4 2 0.4 17.4 14.6 12.1 9.9 8.1 6.6 5.4 4.4 3.6 curve19 30 30 30 30 30 29.9 29.8 29.5 29 28.2 27.1 25.6 23.7 21.5 1 9.1 16.6 14.2 12 10 8.3 6.8 5.6 4.6 3.8 curve20 30 30 30 30 3 0 29.9 29.7 29.4 28.9 28.1 26.9 25.3 23.4 21.1 18.6 16.1 13.6 11.4 9.5 7.8 6.4 5.3 4.3 3.6 curve21 30 30 30 30 30 29.9 29.7 29.3 28.7 27.7 26.2 24 .4 22.1 19.6 17 14.4 12 9.9 8.1 6.6 5.4 4.4 3.6 2.9

VC RATIO TO LOS CONVERSION (VALUE SHOWN IS LOWER LIMIT FOR THAT LOS)(URBAN ROADS USE SPEED BREAKS BELOW FOR
LOS DETERMINATION) (ALL USE THE BASE VC'S TO DET ERMINE EXCEEDANCE)

BASE RUR2 FWY

A 0.00 0.00 0.00

B 0.30 0.00 0.25

C 0.50 0.10 0.40

D 0.70 0.30 0.60

E 0.90 0.50 0.80

F 1.00 1.00 1.00

F+ 1.10 1.10 1.10

F++ 1.30 1.30 1.30

SPEED VC RATIO BREAKS FOR URBAN STREETS (HIGHES T SPEED FOR GIVEN LOS & FF SPEED)

FFS B C D E F

>47 42. 34. 27. 21. 16.

>37 35. 28. 22. 17. 13.

>32 30. 24. 18. 14. 10.

<33 25. 19. 13. 9. 7.

LEVEL OF SERVICE THRESHOLD BY AREA

NUM LOS DEFINITION 1 F CINCINNATI,CLEVELAND,COLUMBUS CENTRAL MPO COUNTIES (CUY,FRA,HAM) 2 E OTHER TMA MPOS (AKRON,CANTON,DAYTON,TOLEDO,YOUNGSTOWN + NON

- CENTRAL COUNTIES FROM 1)

3 E OTHER MPOS & PARTS OF AREAS 1 & 2 OUTSIDE URBANIZED AREA

4 E RURAL NON MPO COUNTIESCentral Ohio On

- Road Mobile Emission Estimates May , 20 11 35 PEAK SPREADING MODEL INFO (SET MAX ITERATIO NS TO 0 TO DISABLE PEAK SPREADING)

MAX VC RATIO FWY: 1.30

MAX VC RATIO ART: 1.30

MAX ITERATIONS : 1000

TRUCK PCE: {cm3tpce}

AQ SEASON FACTOR: {cm3aqfact}

ENDCOPY

rrmode='{cm3rmode}'
if(rrmode='NORMAL') COPY FILE=dailyb.dat

MODEL CLASS PARAMETERS (MAX 4 CLASSES, HOURS 0

- 23 W/ NO OVERLAP IN CLASS, ALLOCATE ENTIRE CLASS AS TRUCK(1)
OR NOT(0))

CLS TRK 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

CLS BEG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

CLS END 23 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

CLS NUM 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ENDCOPY volff='li.1.{cm3volf}'
trkfff='{cm3trkf}'
if (trkfff == 'NONE') then trkff='_zero'

else

trkff='li.1. {cm3trkf}'

endif vol1s='_zero' vol2s='_zero' vol3s='_zero' vol4s='_zero' vol5s='_zero' vol6s='_zero' vol7s='_zero' vol8s='_zero' vol9s='_zero' vol10s='_zero' vol11s='_zero' vol12s='_zero' vol13s='_zero'

vol14s=' _zero' vol15s='_zero' vol16s='_zero' elseif(rrmode='4PERIOD_OMS')Central Ohio On

- Road Mobile Emission Estimates May , 20 11 3 6 COPY FILE=dailyb.dat

MODEL CLASS PARAMETERS (MAX 4 CLASSES, HOURS 0

- 23 W/ NO OVERLAP IN CLASS, ALLOCATE ENTIRE CLASS AS TRUCK(1)

OR NOT(0))

CLS TRK 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

CLS BEG 18 6 9 14 18 6 9 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

CLS END 5 8 13 17 5 8 13 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

CLS NUM 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ENDCOP Y volff='_zero' trkff='_zero' vol1s='li.1.volnt_aut' vol2s='li.1.volam_aut' vol3s='li.1.volmd_aut' vol4s='li.1.volpm_aut' vol5s='li.1.volnt_trk' vol6s='li.1.volam_trk' vol7s='li.1.volmd_trk' vol8s='li.1.volpm_trk' vol9s='_z ero' vol10s='_zero' vol11s='_zero' vol12s='_zero' vol13s='_zero' vol14s='_zero' vol15s='_zero' vol16s='_zero' elseif(rrmode='4PERIOD_SW') COPY FILE=dailyb.dat

MODEL CLASS PARAMETERS (MAX 4 CLASSES, HOURS 0

- 23 W/ NO OVERLAP IN CLASS, A LLOCATE ENTIRE CLASS AS TRUCK(1)
OR NOT(0))

CLS TRK 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

CLS BEG 19 7 10 16 19 7 10 16 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

CLS END 6 9 15 18 6 9 15 18 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

CLS NUM 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

ENDCOPY volff='_zero' trkff='_zero' vol1s='li.1.evvol_aut' vol2s='li.1.amvol_aut'Central Ohio On

- Road Mobile Emission Estimates May , 20 11 37 vol3s='li.1.mdvol_aut' vol4s='li.1.pmvol_aut' vol5s='li.1.evvol_trk' vol6s='li.1.amvol_trk' vol7s='li.1.mdvol_trk' vol8s='li.1.pmvol_trk' vol9s='_zero' vol10s='_zero' vol11s='_zero' vol12s='_zero' vol13s='_zero' vol14s='_zero' vol15s='_zero' vol16s='_zero' elseif(rrmode='4PERIOD_MARKETSEGMENTS_ SW') COPY FILE=dailyb.dat

MODEL CLASS PARAMETERS (MAX 4 CLASSES, HOURS 0

- 23 W/ NO OVERLAP IN CLASS, ALLOCATE ENTIRE CLASS AS TRUCK(1)
OR NOT(0))

CLS TRK 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

CLS BEG 19 7 10 16 19 7 10 16 19 7 10 16 19 7 10 16

CLS END 6 9 15 18 6 9 15 18 6 9 15 18 6 9 15 18

CLS NUM 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 ENDCOPY volff='_zero' trkff='_zero' vol1s='li.1.evvol_autwk' vol2s='li.1.amvol_autwk' vol3s='li.1.mdvol_autwk' vol4s='li.1.pmvol_autwk' vol5s='li.1.evvol_trkhv' vol6s='li.1.amvol_trkhv' vol7s='li.1.mdvol_trkhv' vol8s='li.1.pmvol_trkhv' vol9s='li.1.evvol_autnw' vol10s='li.1.amvol_autnw'

vol 11s='li.1.mdvol_autnw' vol12s='li.1.pmvol_autnw' vol13s='li.1.evvol_trklt' vol14s='li.1.amvol_trklt' vol15s='li.1.mdvol_trklt' vol16s='li.1.pmvol_trklt'

endif

*if exist daily.dat del daily.datCentral Ohio On

- Road Mobile Emission Estimates May , 20 11 38 *copy dailya.dat+dailyb.dat daily.dat

*del dail ya.dat *del dailyb.dat

RUN PGM=NETWORK NETI={cm3neti.q} LINKO=templnk.txt, format = TXT, include = a(6),b(6),junk1(1),junk1(4),junks(1),moffpspd(4),

ctoll(4),junkb(1),lanes(1),twidth(2),junkb(1),terrain(1),junk1(1),junkb(1), cap(6),vo l(6),loneway(1),boffpspd(4),ttoll(4),junkb(1),blanes(1),areatype(1),admclass(1), junkb(1),bterrain(1),junk1(1),junkb(1),bcap(6),bvol(6),medturn(1),pcttrk(2),junk1(2), funclass(2),lnkgrp(2),mpostspd(2),jurisdic(1),county(3),rtenumb(5),junk 1(7),nhs(1), fedfunc(2),trkvol(5),junkp(1),junk1(30),junk1(30),junk1(30),junk1(21),mdist(6),
vol1(6),vol2(6),vol3(6),vol4(6),vol5(6),vol6(6),vol7(6),vol8(6),vol9(6),vol10(6),vol11(6),
vol12(6),vol13(6),vol14(6),vol15(6),vol16(6) NODEO=tempnod.txt, format = TXT, include = junkn(1),n(6),x(11),y(11)

PHASE=NODEMERGE junkn='N'

ENDPHASE

PHASE=LINKMERGE _zero=0 junk1=0 junks='S' junkp='P' fffff='{cm3pri}'

;CommentOUT==========
;if(fffff=='SW')
; if(li.1.admcla ss==1 && li.1.district <13 && li.1.district>0) ; junkp='P' ;state system
; elseif(li.1.district<13 && li.1.district>0) ; junkp='G' ;non

- state
; else ; junkp='U' ;out of state
; endif
;elseif(fffff='OMS')
; if(li.1.admclass<6) ; junkp=' P'

; else ; junkp='G'
; endif
;endif

;CommentOUT above jurisdic=' '

nhs=0

fedfunc=li.1.fedfunclCentral Ohio On

- Road Mobile Emission Estimates May , 20 11 39 junkb=' '

ctoll=0 ;cartoll*10

ttoll=0 ;trktoll*10

mdist = LI.1.DIST*1000 moffpspd=li.1.offpspd*100 mpeakspd=li.1.peakspd*100

ca p=li.1.{cm3capf}*{cm3kfact} loneway='1' bcap=0

bvol=0 boffpspd=0 bpeakspd=0

blanes=0

bterrain=0 mpostspd=round(li.1.postspd)

vol=@volff@

trkvol=@trkff@

vol1=@vol1s@

vol2=@vol2s@

vol3=@vol3s@

vol4=@vol4s@

vol5=@ vol5s@

vol6=@vol6s@

vol7=@vol7s@

vol8=@vol8s@

vol9=@vol9s@

vol10=@vol10s@

vol11=@vol11s@

vol12=@vol12s@

vol13=@vol13s@

vol14=@vol14s@

vol15=@vol15s@

vol16=@vol16s@

ENDPHASE

ENDRUN aqmode='{cm3aqtype}' if(aqmode=='MOBILE') *copy {cm3effile.q} tempef.txt

*N: \ AQ \ MOVES \ morpc \ model \ AQ \ utils \ postcms10.exe templnk.txt tempcms.txt N tempef.txt {cm3rmode} *del tempef.txt

else

*N: \ AQ \ MOVES \ morpc \ model \ AQ \ utils \ postcms10.exe templnk.txt tempcms.txt N NONE {cm3rmode}

endif if(aqmode== 'MOVES')Central Ohio On

- Road Mobile Emission Estimates May , 20 11 40 *copy {cm3effile.q} tempef.txt

*N: \ AQ \ MOVES \ morpc \ model \ AQ \ utils \ movesnet.exe hourly.rpt tempef.txt cmstext.rpt {cm3aqfact}

endif

RUN PGM=NETWORK NETI[1]={cm3neti.q} LINKI[2]=tempcms.txt var=a,1

- 6,b,8

- 13,

cVMT,97

- 111,cTRKVMT,113

- 128 ,cVOLPERLANE,130

- 137,cCONINDEX,139

- 146,
cVCRATIO,148

- 155,cPEAKHOUR,157

- 160,cVHT,162

- 169,cCONGDELAY,171

- 178,
cPHYSDELAY,180

- 187,cSPDLIMDELAY,189

- 196,cDELAYRATIO,198

- 205,
cDIR1HRSEXCEED,229

- 232,cDIR2HRSEXCEED,234

- 237,cPKVMT,253

- 267 ,cEXCEEDVMT,269

- 283,
cEXCEEDPKVMT,285

- 299,cLOS,317,1,,,1,
select=(substr(record,1,1)!= 'A') NODEI[2]=tempnod.txt var=n,2

- 7, x,8

- 18, y,19

- 29 NETO={cm3neto.q}

MERGE RECORD=F

ENDRUN

iiztype='{cm3iztype}' if(iiztype=='TEXT') *copy {cm 3ifile.q} tempif.txt elseif(iiztype=='OMSTABLE')

RUN PGM=MATRIX FILEO PRINTO[1] = tempif.txt FILEI MATI[1] = {cm3ifile.q}
MW[1]=mi.1.5+mi.1.10+mi.1.15 jloop if(j=i) print list=i(4.0),mw[1][j](6.0),printo=1

endif endjloop

ENDRUN

endif

if(iiztype!='NONE' ) *copy {cm3afile.q} tempaf.txt

if(aqmode=='MOBILE') *copy {cm3ieffile.q} tempief.txt

*N: \ AQ \ MOVES \ morpc \ model \ AQ \ utils \ intracal2.exe tempif.txt summary.rpt tempaf.txt tempief.txt *del tempief.txtCentral Ohio On

- Road Mobile Emission Estimates May , 20 11 41 elseif(aqmode=='MOVES')

*N: \ AQ \ MOVES \ morpc \ model \ AQ \ utils \ movesintra.exe tempif.txt tempef.txt tempaf.txt cmstext.rpt {cm3aqfact} *del tempef.txt

endif

*del tempaf.txt *DEL tempif.txt

endif

if(aqmode=='MOVES') *copy {cm3ieffile.q} tempief.txt *copy {cm3vfile.q} tempveh.txt

*N: \ AQ \ MOVES \ morpc \ model \ AQ \ utils \ mov esveh.exe tempveh.txt tempief.txt cmstext.rpt {cm3aqfact} *del tempveh.txt *del tempief.txt

endif

if(aqmode=='MOVES') *echo MOVES BASED EMISSIONS REPORT > tempcom.txt elseif(aqmode=='MOBILE') *echo MOBILE BASED EMISSIONS REPORT >> tempcom.txt

else

*echo N O EMISSIONS ANALYSIS CONDUCTED >> tempcom.txt

endif *echo {cm3aqcom} >> tempcom.txt *echo Loaded Network: {cm3neti} >> tempcom.txt *echo Network Emission Factors: {cm3effile} >> tempcom.txt if(aqmode=='MOVES')

*echo Vehicle Emission Factors : {cm3ieffile} >> tempcom.txt *echo Vehicle Population : {cm3vfile} >> tempcom.txt

else *echo Intrazonal Emission Factors: {cm3ieffile} >> tempcom.txt

endif *echo Intrazonal Trips : {cm3ifile} >> tempcom.txt *echo Area File (sq mi): {cm3afile} >> tempcom.txt *echo Volume Field Used: {cm3volf} >> tempcom.txt *echo Capacity Field Used: {cm3capf} >> tempcom.txt

*echo

----------------------------------------- >> tempcom.txt *copy /B tempcom.txt+cmstext.rpt {cm3rp to.q} *if exist {cm3sumo.q} del {cm3sumo.q} *rename summary.rpt {cm3sumo.q} *del tempcom.txt *del cmstext.rpt *DEL tempnod.txtCentral Ohio On

- Road Mobile Emission Estimates May , 20 11 42 *DEL templnk.txt *DEL tempcms.txt hhro=rightstr('{cm3hro}',4)
if(hhro=='NONE') *del hourly.rpt

else *if exist {cm3hro.q} del {cm 3hro.q} *rename hourly.rpt {cm3hro.q}

endif

HPMS Based Emissions Estimates:

;[HPMS Based MOVES AQ Processor] ;;<<Process Template>>;; ;Input VMT File: {hpvmti,filename,"Input VMT
File",x,"N: \ AQ \ MOVES \ morpc \ model \ factors \ hpms \ FAI2005VMT.csv","Network File (*.csv)|*.csv"} ;Input Network (Distance) Emissions Factors: {hpeffile,filename,"Input Network (Distance) Emissions
Factors",x,"N: \ AQ \ MOVES \ morpc \ model \ factors \ 2005MORPC_rpd.csv","Emissions File (*.fac;*.csv)|*.fac;*.csv"} ;Input Vehicle Emissions Fac tors: {hpieffile,filename,"Input Vehicle Emissions
Factors",x,"N: \ AQ \ MOVES \ morpc \ model \ factors \ 2005MORPC_rpv.csv","Emissions File (*.csv)|*.csv"} ;Input vehicle file: {hpvfile,filename,"Input Vehicle
File",x,"N: \ AQ \ MOVES \ morpc \ model \ factors \ FAI_STP2005MORP C.csv","Text File (*.csv)|*.csv"} ;Output TXT Report File: {hprpto,filename,"Output TXT Report
File",x,"N: \ AQ \ MOVES \ morpc \ model \ AQ \ hpms \ h_fai_05.rpt","Report File (*.rpt;*.txt)|*.rpt;*.txt"} ;AQ Comment Line: {hpaqcom,editbox,"Optional AQ Report Comment",T ,"PM2.5 Redesignation Analysis

- morpc"} ;AQ Season Factor: {hpaqfact,comboedit,"AQ Season Factor (Ozone Only)","1.00","1.08"}

;;<<End Parameters>>;; *if exist daily.dat del daily.dat COPY FILE=daily.dat

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

PCTADT URB FWY 0.9 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.9 2.2 5.2 7.3 6.4 5.2 4.9 5.1 5.3 5.5 6.1 7.2 8.0 7.9 5.8 4.2 3.4 2.9 2.2 1.5 URB ART 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.6 1.5 3.5 5.7 5.5 5.1 5.3 6.2 6.5 6.4 6.8 7.6 8.2 8.1 6.2 4.8 4.0 3.0 1.9 1.3 RUR FWY 1.4 1.1 0.9 1.0 1.3 2.2 3.7 5.2 5.4 5.4 5.6 5.6 5.7 6.0 6.5 7.1 7.5 7.0 5.6 4.5 3.8 3.2 2.5 2.0

RUR ART 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.5 1.0 2.4 4.8 6.2 5.5 5.3 5.5 5.8 6.0 6.0 6.7 7.6 8.1 7.7 5.6 4.2 3.5 2.8 1.9 1.3

ENDCOPYCentral Ohio On

- Road Mobile Emission Estimates May , 20 11 43 *copy {hpvmti.q} tempvmt.txt *copy {hpeffile.q} tempef .txt

*N: \ AQ \ MOVES \ morpc \ model \ AQ \ utils \ moveshpms.exe tempvmt.txt tempef.txt tempout.txt {hpaqfact} *del tempvmt.txt *del tempef.txt

*copy {hpieffile.q} tempief.txt *copy {hpvfile.q} tempveh.txt

*N: \ AQ \ MOVES \ morpc \ model \ AQ \ utils \ movesveh.exe tempveh.txt te mpief.txt tempout.txt {hpaqfact} *del tempveh.txt *del tempief.txt

*echo MOVES BASED HPMS EMISSIONS REPORT > tempcom.txt *echo {hpaqcom} >> tempcom.txt *echo Input VMT File: {hpvmti} >> tempcom.txt *echo Network Emission Factors: {hpeffile } >> tempcom.txt *echo Vehicle Emission Factors: {hpieffile} >> tempcom.txt *echo Vehicle Population: {hpieffile} >> tempcom.txt

*echo

----------------------------------------- >> tempcom.txt *copy /B tempcom.txt+tempout.txt {hprpto.q}

*del tem pout.txt *del tempcom.txt *del daily.datCentral Ohio On

- Road Mobile Emission Estimates May , 20 11 44 

### Appendix B

– MORPC Travel Demand Model Emission Run Report for 200 5

MOVES BASED EMISSIONS REPORT PM2.5 Redesignation Analysis

- morpc
Loaded Network: N: \ AQ \ MOVES \ morpc \ model \ AQ \ net works \ 2005 \

AQ_asgn_2005.net

Network Emission Factors: N: \ AQ \ MOVES \ morpc \ model \ factors \ 2005MORPC_rpd.csv

Vehicle Emission Factors: N: \ AQ \ MOVES \ morpc \ model \ factors \ 2005MORPC_rpv.csv Vehicle Population : N: \ AQ \ MOVES \ morpc \ model \ factors \ STP200 5MORPC.csv Intrazonal Trips : N: \ AQ \ MOVES \ morpc \ model \ AQ \ intra_z \ itrips05.txt Area File (sq mi): N: \ AQ \ MOVES \ morpc \ model \ AQ \ area_taz \ TAZ_areain.txt
Volume Field Used: VOL24_TOT Capacity Field Used: CAP24

--------- -------------------------------- CMS/AQ REPORT
POSTCMS10, UPDATED DEC 2009, GTG

DATE:02/11/2011 TIME:16:05:27

PARAMETER FILE DUMP (DAILY.DAT FILE)

HOUR 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

PCTADT

URB FWY 0.9 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.9 2.2 5.2 7.3 6.4 5.2 4.9 5.1 5.3 5.5 6.1

7.2 8.0 7.9 5.8 4.2 3.4 2.9 2.2 1.5

URB ART 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.6 1.5 3.5 5.7 5.5 5.1 5.3 6.2 6.5 6.4 6.8

7.6 8.2 8.1 6.2 4.8 4.0 3.0 1.9 1.3

RUR FWY 1.4 1.1 0.9 1.0 1.3 2.2 3.7 5.2 5.4 5.4 5.6 5.6 5.7 6.0 6.5

7.1 7.5 7.0 5.6 4.5 3.8 3.2 2.5 2.0

RUR ART 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.5 1.0 2.4 4.8 6.2 5.5 5.3 5.5 5.8 6.0 6. 0 6.7

7.6 8.1 7.7 5.6 4.2 3.5 2.8 1.9 1.3

PCTADT TRK

URB FWY 2.1 1.9 1.8 2.0 2.4 3.0 3.9 4.6 5.3 6.0 6.3 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.3

5.8 5.2 4.6 4.1 3.7 3.4 3.1 2.8 2.4

URB ART 1.1 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.6 2.3 3.9 5.9 6.9 6.7 7.1 7.6 7.4 7.2 7.4

7.2 6.0 5.0 3.7 2.8 2.3 1.9 1.5 1.3

RUR FWY 2.6 2.2 2.1 2.3 2.6 3.1 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.1 5.6 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8

5.6 5.3 4.9 4.6 4.3 4.0 3.8 3.5 3.1Central Ohio On

- Road Mobile Emission Estimates May , 20 11 45 RUR ART 1.5 1.3 1.4 1.6 2.2 3.0 4.2 5.3 6.1 6.7 7.0 7.1 7.0 6.9 6.8

6.3 5.5 4.6 3.8 3.1 2.6 2.3 2.1 1.7

PCTDIR

URB FWY 38 40 40 46 56 64 70 70 68 62 58 52 52 52 50

46 38 38 46 52 46 42 42 40

URB ART 44 46 44 48 5 4 62 66 68 64 56 54 52 50 50 50

46 40 38 46 52 48 46 46 46

RUR FWY 44 46 48 54 60 68 68 64 58 54 52 50 50 52 52

48 42 40 44 48 48 44 46 44

RUR ART 40 42 44 48 58 66 72 68 60 56 54 50 50 50 50

46 40 38 46 50 46 44 44 44

LOS E VC 0 0.625 1.25 1.875 2.5 3.125 3.75 4.375 5 5.625 6.25 6.875 7.5 8.125 8.75

9.375 10 10.625 11.25 11.875 12.5 13.125 13.75 14.375

SPEEDVC

curve1 75 75 75 75 75 75 74.9 74.8 74.6 74.2 73.5 72.3 70.5 67.8 64.2

59.5 54 47.7 41.2 34.9 28.9 23.7 19.2 15.5

curve2 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 69.9 69.8 69.6 69.2 68.4 67.1 65.1 6 2.2

58.2 53 47 40.5 33.9 27.7 22.2 17.6 13.8

curve3 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 64.9 64.8 64.4 63.8 62.6 6 0.5

57 52 45.4 37.8 29.9 22.7 16.7 12.1 8.6

curve4 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 59.9 59.8 59.6 59.1 58.2 56.7

54.3 50.8 46.1 40.3 33.8 27.3 21.3 16.2 12.2

curve5 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 54.9 54.7 54.3 53.6

52.3 50 46.5 41.5 35.3 28.5 21.9 16.1 11.5

curve6 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 59.9 59.8 59.7 59.4 59.1 58.5 5 7.7

56.5 55 53.1 50.7 47.9 44.7 41.1 37.3 33.4

curve7 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 54.9 54.9 54.7 54.5 54.2 53.8 5 3.1

52.2 50.9 49.3 47.3 44.9 42.1 39 35.7 32.2

curve8 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 49.9 49.9 49.8 49.6 49.4 49 4 8.5

47.7 46.7 45.4 43.8 41.8 39.5 36.8 33.9 30.9

curve9 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 44.9 44.8 44.7 44.4 44.1 43.6

43 42.1 40.9 39.4 37.6 35.5 33.1 30.5 27.8

curve10 50 50 50 50 49.9 49.8 49.7 49.4 49 48.4 47.5 46.5 45.1 43.5 41.7

39.6 37.3 34.9 32.4 29.8 27.3 24.9 22.6 20.4

curve11 50 50 50 50 50 49.9 49.7 49.4 48.9 48 46.7 44.9 42.5 39.6 3 6.2

32.6 28.7 25 21. 4 18.2 15.3 12.9 10.8 9

curve12 50 50 50 50 50 49.9 49.8 49.6 49.1 48.2 46.8 44.5 41.4 37.5 3 2.9

28 23.1 18.7 14.9 11.8 9.2 7.2 5.7 4.5

curve13 40 40 40 40 40 40 39.9 39.8 39.5 39.2 38.6 37.8 36.7 35.3 33.5

31.4 29 26.4 23.7 21.1 18.5 16.1 13.9 12

curve14 40 40 40 40 40 39.9 39.8 39.6 39.1 38.5 37.5 36.1 34.3 32.1 29.4

26.5 23.5 20.5 17.7 15.1 12.8 10.7 9 7.6

curve15 40 40 40 40 40 39.9 39.7 39.4 38.8 37.9 36.5 34.7 32.3 29.5 26.4

23.2 20 17 14.3 11.9 9.9 8.2 6.8 5.6

curve16 35 35 35 35 35 34.9 34.8 34.5 34 33.2 32.1 30.5 28.5 26.1 2 3.5

20.6 17.9 15.2 12.8 10.7 8.9 7.4 6.1 5.1

curve17 35 35 35 35 35 34.9 34.7 34.4 33.9 33.1 32 30.3 28.3 25.8 2 3.1

20.3 17.5 14.9 12.5 10.4 8.6 7.2 5.9 4.9

curve18 35 35 35 35 35 34.9 34.6 34.2 33.5 32.4 30.9 28.8 26.3 23.4 20.4

17.4 14.6 12.1 9.9 8.1 6.6 5.4 4.4 3.6Central Ohio On

- Road Mobile Emission Estimates May , 20 11 46 curve19 30 30 30 30 30 29.9 29.8 29.5 29 28. 2 27.1 25.6 23.7 21.5 19.1

16.6 14.2 12 10 8.3 6.8 5.6 4.6 3.8

curve20 30 30 30 30 30 29.9 29.7 29.4 28.9 28.1 26.9 25.3 23.4 21.1 1 8.6

16.1 13 .6 11.4 9.5 7.8 6.4 5.3 4.3 3.6

curve21 30 30 30 30 30 29.9 29.7 29.3 28.7 27.7 26.2 24.4 22.1 19.6 17

14.4 12 9.9 8.1 6.6 5.4 4.4 3.6 2.9



### VC RATIO TO LOS CONVERSION (VALUE SHOWN IS LOWER LI MIT FOR THAT LOS)(URBAN ROADS USE SPEED
BREAKS BELOW FOR LOS DETERMINATION) (ALL USE THE BASE VC'S TO DETERMINE EXCEEDANCE)

BASE RUR2 FWY

A 0.00 0.00 0.00

B 0.30 0.00 0.25

C 0.50 0.10 0.40

D 0.70 0.30 0.60

E 0.90 0.50 0.80

F 1.00 1.00 1.00

F+ 1.10 1.10 1.10

F++ 1.30 1.30 1.30

SPEED VC RATIO BREAKS FOR URBAN STREETS (HIGHEST SPEED FOR GIVEN LOS & FF SPEED)

FFS B C D E F

>47 42. 34. 27. 21. 16.

>37 35. 28. 22. 17. 13.

>32 30. 24. 18. 14. 10.

<33 25. 19. 13. 9. 7.

LEVEL OF SERVICE THRESHOLD BY AREA

NUM LOS DEFINITION

1 F CINCINNATI,CLEVELAND,COLUMBUS CENTRAL MPO COUNTIES (CUY,FRA,HAM)Central Ohio On

- Road Mobile Emission Estimates May , 20 11 47 

### 2 E OTHER TMA MPOS (AKRON,CANTON,DAYTON,TOLEDO,YOUNGSTOWN + NON

- CENTRAL COUNTIES FROM 1)

3 E OTHER MPOS & PARTS OF AREAS 1 & 2 OUTSIDE URBANIZED AREA

4 E RURAL NON MPO COUNTIES

PEAK SPREADING MODEL INFO (SET MAX ITERATIONS TO 0 TO DISABLE PEAK SPREADING)

MAX VC RATIO FWY: 1.30

MAX VC RATIO ART: 1.30

MAX ITERATIONS : 1000

TRUCK PCE: 2.0

AQ SEASON FACTOR: 1 .00

MODEL CLASS PARAMETERS (MAX 4 CLASSES, HOURS 0

- 23 W/ NO OVERLAP IN CLASS, ALLOCATE ENTIRE CLASS
AS TRUCK(1) OR NOT(0))

CLS TRK 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0

CLS BEG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0

CLS END 23 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0

CLS NUM 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0

###  MOVES NETWORK LINK EMISSIONS OUTPUT

COUNTY MONTH VMT HC NOX SO2 PM2.5Central Ohio On

- Road Mobile Emission Estimates May , 20 11 48 

### MOVES NETWORK LINK EMISSIONS OUTPUT 2005

COUNTY MONTH VMT HC NOX SO2 PM2.5

DEL APRIL 4333210. 0.0000 12.2202 0.2244 0.3736

FAI APRIL 1544881. 0.0000 4.3001 0.079 7 0.1337

FRA APRIL 29768210. 0.0000 87.9714 1.6485 3.0302

LIC APRIL 4574656. 0.0000 13.0015 0.2374 0.3962

2005 intraz FRA

MOVES INTRAZONAL EMISSIONS OUTPUT

MONTH VMT HC NOX SO2 PM2.5

JANUARY 24145. 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

APRIL 24145. 0.0000 0.0799 0.0017 0.0033

JULY 24145. 0.0000 0.0812 0.0018 0.0031

2005 intraz DEL

MOVES INTRAZONAL EM ISSIONS OUTPUT

MONTH VMT HC NOX SO2 PM2.5

JANUARY 4331. 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

APRIL 4331. 0.0000 0.0143 0.0003 0.0006

JULY 4331. 0.0000 0.0146 0.0003 0.0006

2005 intraz LIC

MOVES INTRAZONAL EMISSIONS OUTPUT

MONTH VMT HC NOX SO2 PM2.5

JANUARY 9886. 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

APRIL 9886. 0.0000 0.0327 0.0007 0.0013

JULY 9886. 0.0000 0.0332 0.0007 0.0013

2005 intraz FAI

MOVES INTRAZONAL EMISSIONS OUTPUT

MONTH VMT HC NOX SO2 PM2.5

JANUARY 6216. 0.0000 0 .0000 0.0000 0.0000

APRIL 6216. 0.0000 0.0206 0.0004 0.0008

JULY 6216. 0.0000 0.0209 0.0005 0.0008Central Ohio On

- Road Mobile Emission Estimates May , 20 11 49 

### Appendix C

– MORPC Travel Demand Model Emission Run Report for 200 8

MOVES NETWORK LINK EMIS SIONS OUTPUT 2008

COUNTY MONTH VMT HC NOX SO2 PM2.5

DEL APRIL 4881406. 0.0000 10.4465 0.0760 0.3439

FAI APRIL 1689444. 0.0000 3.5603 0.0262 0.1172

FRA APRIL 32040648. 0.00 00 71.7951 0.5300 2.6508

LIC APRIL 5008579. 0.0000 10.7507 0.0776 0.3444

2008 intraz FRA

MOVES INTRAZONAL EMISSIONS OUTPUT

MONTH VMT HC NOX SO2 PM2.5

JANUARY 24970. 0.000 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

APRIL 24970. 0.0000 0.0635 0.0005 0.0029

JULY 24970. 0.0000 0.0654 0.0006 0.0027

2008 intraz DEL

MOVES INTRAZONAL EMISSIONS OUTPUT

MONTH VMT HC NOX SO2 PM2.5

JANUARY 4845. 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

APRIL 4845. 0.0000 0.0123 0.0001 0.0006

JULY 4845. 0.0000 0.0127 0.0001 0.0005

2008 intraz LIC

M OVES INTRAZONAL EMISSIONS OUTPUT

MONTH VMT HC NOX SO2 PM2.5

JANUARY 10631. 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

APRIL 10631. 0.0000 0.0271 0.0002 0.0012

JULY 10631. 0.0000 0.0278 0.0002 0.0011

2008 intraz FAI

MOVES INTRAZONAL EMISSIONS OUTPUT

MONTH VMT HC NOX SO2 PM2.5

JANUARY 6660. 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

APRIL 6660. 0.0000 0.0170 0.0001 0.0008

JULY 6660. 0.0000 0.0174 0.0002 0.0007Central Ohio On

- Road Mobile Emission Estimates May , 20 11 50 

### Appendix D

– MORPC Travel Demand Model Emission Run Report for 20 1 5

MOVES NETWORK LINK EMISSIONS OUTPUT 2015

COUNTY MONTH VMT HC NOX SO2 PM2.5

DEL APRIL 5936352. 0.0000 5.0920 0.0370 0.1878

FAI APRIL 2017796. 0.0000 1.7051 0.0126 0.0637

FRA APRIL 35085168. 0.0000 31.6081 0.2335 1.3307

LIC APRIL 5749044. 0.0000 4.9624 0.0357 0.1767

2015 intraz FRA

MOVES INTRAZONAL EMISSIONS OUTPUT

MONTH VMT HC NOX SO2 PM2.5

JANUARY 26817. 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

APRIL 26817. 0.0000 0.0273 0.0002 0.0015

JULY 26817. 0.0000 0.0283 0.0002 0.0013

2015 intraz DEL

MOVES INTRAZONAL EMISSIONS OUTPUT

MONTH VMT HC NOX SO2 PM2.5

JANUARY 6486. 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

APRIL 6486. 0.0000 0.0066 0.0001 0.0004

JULY 6486. 0.0000 0.0068 0.0001 0.0003

2015 intraz LIC

MOVES INTRAZONAL EMISSIONS OUTPUT

MONTH VMT HC NOX SO2 PM2.5

JANUARY 12169. 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

APRIL 12169. 0.0000 0.0124 0.0001 0.0007

JULY 12169. 0.0000 0.0128 0.0001 0.0006

2015 intraz FAI

MOVES INTRAZONAL EMISSIONS OUTPUT

MONTH VMT HC NOX SO2 PM2.5

JANUARY 7961. 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

APRIL 7961. 0.0000 0.0081 0.0001 0.0004

JULY 7961. 0.0000 0.0084 0.0001 0.0004Central Ohio On

- Road Mobile Emission Estimates May , 20 11 51 

### Appendix E

– MORPC Travel Demand Model Emissions Run Report for 2022

MOVES NETWORK LINK EMISSIONS OUTPUT 2022

COUNTY MONTH VMT HC NOX SO2 PM2.5

DEL APRIL 6957105. 0.0000 2.5339 0.0391 0.1229

FAI APRIL 2252721. 0.0000 0.8030 0.0127 0.0400

FRA APRIL 37533228. 0.0000 14.4440 0.2252 0.8139

LIC APRIL 6341792. 0.0000 2.3236 0.0355 0 .1077

2022 intraz FRA

MOVES INTRAZONAL EMISSIONS OUTPUT

MONTH VMT HC NOX SO2 PM2.5

JANUARY 28130. 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

APRIL 28130. 0.0000 0.0118 0.0002 0.0 009

JULY 28130. 0.0000 0.0124 0.0002 0.0008

2022 intraz DEL

MOVES INTRAZONAL EMISSIONS OUTPUT

MONTH VMT HC NOX SO2 PM2.5

JANUARY 8292. 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 00

APRIL 8292. 0.0000 0.0035 0.0001 0.0003

JULY 8292. 0.0000 0.0037 0.0001 0.0002

2022 intraz LIC

MOVES INTRAZONAL EMISSIONS OUTPUT

MONTH VMT HC NOX SO2 PM2. 5

JANUARY 13078. 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

APRIL 13078. 0.0000 0.0055 0.0001 0.0004

JULY 13078. 0.0000 0.0058 0.0001 0.0004

2022 intraz FAI

MOVES INTRAZONAL EMISSIONS OU TPUT

MONTH VMT HC NOX SO2 PM2.5

JANUARY 9322. 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

APRIL 9322. 0.0000 0.0039 0.0001 0.0003

JULY 9322. 0.0000 0.0041 0.0001 0.0003Central Ohio On

- Road Mobile Emission Estimates May , 20 11 52 

### Appendix F

– MORPC Travel Demand Model Emissions Run Report for 2035

MOVES NETWORK LINK EMISSIONS OUTPUT 2035

COUNTY MONTH VMT HC NOX SO2 PM2.5

DEL APRIL 9303783. 0.0000 2.1714 0.0477 0.1424

FAI APRIL 2835737. 0.0000 0.6455 0.0145 0.0438

FRA APRIL 43304036. 0.0000 10.7122 0.2372 0.8115

LIC APRIL 7621445. 0.0000 1.8012 0.0387 0.1106

2035 intraz FRA

MOVES INTRAZONAL EMI SSIONS OUTPUT

MONTH VMT HC NOX SO2 PM2.5

JANUARY 31455. 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

APRIL 31455. 0.0000 0.0081 0.0002 0.0009

JULY 31455. 0.0000 0.0086 0.0002 0.0008

2035 intraz DEL

MOVES INTRAZONAL EMISSIONS OUTPUT

MONTH VMT HC NOX SO2 PM2.5

JANUARY 12839. 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

APRIL 12839. 0.0000 0 .0033 0.0001 0.0004

JULY 12839. 0.0000 0.0035 0.0001 0.0003

2035 intraz LIC

MOVES INTRAZONAL EMISSIONS OUTPUT

MONTH VMT HC NOX SO2 PM2.5

JANUARY 15562. 0.0000 0.0 000 0.0000 0.0000

APRIL 15562. 0.0000 0.0040 0.0001 0.0004

JULY 15562. 0.0000 0.0042 0.0001 0.0004

2035 intraz FAI

MOVES INTRAZONAL EMISSIONS OUTPUT

MONTH VMT HC NOX SO2 PM2.5

JANUARY 14561. 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

APRIL 14561. 0.0000 0.0037 0.0001 0.0004

JULY 14561. 0.0000 0.0040 0.0001 0.0003Central Ohio On

- Road Mobile Emission Estimates May , 20 11 53 

### Appendix G

– MORPC HPMS V MT and Emissions

MOVES BASED HPMS EMISSIONS REPORT PM2.5 Redesignation Analysis

- morpc Input VMT File: N: \ AQ \ MOVES \ morpc \ model \ factors \ hpms \ COS2005VMT.csv

Network Emission Factors: N: \ AQ \ MOVES \ morpc \ model \ factors \ 2005MORPC_rpd.csv

Veh icle Emission Factors: N: \ AQ \ MOVES \ morpc \ model \ factors \ 2005MORPC_rpv.csv Vehicle Population: N: \ AQ \ MOVES \ morpc \ model \ factors \ 2005MORPC_rpv.csv

----------------------------------------- DATE:02/14/2011 TIME:15:25:41

PARAMETER FILE DUMP (D AILY.DAT FILE)

HOUR 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

PCTADT

URB FWY 0.9 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.9 2.2 5.2 7.3 6.4 5.2 4.9 5.1

5.3 5.5 6.1 7.2 8.0 7.9 5.8 4.2 3.4 2.9 2.2 1.5

URB ART 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.6 1.5 3.5 5.7 5.5 5.1 5.3 6.2

6.5 6.4 6.8 7.6 8.2 8.1 6.2 4.8 4.0 3.0 1.9 1.3

RUR FWY 1.4 1.1 0.9 1.0 1.3 2.2 3.7 5.2 5.4 5.4 5.6 5.6

5.7 6.0 6.5 7.1 7.5 7.0 5.6 4.5 3.8 3.2 2.5 2.0

RU R ART 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.5 1.0 2.4 4.8 6.2 5.5 5.3 5.5 5.8

6.0 6.0 6.7 7.6 8.1 7.7 5.6 4.2 3.5 2.8 1.9 1.3

AQ SEASON FACTOR: 1.00000000Central Ohio On

- Road Mobile Emission Estimates May , 20 11 54 2005 FA IRFIELD COUNTY

MOVES HPMS EMISSIONS OUTPUT

MONTH VMT HC NOX SO2 PM2.5

JANUARY 1614197. 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

APRIL 1614197. 0.0000 4.5697 0.0874 0.1575

J ULY 1614197. 0.0000 4.2749 0.0922 0.1464

2008 FAIRFIELD COUNTY

MOVES HPMS EMISSIONS OUTPUT

MONTH VMT HC NOX SO2 PM2.5

JANUARY 1502264. 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

A PRIL 1502264. 0.0000 3.2247 0.0243 0.1222

JULY 1502264. 0.0000 3.0498 0.0259 0.1138

2015 FAIRFIELD COUNTY

MOVES HPMS EMISSIONS OUTPUT

MONTH VMT HC NOX SO2 PM2.5

JA NUARY 1573480. 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

APRIL 1573480. 0.0000 1.3468 0.0101 0.0571

JULY 1573480. 0.0000 1.2767 0.0110 0.0513

2022 FAIRFIELD COUNTY

MOVES HPMS EMISSIONS OUTPUT

MONTH VMT HC NOX SO2 PM2.5

JANUARY 1607751. 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

APRIL 1607751. 0.0000 0.5733 0.0093 0.0319

JULY 1607751. 0.0000 0.5529 0.0101 0.0269

20 35 FAIRFIELD COUNTY

MOVES HPMS EMISSIONS OUTPUT

MONTH VMT HC NOX SO2 PM2.5

JANUARY 1731584. 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

APRIL 1731584. 0.0000 0.3893 0.0090 0.0290

JULY 1731584. 0.0000 0.3793 0.0099 0.0239Central Ohio On

- Road Mobile Emission Estimates May , 20 11 55 2005 COSHOCTON COUNTY

MOVES HPMS EMISSIONS OUTPUT

MONTH VMT HC NOX SO2 PM2.5

JANUARY 59548. 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

APRIL 59548. 0.0000 0.1812 0.0036 0.0072

JULY 59548. 0.0000 0.1731 0.0039 0.0068

2008 COSHOCTON COUNTY

MOVES HPMS EMISSIONS OUTPUT

MONTH VMT HC NOX SO2 PM2.5

JANUARY 58602. 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

APRIL 58602. 0.0000 0.1362 0.0011 0.0059

JULY 58602. 0.0000 0.1315 0.0011 0.0056

2015 COSHOCTON COUNTY

MOVES HPMS EMI SSIONS OUTPUT

MONTH VMT HC NOX SO2 PM2.5

JANUARY 62547. 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

APRIL 62547. 0.0000 0.0578 0.0004 0.0029

JULY 62547. 0.0000 0.0559 0.0005 0.0027

2022 COSHOCTON COUNTY

MOVES HPMS EMISSIONS OUTPUT

MONTH VMT HC NOX SO2 PM2.5

JANUARY 63264. 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

APRIL 63264. 0.0000 0.0240 0.0004 0.0016

JULY 63264. 0.0000 0.0236 0.0004 0.0014

2035 COSHOCTON COUNTY

MOVES HPMS EMISSIONS OUTPUT

MONTH VMT HC NOX SO2 PM2.5

JANUARY 65837. 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

APRIL 65837. 0.0000 0.0154 0.0004 0.0015

JULY 65837. 0.0000 0.0152 0.0004 0.0013Central Ohio On

- Road Mobile Emission Estimates May , 20 11 56 

### Appendix H

– Interagency consultation

- Teleconference call meeting minutes

11/4/10 C all Interagency Consultation Annual PM2.5 Redesignations Planning

Columbus Area

Minutes

Participants:

Dave Moore

- ODOT

Nino Brunello

- ODOT Leigh Oesterling

- FHWA Sandy Mapel

- LCATS

Nick Gill

- MORPC

Cha n d ra Parasa

- MORPC

Patricia Morris

– USEPA Regi on 5
Jennifer Hunter

– Ohio EPA

Carolina Prado

– Ohio EPA

Call objective:

- Annual PM2.5 redesignation planning for the Columbus nonattainment area.

- Model mobile emissions for PM2.5, NOx and SO2.

- Years to be model: 2005 (base nonattainment year), 2008 (att ainment year), 2015 (interim budget year), and 2022 (maintenance budget year).

- Agree upon responsibilities and timing for the generation of on

- road (mobile) emissions as part of the annual PM2.5 redesignation requirements for the Columbus

area.

Agreements :

- ODOT will develop the Emission Model database and submit it to MORPC.

- MORPC will develop the Travel Model database and combine it with the

Emission Model to run MOVES.

- ODOT will develop Columbus assumptions document similar to those used in the Huntingt on

- Ashland area assumptions protocol. MORPC will assist as needed.

- MORPC will provide final protocol write up on the procedures, steps and assumptions used to run MOVES and obtain mobile emissions. OEPA is providing OKI write

- up as template.

- OEPA will rev iew data and justify, if appropriate, insignificance of SO2.

Timeline:

November 11, 2010

– ODOT will submit assumptions protocol draft to OEPA for

distribution for comments.Central Ohio On

- Road Mobile Emission Estimates May , 20 11 57 

### November 17, 2010

– All IAC group comments on protocol assumptions should be

sen t back to ODOT. November 24, 2010

– ODOT will distribute final protocol assumptions

. Mid December 2010

– ODOT will have Emission Model completed. Mid January 2010

– MORPC will have mobile emissions runs completed and

write

- up

. Will be provided to OEP A. OEPA will provide notice to all persons on this list when draft redesignation request out

for comment.

The IAC group will have the next call on December 15, 2010 at 11:00am EST.

Call in number 614

- 644

- 4743

*not discussed on this call but should be on next

– agreeing on margin of safety to be added to 2015 and 2022 mobile budgets.Central Ohio On

- Road Mobile Emission Estimates May , 20 11 58 

### Fine Particulate Matter (PM 2.5 

### ), Annual Standard

Several parameters have been identified for use in the preparation of this analysis. The parameters listed below will be a pplied in the base MOVES setup:

Pollutants to be monitored: SO 2 

### , NO

x 

### , and PM 2.5 

### Model years: 2005, 2008 (leap year), 2015, and 2022 (reflecting the most recent correspondence from EPA)
MOVES modeling technique: Emission Factor method

o Rates per Distance

o Rates per Vehicle

o (Rates per Profile are used only for VOCs)

Scale : Custom domain
Time Span :

o Time aggregation : Hour

o 1 month representing average annual temperatures

o All hours of day selected

o 16 speed bins

o Weekdays only
Geographic Bounds : Custom Domain

– all counties in the MORPC area
Vehicles/Equipment : All source types, gasoline and diesel
Road Type : All road types including off

- network

Pollutants and Processes : NO

x 

### , All PM 2.5 

### categories, SO 2 

### , Total Energy Consumption
Strategies : none General Output : Units = grams, joules and miles
Output Emissions : Time = hour, Location = c ustom area , on

- road emission rates by road type and source use type.

Advanced Performance : none

The following assumptions will be applied within the County Data Manager portio n of the MOVES software package. Each parameter is identified, along with the source data that will be applied (if applicable).

Source Type Population : Combination of l ocal and default data . Local data (2010)

ODOT from motor vehicle registration data. D efault data used for source types 41, 61, and 62. Future year growth rate based on MPO model variable Household growth rate
Vehicle Type VMT: Combination of local and default data. HPMSVTypeYear VMT = daily VMT from travel demand model with EPA’s daily to annual VMT converter applied. monthVMTFraction = default. dayVMTFraction=default.

hourVMTFraction=local.
I/M Programs: I/M prog ram information will be applied for 2005 where applicable.

Fuel Formulation: Modify diesel sulfur fraction to match previous MOBILE inputs. Future runs will also be modified for reformulated gas, RVP, etc. for summer analyses.
Fuel Supply: Using MOVES default data.Central Ohio On

- Road Mobile Emission Estimates May , 20 11 59 

### Meteorology Data: Local data obtained from NOAA National Climatic Data Center.

Data will consist of monthly hi gh and low temperatures and daily relative humidity.
Ramp Fraction: Using the base year travel demand model for VHT fractions. Future

fractions will be assumed constant.
Road Type Distribution: Use ODOT (and some WVDOT) county summary VMT categorized b y federal functional classes
Age Distribution: Combination of local and default data. Local data (2010) ODOT from motor vehicle registration data (also some WVDO data) . Default data used for source types 41, 51, 54, 61, and 62. The same age distribution will be used for all analysis years.
Average Speed Distribution: Using MOVES default data

. Data source does not matter because it is ignored when calculating emission rates.
Alternative Fuel Vehicle Types: D efault file will be modified to reflect any CNG buses

.

# A TTACHMENT 

# D

# Regional Quality Analyses for
Ozone, PM 2

. 5 

# and Regional Haze:

Technical Support Document Supplement

September 12, 2008

States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio and

Wisconsin

The document can be found at:
.b.!!P://www.epa.ohio.g.QYLportals/27/SIP/AQ,Pendix%20 

# 0-

2 TSD SUJ2.plement without CAIR modeling FINAL.lli!f

# A TTACHMENT 

# E

### Public Notice Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Redesignation and Maintenance Plan for the Columbus Annual PM 2.5 

### Nonattainment Area

Coshocton, Delaware, Fairfield, Franklin, and Licking Counties

Notice is hereby given that the Director of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, (Ohio EPA) is requesting that the United States Environment al Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) revise the current air quality designat ion for the Columbus area, including Coshocton, Delaware, Fairfield, Franklin , and Licking counties to attainment with respect to the 1997 annual PM 2.5 

### national ambient air qua lity standard (NAAQS). Fine particle pollution or PM 2.5 

### is a mixture of microscopic solids and liquid droplets suspended in air that is 2.5 micromet ers in diameter and smaller – 1/30 th 

### the diameter of

a human hair. PM 2.5 

### can be emitted directly or form ed secondarily in the atmosphere. Air quality monitoring data collected bet ween 2008 and 2010 in the region demonstrate
attainment of the NAAQS and t here is evidence that the impr oved air quality is due to permanent, enforceable emission reductions. In addition, existing requirements are

sufficient to maintain the 1997 annual PM 2.5 

### standard in this area at least ten years into

the future.

Computer models show that existing stat e and federal emission reduction requirements
are sufficient to attain and maintain the NAAQ S in the Columbus ar ea. Therefore, Ohio EPA proposes to utilize existing emission invent ory information and projections of future

emissions as the demonstration of the ability to maintain the NAAQS in the Columbus

area in the future.

The Columbus area is currently designat ed as nonattainment for the 1997 annual PM 2.5 

### standard. As part of an acceptable maintenanc e plan, Ohio EPA is required to develop a contingency plan to provide for additional em ission reductions if a violation of the
NAAQS is monitored after the area has been redesignated. The plan which Ohio EPA is proposing to USEPA as part of this redesi gnation contains reduc tions which will help alleviate the ambient problem unt il a revised SIP can be developed.

The State of Ohio proposes to:

1. Request the U.S. EPA redes ignate the Columbus area to attainment with respect

to the 1997 annual PM 2.5 

### NAAQS and revise the main tenance plan. This request will document that existing enf orceable control measures are responsible for the observed improvement in air quality.

2. Designate existing controls as sufficient to maintain the NAAQS into the future.

3. Commit to the proposed contingency plan.

### These actions must be noticed to allo w public comment and to satisfy USEPA requirements for public involvement in SIP re lated activities. This notice addresses Ohio EPA’s reliance on the emission projections as evidence of attainment and maintenance

and the commitment to instit ute contingency measures if ambient exceedances or violations trigger the contingency plan r equirements. Written comments will be received on or before April 21, 2011 at the following address:

E-mail: Carolina.Prado@epa.state.oh.us

Mailing address: Carolina Prado Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, DAPC

Lazarus Government Center

P.O. Box 1049 Columbus, Ohio 43216-1049 Phone: (614)- 728-1743

Pursuant to Section 119.03 of the Ohio Revised Code, a public hearing on this redesignation request will be conducted as follo ws: April 21, 2011 at 1:30 PM, at Ohio EPA’s Central Office located at 50 West Town Street, Columbus, Ohio.

All interested persons are entitled to att end or be represented at the hearings and give

written or oral comments on these changes. All oral comments presented at the hearing, and all written statements submitted at the hearing or to the above address by the close of business on Ap ril 21, 2011 will be considered by Ohio EPA prior to final action on this redesignation. Written statements submitted after April 21, 2011 may be considered as time and circumstances permit, but will not be part of the official record of the hearing.

This redesignation and maintenance request is available on Ohio EPA DAPC’s Web page for electronic downloading at: http://www.epa.ohio.gov/dapc/SIP/annual.aspx

. Questions regarding accessing the web site should be directed to Arunee Niamlarb at 614-728-1342; other questions or comments about this document should be directed to either Carolina Prado, (614)-644-2310, Carolina.Prado@epa.state.oh.us or Jennifer Hunter at (614) 644-3696, Jennifer.Hunter@epa.state.oh.us or mailed to Carolina Prado

or Jennifer Hunter at the above address.

# m-!t~ Mld-OIllo Regional Planning Commission

April 20, 2011

Carolina Prado

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, DAPC

P.O. Box 1049

Columbus, Ohio 43216-1049

RE: 1997 Annual PM2.5 Standard Redesignation Request Proposal for Central Ohio Nonattainment

Dear Ms. Prado: 111 Uberty Street

Suite 100

Columbus, Ohio 43215

614.228.2663

f 614.228.1904

IItD 1.800.886.2663

www.morpc,org

The Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission (MORPC) is a voluntary association of over 40 local governments

in central Ohio, Our members recognize the importance of ciean air and how it impacts the quality of life in the

region, Most importantly, we want to ensure that central Ohio maintains healthy air quality levels. As you know,

according to US, EPA exposure to fine particulate matter (PM2.5) can lead to a variety of short and long-term

health effects, including triggering asthma and heart attacks, arrhythmias, increased susceptibility to

respiratory infections, reduced lung function, the development of chronic bronchitis and even premature death,

Furthermore, if our region does not continue to work diligently to manage air pollution, it could adversely impact

our ability to attract and retain businesses,

We believe Ohio EPA has demonstrated attainment of the 1997 Annual PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality

Standard in the central Ohio area (Coshocton, Delaware, Fairfield, Franklin, and Licking counties) and strongly

support the agency's request for redesignation to attainment We would like to ensure the Mobile Vehicle

Emission BUdgets outlined in the document provide adequate margin to allow the region to demonstrate

transportation conformity as required by federal regulations, We believe the 15 percent increase in the 2015

and 2022 projections for the mobile emissions bUdget is adequate for these purposes, Finally, we support the

procedures outlined in the Contingency Plan as reasonable measures to proactively address potential future

PM2.5levels above of the standard,

MORPC will continue to do its part to reduce PM2.5 emissions at the local level by promoting Travel Demand

Management programs, such as transit, vanpooling and carpooling, and working with diesel fleets to install

emission-control technology, We will also continue to fund and administer a regional Air Quality Awareness

Program, including daily air quality forecasts for the public,

Sincerely,

Chester R. Jourdan, Jr.

Executive Director

DemckR;Clay

Chair Marilyn Brown

Vice Chair Eric S.PhIUlpS Secretary Cbest&rR. Jourdan, Jr.

Executive DirectorApril 21, 2011 1.207 Grandvlevv /',vc"n'10. Columbus,**Oh~o** 43212 201



### Ohio Environmental Council's Comments on Proposed redesignation of central Ohio in meeting

the 1997 national fine particulate matter standard

The Ohio Environmental Council (OEC) is a statewide, nonprofit environmental organization whose mission is

to secure healthy air, land, and water for all who call Ohio home. On behalf of our over 100 environmental and

conservation member organizations and thousands of members throughout the state of Ohio, the Ohio

Environmental Council respectfully submits the following comments on the proposed redesignation of central

Ohio in meeting the 1997 PM 2.5 standard.

Particulate matter comes from a variety of sources: cars, diesel trucks, diesel buses, planes, trains, and heavy duty construction equipment. These emissions are from a variety of sectors. It is our understanding that the

2009 Statewide Annual Emission Inventory used the U.s. EPA's Mobile 6.2 model. More recentfy-2010-the

U.s. EPA revamped the model to add more variables and has changed the model to MOVES.

In Franklin County estimates for 2015 from the non road contribution of PM 2.5 are 486.25 tons and the on
road contributing 352.28 tons. Together, these two sectors contribute the majority of PM 2.5. One major

source of PM 2.5 is diesel engines. Diesel exhaust contains formaldehyde, benzene, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and more 40 known air toxins. Below is a simplified diesel particle.



### Diesel Particle

To"lc8

Matals

Sacondary Su!lab> and Nitrate

Organic Carbon Compounds

Efem"ntal Camon Cor"

Diesel particles are carbon at their core with toxics and

carcinogenic substances attached to their surfaces.

This deadly stew is 3 times higher than the combined total cancer risk from all other air toxics.

PM 2.5 is a serious problem in Ohio. PM 2.5 is l/3o'h the width of a human hair and when breathed, bypasses

the body's natural defenses to get lodged in the lungs or go into the blood stream. Below is a graph demonstrating PM 2.5'S small size:

" PM" "2,5 mlcromll'llW; In

dillmeler

The width Df a human hair Is 30 times larger than

the smallest fine particle.

1This pollutant can contribute to asthma attacks, heart and lung disease, respiratory-related hospital visits and
preventable death.

The Clean Air Task Force, from an analysis by ABT Associates using U.S. EPA-based methodology, projects that

2010 saw the following health impacts (in the U.S.):

Adults
21,000Premature Deaths
27,000Non-Fatal Heart Attacks

41o,000Asthma Attacks 12,000Chronic Bronchitis
2>400,000Work Loss Days (WLD)
14,000,000Minor Restricted Activity Days (MRAD)

Children
15,000Asthma ER Visits
29,000Acute Bronchitis
330,000Lower Respiratory Symptoms
270,000Upper Respiratory Symptoms

The annual number of deaths associated with diesel pollution is more than drunk driving, firearm homicide,

HIV / AIDS and workplace deaths-see below.

2" hand smoke: 38,000

Power Plant Emissions: 24,000

Diesel soot: 21,000

Drunk driving: 17,000

Firearm homicide: 11,000

HIV /AIDS: 9,000 Workplace: 5,000

(Source: Clean Air Task Force)

Additionally, fine particles from diesel engines impact central Ohioans' health:

84Premature Deaths

118Non-Fatal Heart Attacks
3,018Asthma Attacks

57Chronic Bronchitis
12,772Work Loss Days (WLD)
74,055Minor Restricted Activity Days (MRAD)

The lifetime cancer risk from diesel soot in Franklin County is 223 times greater than the EPA's acceptable

cancer level of 1 in a million.

Furthermore, asthma, occurrences of which often are tied to poor air quality, is the most frequent admitting diagnosis at Nationwide Children's Hospital. Franklin County has 16.5% of children diagnosed with asthmathat is higher than the state average of 15.4% and the federal average of 14%.

Below are a few of the many studies that have looked at the deadly toll from diesel emissions:



### 2• A 2009 OSU College of Public Health (Dr. Sun) study revealed exposure to diesel exhaust increases angiogenesis and vasculogenesis-one of the fundamental mechanisms for solid tumor growth.

• A 2004 study of highway patrol officers exposed over a shift, particulate matter was linked to irregular

heartbeats and increases in blood inflammatory markers (source: Particulate matter exposure in cars
is associated with cardiovascular effects in healthy young men; American Journal of Respiratory and

Critical Care Medicine, v. 169, p. 934-940)

• A 2007 Harvard study of 54,000 workers in the trucking industry found a higher risk in heart disease in

the trucking industry compared to the general 

## u.s. population: a 49% higher risk in drivers, a 32% higher risk in dock workers, and a 34% higher risk in shop workers (source: Cause·specific mortality in

the trucking industry. Environmental Health Perspectives, v. 115, no. 8. p. 1192-1196)

• A 2010 study correlates prenatal freeway traffic proximity in California and incidence of autism. The

risk of autism is nearly double (86% increase) inside 1,000 feet. Diesel exhaust could be a risk factor. (source: Health effects of real-world exposure to diesel exhaust in persons with asthma. Res Rep

Health Eff Inst. 2009 Feb; (138): 5-109; discussion 111'23).

• Case control study (pub. American Journal of Industrial Medicine) 2001,50% excess risk of colon

cancer in men related to exposure to diesel engine emissions.

• CARB School Bus Exposure Study (2003)-''self pollution" is a source of exposure; Increased child's

lifetime cancer risk due to diesel PM by 4%.

• Yale Study (Feb 2002)-Children's exposure to PM on school buses is as much as 5-15 times higher than background levels [on buses not retrofitted with emission controls].

The monetized value of health impacts from diesel soot in Ohio are projected at $5.1 billion a year.

Moreover, there are environmental damages particle polluting causes to our already impacted wetlands,

streams, wildlife, and climate. Black carbon is a basis for particulate matter. Studies have revealed that black

carbon is about 2,000 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide over a 20 year period. According to the 

## u.s. EPA over 37% of land·based PM in the 

## u.s. comes from construction equipment. Additionally, diesel emissions contribute to the deadening of our waterways, smog, and crop damage.

The Agency projects that PM 2.5 emissions from on· road mobile sources will drop from 968.60 tons in 2008 to

486.25 in 2015. The Agency incorporated a 15% margin of safety when coming up with the projected numbers.

The agency states a 15% margin of safety is justified because the variation in VMT forecast; expected

modifications to TOM and mobile emission models and total decrease in emissions from all sources.

Several questions remain: did the modeling take into account the economic recession when not as many new

trucks may have been purchased/used on the road? Did it take into account the possibility that not as many
construction projects occurred over the three year span? Did the modeling over emphasis the 2007 on road

diesel emission rule and its impact? Did the model take into account the anti-module transportation option

environment we now face? Did the model take into account the growing trend of using outdoor wood fired

boilers (which contribute to PM 2.5 emission)?

The Ohio EPA and many groups in Ohio, including OEC, have made great strides in cleaning the air. But we
should not rest on our laurels. No doubt the air is cleaner than it was before but the real question is has state



### 3government done enough? We know that the full health benefits from the onroad and nonroad diesel clean up regulations won't be felt for another 20-30 years. In the meantime 11-12 million existing diesel engines

continue to turn out the deadly pollutants. Maybe 1 million or 1.5 million have been cleaned up; but that still

leaves a substantial number of dirty diesel engines out there.

If accepted, the redesignation took us more than 14 years to meet the standard. As we move forward we can't

afford to wait another 14 years to meet any newer standard that may come out. We must do everything

feasible to achieve maximum reductions in diesel pollution.

Additional steps the Ohio EPA and state government can take to reduce the death toll from diesel engines:

*Fund the Diesel Emission Reduction Grant program in the amount of $20 million a year;

*Adopt clean construction requirements on all public works projects that require 85% or more reduction in
pollution from the construction vehicles;

*Adopt a no-idling law with no more than idling for 5 minutes in a 60 minute time frame with few exceptions;

*Adopt an E-check-like program for on road diesel trucks;

* (Re)invest in Truck Stop Electrification; and

*Develop a low/no interest program that targets tier zero construction vehicles to be replaced with tier 3 or 4.

Additionally, adopt strong rules regulating the OWB menace.

In short, we need the Kasich Administration and the General Assembly to step up and make Ohio a leader in

the Midwest instead of a laggard when it comes to cleaning up poor air quality. We know that every dollar

invested in diesel cleanup yields anywhere from $12 to $20 in health care savings. The days of dirty, deadly,

diesel emissions are numbered, let's put the final nail in the coffin by adopting strong measures that protect

the public's health. Thank you again for this opportunity to comment on this important issue.

Sincerely,

David R. Celebrezze

Dir. of Air & Water Special Projects



### 4April 21, 2011



### Verbal Testimony of David 

### R. Celebrezze, OEC

Thank you for this opportunity to submit comments on the Ohio EPA's request to U.S. EPA that central Ohio be redesignated as meeting the 1997 national fine particulate matter standard. I wi!! submit more detailed comments in

my written testimony.

The Ohio Environmental Council (OEC) is a statewide, nonprofit environmental organization whose mission is to

secure healthy air, land, and water for all who call Ohio home. We have thousands of individual members and more

than 100environmentai and conservation member organizations.

Particulate matter comes from a variety of sources: cars, trucks, buses, planes, trains, and heavy duty construction equipment. These emissions are from a variety of sectors.

One major source of PM 2.5 is diesel engines. Diesel exhaust contains formaldehyde, benzene, volatile organie
compounds, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and more 40 known air toxins.

;"

This deadly stew is 3 times higher than the combined total cancer risk from all other air toxies.

PM 2.5 is a serious problem in Ohio. It is 1130 th the width of a human hair and when breathed, bypasses the body's

natural defenses to get lodged in the lungs or go into the blood stream

This pollutant can contribute to asthma attacks, heart and lung disease, respiratory-related hospital visits and preventable death.

The Clean Air Task Force, using U.s. EPA-based methodology, projects that 2010 saw the following health impacts (in

the U.S.):

Adults
21,000Prematu re Deaths
27,000Non-Fatal Heart Attacks
410,OooAsthma Attacks

Children
15,000Asthma ER Visits
29,oooAcute Bronchitis

The annual number of deaths associated with diesel pollution is more than drunk driving, firearm homicide,

H IV 

### I AIDS and workplace deaths.

Additionally, fine particles from diesel engines impact central Ohioans' health:

84 Preventable Deaths

118Non-Fatal Heart Attacks
3,018Asthma Attacks

The lifetime cancer risk from diesel soot in Franklin County is 223 times greater than the EPA's acceptable cancer

level of 1 in a million.

The monetized value of health impacts from diesel soot in Ohio is projected at $5.1 billion a year.

1Moreover, studies have revealed that black carbon is about 2,000 times more potent a greenhouse gas than C02

over a 20 year period. According to the 

## U.s. EPA over 37% of land· based PM in the 

## u.s. comes from construction equipment.

The OEPA estimates that PM 2.5 emissions from on-road mobile sources will drop from 968.60 tons in 2008 to

486.25 in 2015.

Several questions should be addressed if they have not already: did the modeling take into account the economic

recession when not as many new trucks may have been purchased or used on the road? Did it take into account the possibility that not as many construction projects occurred over the three year span? Did the modeling over emphasis the 2007 on road diesel emission rule and its impact? Did the model take into account the anti-module transportation option environment we are now in? Did the model take into account the growing trend of using

outdoor wood fired boilers which contributes to PM 2.5 emissions)?

The Ohio EPA and many groups in Ohio, including OEC, have made great strides in cleaning the air. But we should

not rest on our laurels. No doubt the air is cleaner than it was before but the real question is has state government

done enough? We know that the full health benefits from the 

## u.s. EPA onroad and nonroad diesel clean up regulations won't be felt for another 20-30 years. In the meantime 11-12 million existing diesel engines continue to

turn out the deadly pollutants. Maybe 1 million or 1.5 million have been cleaned up; but that still leaves a
substantial number of dirty diesel engines out there.

If accepted, the redesignation took us more than 14 years to meet the standard. As we move forward we can't afford

to wait another 14 years to meet any newer standard that may come out. We must do everything feasible to achieve

maximum reductions in diesel pollution.

Additional steps the Ohio EPA and state government can take to reduce the death toll from diesel engines:

*Fund the Diesel Emission Reduction Grant program in the amount of $20 million a year;

*Adopt clean construction requirements on all public works projects which would require 85% or more reduction in pollution from the construction vehicles;

*Adopt a no-idling law with no more idling than 5 minutes in a 60 minute time frame with few exceptions;

*Adopt an E-check-like program for on road diesel trucks;

* (Re)invest in Truck Stop Electrification; and

*Develop a low/no interest program that targets tier zero construction vehicles to be replaced with tier 3 or 4.

Additionally, adopt strong rules regulating the OWB menace.

In short, we need the Kasich Administration and the General Assembly to step up and make Ohio a leader in the

Midwest instead of a laggard when it comes to cleaning up poor air quality. We know that every dollar invested in

diesel cleanup yields anywhere from $12 to $20 in health care savings. The days of dirty, deadly, diesel emissions

are numbered, let's put the final nail in the coffin by adopting strong measures that protect the public's health.

Thank you again for this opportunity to comment on this important issue.

Sincerely,

David R. Celebrezze

Dir. of Air & Water Special Projects

2

### BEFORE THE OHIO EPA

IN RE:

Currently Air Quality Designation

Public Hearing before Moderator

Kristopher Weiss, taken at the Ohio Environmental

Protection Agency, 50 West Town Street, 6th Floor

Conference Room A, Columbus, Ohio at 1:30 p.m. on

April 21, 2011.



# FRale(V COOpeR

Profess;onal (ourt Reporters Main**Offi~~** 8036 Smoke Road
Pataskala, Ohio 43062

(740) 927·333B
(BOOI B52-6163

Fax (740) 927-:)436

www.FraJeyCooper.com Columbus, Ohio
(614) 22B-001 B

Newark, Ohio

(740) 345-85S62

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24 In Re: Currently Air Quality Designation, taken on April 21, 2011



### Page 2



### P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S

MODERATOR WEISS: My name is Kristopher

Weiss. I'm a public involvement coordinator in

the Ohio EPA's Public Interest Center, and I'll

moderate today's public hearing. Thank you for

taking the time to attend.

The purpose of the hearing today is to

get comments from any interested person regarding

Ohio EPA's request that the U.S. EPA revise the

current air quality designation for the Columbus

area, which includes Coshocton, Delaware,

Fairfield, Franklin, and Licking Counties, with

respect to the 1997 annual PM 2.5 national

ambient air quality standard, or NAAQS.

Air quality monitoring data collected

between 2008 and 2010 in the region demonstrate

attainment of the NAAQS, and there's evidence

that the improved air quality is due to permanent

enforceable emission reductions.

All interested persons are entitled to

attend or be represented and to present oral

and/or written comments concerning the standard.

All written and oral comments received as part of

Fraley, Cooper & Associates (614) 228-0018 (800) 852-6163 (740) 345-8556In Re: Currently Air Quality Designation, taken on April 21, 2011



### Page 3



### the official record will be considered by the

2 

### director of Ohio EPA.

3 

### To be included in the official record,

4 

### written comments must be received by Ohio EPA by

5 

### the close of business today, which is April 21,

6 

### 2011. Comments may be filed with me today, and

7 

### they may also be e mailed to

8 

### carolina.prado@epa.state.oh.us. That's

9 

### C-A-R-O-L-I-N-A, dot, P-R-A-D-O, at EPA, dot,

10 

### state, dot, O-H, dot, U-8.

II 

### All written comments submitted for the

12 

### record receive the same consideration as oral

13 

### testimony given today. Written statements may be

14 

### submitted written statements submitted after

15 

### today may be considered as time and circumstances

16 

### allow but will not be part of the official record

17 

### for this hearing.

18 

### If you wish to present oral testimony

19 

### and have not already signed the registration

20 

### sheet, please do so now. People will be called

21 

### to testify in the order in which they have

22 

### registered.

23 

### There is no cross-examination of

24 

### speakers or of representatives of the Ohio EPA in

Fraley, Cooper & Associates (614) 228-0018 (800) 852-6163 (740) 345-8556In Re: Currently Air Quality Designation, taken on April 21, 20 II



### public hearings of this type. Ohio EPA hearings

2 

### such as this afford citizens the opportunity to

3 provide comments on the official record; and,

4 

### therefore, we will not be able to answer

5 

### questions during the hearing.

6 

### That said, members of the panel may ask

7 

### clarifying questions of the person testifying to

8 

### ensure the record is as complete and accurate as

9 

### possible.

10 

### I'll now read the names of those who

II 

### have registered at this hearing and give each

12 

### person an opportunity to testify.

13 

### That would be David Celebrezze of the

14 

### OEC.

15 

### MR. CELEBREZZE: Thank you for this

16 

### opportunity to submit comments on the Ohio EPA's

17 

### request to U.S. 

### EPA that central Ohio be

18 

### designated as meeting the 1997 national fine

19 

### particulate matter standard. I will submit more

20 

### detailed comments in my written testimony.

21 

### The OEC is a statewide non-profit

22 

### organizations whose mission is to secure healthy

23 

### air, land, and water for all those who call Ohio

24 

### home. We have thousands of individual members

Fraley, Cooper & Associates (614) 228-0018 (800) 852-6163 (740) 345-8556 

### Page 4In Re: Cnrrently Air Qnality Designation, taken on April 21, 2011



### Page 5



### and more than 100 environmental and conservation

2 

### member organizations.

3 

### Particulate matter comes from a variety

4 

### of sources: cars, trucks, buses, plains, trains,

5 

### and heavy-duty construction equipment. These

6 

### emissions are from a variety of sectors.

7 

### One major source of PM 2.5 is diesel

8 

### engines. Diesel exhaust contains formaldehyde,

9 

### benzene, volatile organic compounds, particulate

10 

### matter, nitrogen oxides, and more than 40 known

II 

### air toxins. This deadly stew is three times

12 

### higher than the combined total cancer risk from

13 

### all other taxies.

14 

### PM 2.5 is a serious problem in Ohio.

15 

### It's 1/30th the width of a human hair and, when

16 

### breathed, bypasses the body's natural defenses to

17 

### get lodged in the lungs or go into the

18 

### bloodstream. This pollutant can contribute to

19 

### asthma attacks, heart and lung disease,

20 

### respiratory-related hospital visits, and

21 

### preventable death.

22 

### The Clean Air Task Force, using 

# u.s

23 

### EPA-based methodology, projects that 2010 saw the

24 

### following health impacts in the U.S.:

Fraley, Cooper & Associates (614) 228-0018 (800) 852-6163 (740) 345-8556In Re: Currently Air Quality Designation, taken on April 21, 20 II



### Page 6



### 21,000 premature deaths, 27,000

2 

### non-fatal heart attacks, 410,000 asthma attacks.

3 

### In children those numbers are 15,000 asthma ER

4 

### visits and 29,000 acute bronchitis instances.

5 

### The annual number of deaths associated

6 with diesel pollution is more than drunk driving,

7 

### firearm homicide, HIV/AIDS, and workplace deaths.

8 

### Additionally, fine particles from diesel engines

9 

### impact central Ohioans' health: 84 preventable

10 

### deaths, 118 non-fatal heart attacks, and 3,019

11 

### asthma attacks.

12 

### The lifetime cancer risk from diesel

13 soot in Franklin County is 223 times greater than

14 

### the EPA's acceptable cancer level of one in a

15 

### million.

16 

### The monetized value of health impacts

17 

### from diesel soot in Ohio is projected at $5.1

18 

### billion a year.

19 

### Moreover, studies have revealed that

20 

### black carbon from diesel emissions is about 2,000

2] 

### times more potent than greenhouse gas and C02

22 

### over a 20-year period. According to the U.S EPA,

23 

### over 37 percent of land-based PM in the US comes

24 

### from construction equipment.

Fraley, Cooper & Associates (614) 228-0018 (800) 852-6163 (740) 345-8556In Re: Currently Air Quality Designation, taken on April 21, 20 II



### Page 7



### The Ohio EPA estimates that PM 2.5

2 

### emissions from on-road mobile sources will drop

3 

### from 968.6 tons in 2008 to 486.25 in 2015.

4 

### Several questions should be addressed if

5 

### they have not already. Did the modeling take

6 

### into account the economic recession when not as

7 

### many new trucks may have been purchased or used

8 

### on the road? Did it take into account the

9 

### possibility that not as many construction

10 

### projects occurred over the three-year span? Did

11 

### the modeling overemphasize the 2007 on-road

12 

### diesel emissions rule and its impact? Did the

13 

### modeling take into account the anti-module

14 

### transportation option environment we are now in?

15 

### Did the model take into account the growing trend

16 

### in using outdoor wood-fired boilers which

17 

### contributes to PM 2.5 emissions?

18 

### The Ohio EPA and many groups in Ohio,

19 

### including the OEe, have made great strides in

20 

### cleaning the air, but we should not rest on our

2] 

### laurels. No doubt the air is cleaner than it was

22 

### before, but the real question is has state

23 

### government done enough?

24 

### We know that the full health impacts

--

Fraley, Cooper & Associates (614) 228-0018 (800) 852-6163 (740) 345-8556In Re: Cun'ently Air Quality Designation, taken on April 21, 2011



### Page 8



### the full health benefits from the 

## u.s. EPA

2 

### on-road and non-road diesel cleanup regulations

3 

### won't be felt for another 20 to 30 years. In the

4 

### meantime, 11 to 12 million existing diesel

5 

### engines continue to turn out the deadly

6 

### pollutants. Maybe 1 million or 1.5 million have

7 

### been cleaned up, but that still leaves a

8 

### substantial number of dirty diesel engines out

9 

### there.

10 

### If accepted, the redesignation took us

11 

### more than 14 years to meet the standard. As we

12 

### move forward, we can't afford to wait another 14

13 

### years to meet any newer standard that may come

14 

### out. We must do everything feasible to achieve

15 

### maximum reductions in diesel pollution.

16 

### Additional steps the Ohio EPA and state

17 

### government can take to reduce the death toll from

18 

### diesel engines: One, fund the Diesel Emission

19 

### Reduction Grant program in the amount of $20

20 

### million a year; adopt clean construction

21 

### requirements on all public works projects, which

22 

### would require 85 percent or more reductions in

23 

### pollution from construction vehicles; adopt a

24 

### no-idling law with no more than five minutes of

Fraley, Cooper & Associates (614) 228-0018 (800) 852-6163 (740) 345-8556In Re: Currently Air Quality Designation, taken on April 21, 2011



### Page 9



### idling in a sixty-minute time frame with few

2 

### exceptions; adopt an E-check-like program for

3 

### on-road diesel trucks; reinvest in truck stop

4 

### electrification; and develop a low/no interest

5 

### loan program that targets Tier 0 construction

6 

### vehicles to be replaced with Tier 3 or Tier 4,

7 

### Additionally, adopt strong rules regulating the

8 

### outdoor wood-fired menace,

9 

### Some entities say that regulations kill

10 

### jobs, but weak or no regulations kill people.

11 

### In short, we need the Kasich Administration to

12 

### step up and make Ohio a leader in the Midwest

13 

### instead of a laggard when it comes to cleaning up

14 

### poor air quality. We know that every dollar

15 

### invested in diesel cleanup yields anywhere from

16 

### $12 to $20 in health care savings. The days of

17 

### dirty, deadly diesel emissions are numbered.

18 

### Let's put the final nail in the coffin by

19 

### adopting strong measures that protect the

20 

### public's health.

21 

### Thank you again for the opportunity to

22 

### comment on this important issue.

23 

### MODERATOR WEISS: Thanks, very much.

24 

### Appreciate it.

Fraley, Cooper & Associates (614) 228·0018 (800) 852-6163 (740) 345-8556

### They're over here.

We'll go ahead and go 2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24 In Re: Currently Air Quality Designation, taken on April 21, 2011



### Page 10



### Do you have some written comments you

want to submit as well?

MR. CELEBREZZE:

MODERATOR WEISS:

off the record.

(Pause in proceedings until 2:00 p.m.)

MODERATOR WEISS: Is there anyone else

who wishes to testify at this time? (No audible

response.) Seeing no further requests for

testimony, I remind you that written comments can

be submitted through the close of business today.

Thank you for coming. The time is now

2 p.m., and the hearing is adjourned.

(Thereupon, at 2:00 p.m. on April 21,

2011, the public hearing was adjourned.)

Fraley, Cooper & Associates (614) 228-0018 (800) 852-6163 (740) 345-8556In Re: Currently Air Quality Designation, taken on April 21, 2011



### C E R T I F I CAT E

2 Page 11

3 

### STATE OF OHIO



# ss:

4 COUNTY OF FRANKLIN :

5 I, Jennifer L. 

### Parish, Registered

6 Professional Reporter and Notary Public in the

7 State of Ohio, do hereby certify that the

8 foregoing is a true, correct, and complete

9 transcript of the proceedings in the matter

10 

### before the Ohio EPA as reported by me in

11 

### stenotype and transcribed from my stenographic

12 

### notes.

13

14

15

16

17



### NOTARY

18



### 19 My Commission Expires: November 23, 2014.

20

21

22

23

24

Fraley, Cooper & Associates (614) 228-0018 (800) 852-6163 (740) 345-8556

### Response to Comments

PM 2.5 

### Redesignation Request for the 1997 PM 2.5 

### Annual Standard

for the Columbus Area

Agency Contact for this Package

Division Contact: (Carolina Prado, Division of Air Po llution Control, 614-644-2310, Carolina.Prado@epa.state.oh.us)

Ohio EPA held a public hear ing in Columbus, OH on Ap ril 21, 2011, regarding the Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for the Columbus PM 2.5 

### Nonattainment

Area. This document summarizes the comment s and questions receiv ed at the public hearing and during the associ ated comment period, which ended on April 21, 2011.

Ohio EPA reviewed and cons idered all comments received during the public comment period.

By law, Ohio EPA has authority to consider specific issues related to protection of the environment and public health.

In an effort to help you review this doc ument, the questions are grouped by topic and organized in a consistent format. The name of the commenter follo ws the comment in parentheses.

During the public comment period, the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) advised Ohio EPA of an error in the MOVES post-processor assumptions utilized to generate on-road emissions in the Columbus area. ODOT, together with the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Co mmission, corrected the errors and reanalyzed the mobile emissions using MOVES. The new analysis resulted in an

increase in the total on-road mobile emi ssions; however, the effect on the overall

area emissions is minimal and a 15% safet y margin, for transportation conformity purposes, was still allocated. Therefore, the final document does contain revised

on-road mobile emissions numbers as compared to the draft document.

General Comments/Overall Concerns

Comment 1: The Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission (MORPC) is a voluntary association of over 40 local governments in central Ohio. Our members recognize the importance of clean air and how it impacts the quality of life in the region. Most

### importantly, we want to ensure that central Ohio maintains healthy air quality levels. As you know, according to U.S. EPA exposure to fine particulate matter (PM2.5) can lead to a variety of short and long-term health effects, including triggering asthma and heart atta cks, arrhythmias, increased susceptibility to respiratory infections, reduced lung function, the development of chronic bronchitis and even premature death. Furthermore, if our region does not continue to work diligently to manage air pollution, it could adversely impact our ability to attract and retain businesses.

We believe Ohio EPA has demonstrated attainment of the 1997 Annual PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard in the central Ohio area (Coshocton, Delaware, Fairfield, Franklin, and Licking counties) and strongly support the agency’s request for red esignation to attainment.

We support the procedures outlin ed in the Contingency Plan as reasonable measures to proa ctively address potential future PM2.5 levels above of the standard (Chester R. Jourdan, Jr., Executive Director, MORPC)

Response 1: Thank you for your comment and support on Ohio's PM 2.5 

### Redesignation Request for the Columbus nonattainment area.

Comment 2: We would like to ensu re the Mobile Vehicle Emission Budgets outlined in the docum ent provide adequate margin to allow the region to demonstr ate transportation conformity as required by federal regulations. We believe the 15 percent increase in the 2015 and 2022 pr ojections for the mobile emissions budget is adequate fo r these purposes (Chester R. Jourdan, Jr., Executive Director, MORPC).

Response 2: Thank you for your comment on Ohio's PM 2.5 

### Redesignation Request for the Columbus nonatta inment area. The mobile emission budgets outlined in t he document were established through agreement among the me mbers of Columbus Area Interagency Consultancy Group.

Comment 3: MORPC will continue to do its part to reduce PM2.5

emissions at the local level by promoting Travel Demand Management programs, such as transit, vanpooling and carpooling, and working with di esel fleets to in stall emissioncontrol technology. We will also continue to fund and administer a regional Ai r Quality Awareness Program,

### including daily air quality forecasts for the public (Chester R. Jourdan, Jr., Executive Director, MORPC).

Response 3: Thanks for your support and commitment to help improve the Columbus Area air quality.

Comment 4: The Agency projects that PM 2.5 

### emissions from on-road mobile sources will drop from 968. 60 tons in 2008 to 486.25 in 2015. The Agency incorporated a 15% margin of safety when coming up with the projected numbers. The agency states a 15% margin of safe ty is justified because the variation in VMT forecast; expected modifications to TDM

and mobile emission models and total decrease in emissions

from all sources.

Several questions remain: did the modeling take into account

the economic recession when not as many new trucks may have been purchased/used on the road? Did it take into account the possibility that not as many construction projects occurred over the th ree year span? Did the modeling over emphasis the 2007 on road diesel emissionrule and its impact? Did the model take into account the antimodule transportation option en vironment we now face? Did the model take into account the growing trend of using outdoor wood fired boilers (which contribute to PM 2.5 

### emissions)? (David R. Celebrezze, Ohio Environmental Council).

Response 4: The mobile emission budgets for the Columbus area redesignation, were agreed upon as part of the interagency consultation process, include t he emission estimates calculated for 2015 and 2022 with an additional 15 percent margin of safety

allocated to PM 2.5 

### and NO
x 

### in 2015 and 2022. In an effort to

accommodate future variations in travel demand models and VMT forecast when no change to the network is planned, Ohio EPA

consulted with U.S. EPA to det ermine a reasonable approach to

address this variation. Based on this discussion, a 15 percent margin of safety allocation was agreed upon and has been added

to the emissions estimates for this nonattainment area. This area

continues to show maintenance of the standard with the additional 15 percent margin of safety.

All methodologies, the latest planning assumptions, and the safety margins allocations were determined through the interagency consultation process de scribed in the Transportation Conformity Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) among

### MORPC, Ohio DOT, and Ohio EPA. Ohio EPA believes a 15 percent margin of safety is appr opriate because: 1) there is an acknowledged potential variation in VMT forecast and potential

estimated mobile source emissi ons due to expected modifications to TDM and mobile emissions models; and 2) the total decrease

in emissions from all sources is sufficient to acco mmodate this 15 percent allocation of safety margin to mobile sources while still continuing to maintain the total emissions in the Columbus area

well below the 2008 attainment level of emissions.

Ohio EPA and the interagency cons ultation group used USEPA approved methodologies and assu mptions developed by USEPA through the MOVES model. This includes assumptions built into the MOVES model regarding US EPA’s 2007 on road diesel emission rule and its impact. Oh io EPA believes the assumptions included in the model, along with t he 15 percent margin of safety, provide for a very conservative estimation of mobile emissions.

Please refer to the technical support documents included in the redesgination request for addi tional information regarding assumptions.

Comment 5: The Ohio EPA and many groups in Ohio, including OEC, have made great strides in clean ing the air. But we should

not rest on our laurels. No doubt the air is cleaner than it was before but the real question is has state government done enough? We know that the full health benefits from the onroad and nonroad diesel clean up regulations won’t be felt for another 20-30 years. In the meantime 11-12 million existing diesel engines continue to turn out the deadly pollutants. Maybe 1 million or 1.5 million have been cleaned up; but that still leaves a substa ntial number of dirty diesel engines out there.

If accepted, the redesignation took us more than 14 years to

meet the standard. As we move forward we can’t afford to wait another 14 years to meet any newer standard that may come out. We must do everything feasible to achieve maximum reductions in diesel pollution (David R. Celebrezze, Ohio Environmental Council).

Response 5: Thank you for your comments and concern for the Ohio EPA proposed redesignation and maint enance of the HuntingtonAshland PM 2.5 

### Nonattainment Area. The Ohio EPA strives to constantly improve air quality for all Ohio and during the last 14 years (since the establishment of the PM 2.5 

### annual standard) Ohio EPA has been working together wit h the regulated community to

### reduce atmospheric emission s and achieve or go beyond

USEPA’s mandates.

Moreover, achieving significant r eductions in particulate matter is one of Ohio EPA’s priorities. Over the past 14 years Ohio EPA has made significant progress in r educing particle pollution in the

Columbus area and has now attain ed the federal quality standard (which is shown in this redesignation request). This is evidenced

in the actual PM 2.5 

### monitoring data in the ar ea. For the monitors located in Franklin County, monitoring data has shown a

decrease in PM 2.5 

### from a high of 18.03 ug/m 3 

### during the 1999 to 2001 period to a low of 11.3 ug/m 3 

### during the 2008 to 2010 period. Lowering PM 2.5 

### emissions and meeting the federal air quality standard was achieved by controlling and modernizing

facilities and/or sources in t he area; USEPA studies show that

PM 2.5 

### emission reductions results in better health protections for the people living near t hese facilities.

USEPA is currently reviewing the PM 2.5 

### standards and may choose to strengthen them in t he near future. Ohio EPA will continue to strive to develop pr ograms and implement strategies

that will allow for Ohio’s areas to achieve the standard as expeditiously as practicable and by the attainment date.

Comment 6: Additional steps the Ohio EPA and state government can take to reduce the death toll from diesel engines: *Fund the Diesel Emission Reduction Grant program in the amount of $20 million a year; *Adopt clean construction requi rements on all public works projects that require 85% or mo re reduction in pollution from the construction vehicles; *Adopt a no-idling law with no more than idling for 5 minutes

in a 60 minute time fram e with few exceptions; *Adopt an E-check-like program for on road diesel trucks; * (Re)invest in Truck Stop Electrification; and *Develop a low/no interest program that targets tier zero

construction vehicles to be re placed with tier 3 or 4. Additionally, adopt strong rul es regulating the OWB menace (David R. Celebrezze, Ohio Environmental Council).

Response 6: Thank you for your comment and suggestions. Ohio EPA will continue to work to reduce air po llution, considering options such

as those the commenter has outlined above.

Comment 7: We need the Kasich Administration and the General Assembly to step up and make Oh io a leader in the Midwest

### instead of a laggard when it comes to cleaning up poor air quality. We know that every dollar invested in diesel cleanup yields anywhere from $12 to $20 in health care savings. The days of dirty, deadly, diesel emissions are numbered, let’s put the final nail in the coffi n by adopting strong measures that protect the public’s health (David R. Celebrezze, Ohio Environmental Council).

Response 7: Thanks for your comment and concer n. As discussed above, over the past 14 years Ohio EPA ha s made significant progress in reducing particle pollution in the Columbus area. Ohio EPA’s

mission is to “to attain and maintain the air quality at a level that will protect the environment for the benefit of all.” Ohio EPA will continue to work diligently towards this mission.

End of comments