1

Mid

- Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE

- VU) Regional Planning Organization



### FINAL INTERIM PRINCIPLES FOR REGIONAL PLANNING

The purpose of this document is to outline the Mid

- Atlantic and Northeast region’s approach to air quality planning for re gional haze, including an agreement to form a new regional planning organization. The name of the organization will be the Mid

Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE

- VU) Regional Planning Organization. The MANE

- VU Regional Planning Organization’s prin ciples for regional planning to address regional haze are as follows.

Background

In 1999, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) promulgated regional haze regulations that, among other things, require all states to develop regional haz e rules to establish goals and emission reduction strategies for improving visibility due to regional haze in the 156 national park and wilderness areas throughout the United States designated as mandatory Federal Class I areas. USEPA’s regional haze regu lations allow for, and encourage through deferment of deadlines, a coordinated approach to addressing regional haze issues. As part of the implementation of the regional haze regulations, USEPA has provided grant funds for five regional planning organizat ions (RPOs) to facilitate their efforts to address visibility impairment in the region. MANE

- VU’s members include two Federally recognized Tribes (the Penobscot Indian Nation, and the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe), eleven States (Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, M aryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont), the District of Columbia, the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Forest Service, and the U.S. Environmental Protection A gency.
Purpose

MANE

- VU will coordinate regional haze planning activities for its region. It will provide technical assessments for and assistance to its members regarding regional haze and related issues, provide a forum for its members to discuss such issues, and recommend actions to reduce regional haze. MANE

- VU will also evaluate linkage between regional haze and other regional pollutants, such as fine particulate matter and ozone. In addition, MANE

- VU will coordinate its activities with other Regio nal Planning Organizations. MANE

- VU may also take other actions to help facilitate these efforts, including adopting resolutions and other such instruments as deemed appropriate by the Board, adopting bylaws, and assisting its members in meeting the requi rements of the Federal regional haze rule.2

Roles and Responsibilities

Under the Federal regional haze rule, the States have the primary regulatory responsibility for addressing visibility impairment through the development of State Implementation Plans (SIPs). Specifically, pursuant to 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart P, Section 51.300, States are required to “...develop programs to assure reasonable progress toward meeting the national goal of preventing any future, and remedying any existing, impairment of vis ibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas which impairment results from manmade air pollution...”. As noted in the preamble to the Federal regional haze rule, States are required to “...develop SIP revisions to address regional haze, to update the SIP ev ery 10 years, and to continue to evaluate progress toward the national visibility goal.” The Federal regional haze rule also notes the important role of Indian Tribes, and under the Tribal Authority Rule (40 CFR 49), Tribes are eligible to be “treated in the same manner as a state” with respect to implementing certain provisions of the Clean Air Act. As a result, Tribes may request, and EPA may certify, Tribes becoming responsible for Tribal Implementation Plans (TIPs) for regional haze.

The Federal gove rnment, including Federal Land Managers (FLMs) and USEPA must also be involved in the regional planning process. USEPA has oversight responsibility on State and Tribal Implementation Plans, and the FLMs have significant air quality responsibilities on pub lic lands, particularly parks and wilderness areas designated as Class I areas in the Federal regional haze rule. In addition, the Federal regional haze rule requires States to consult with FLMs before adopting and submitting their regional haze SIPs. Th us, FLMs and USEPA must participate in MANE

- VU activities, at least at the technical level (see organizational structure below.)

There will therefore be Federal, State, and Tribal participants in MANE

- VU. Member States and Tribes will be responsible for decision

- making, and shall be the voting members of MANE

- VU. MANE

- VU will attempt to operate on a consensus approach on technical and policy matters.

Stakeholder involvement and input is important to MANE

- VU’s work. Stakeholder involvement is addressed specifically below in the context of MANE

- VU’s committees.

MANE

- VU also recognizes the need for interregional coordination among RPOs on a wide range of regional haze and visibility issues. Toward that end, MANE

- VU will work cooperatively with other RPOs to the greatest extent possible.

MANE

- VU will be supported by three multi

- State organizations within the region: the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC), the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM), and the Mid

- Atlantic Air Management Association (MARAMA). OTC will coordinate the activities of MANE

- VU as a whole, while NESCAUM and MARAMA will be the lead organizations for technical support.3

Organizational Structure

MANE

- VU will be organized as follows:

MANE

- VU Board

- Initially the Board will consist of the State Environmental Commissioners/Secretaries (or their designees) and air pollution control agency directors of the member States, Authorized Tribal Environmental Directors (or their designees) and a Tribal air pollution control representative (designated by the Tribal Environmental Director), the Regional Administrators of USEPA, Regions I, II, and III (or their designees), and the USEPA Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation (or his/her designee), and one representative e ach from the three Federal Land Managers. States and Tribes shall be considered voting members and the Federal representatives shall be considered non

- voting members. State and Tribal Governors shall have the authority to designate individuals for each o f the two positions on the Board.

Meeting, Consensus Decision

- Making, and Voting

- The Board shall meet at least once per year. The Board shall provide the overall policy direction for the identification and evaluation of regional planning efforts, and s hall serve as the forum for the resolution of disputes. All members shall use their best efforts to develop a consensus set of regional planning efforts and, eventually, any necessary control strategies. The Board may adopt operating procedures, by

- laws, and other conventions necessary for its operation. The Board shall meet at least annually, or more frequently as necessary to oversee the progress of the effort. All Board meetings shall be public.

Upon a vote of the majority of the voting members pres ent, the Board or any of its committees may decide to enter into Executive Session (from which the public may be excluded) for the purpose of discussing and considering matters related to personnel, litigation, real estate, and other specific matters, the discussion of which in open session would be detrimental to the interests of MANE

- VU.

The Board will use its best efforts to reach consensus on its decisions, and shall use Robert’s Rules of Order for its proceedings. Under these circumstances, each Stat e and the District of Columbia will individually have one vote, and each of the individual signatory Tribes below will have one vote.

Voting without Meeting

- Any action required or permitted to be taken by the membership may be taken without a meeting, i f all members are notified and by written consent of a majority of the full Board membership eligible to vote.

New Members

- Additional States and Federally recognized Tribes may submit a request to join MANE

- VU. Upon review and approval of the Board, su ch States and Tribes may become voting participants of the organization, according to the principles in this document. Should new members join MANE

- VU, the Board may consider and adopt alternatives to the voting provisions in this document.4

Alternate Mem bers and Proxies

- A State or Tribal Governor may designate an alternate member to vote in a member’s absence, provided that he/she notifies the Chair of such designation prior to any vote in which the alternate member would be voting on behalf of the memb er. Any member may designate another member as a proxy for the purpose of voting on behalf of the member in his/her absence, provided that he/she notifies the Chair of such designation prior to any vote in which the proxy is to be exercised.

Quorum for A ction

- Two thirds of the total voting members will constitute a quorum. Actions will be deemed to be approved with a majority of the votes cast, provided that a quorum is present.

Chair and Vice Chair of the Board

- Initially, the Chair of the Board sha ll be the Governor’s representative (i.e., the lead representative) of the State of Vermont. A Vice Chair and the terms of the Chair and the Vice Chair will be determined by the Board, though terms shall be no more than two years, as well as procedures fo r electing future Chairs and Vice Chairs. Chairs and Vice Chairs shall be environmental Commissioners, Secretaries, or Directors from the States and Tribes. The Vice Chair shall immediately succeed to the position of Chair upon completion of the original Chair’s term.

Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) Executive Staff Office Support

- Subject to the availability of funding, the OTC Executive Staff Office, including the OTC Executive Director and staff, shall be utilized to administer the operations of MANE

- VU, including both the Board and the Committees. In addition, the OTC Executive Staff Office is authorized to receive Federal funds on behalf of MANE

- VU, and to enter into contractual arrangements on behalf of the MANE

- VU Board, as well as other cooperat ive arrangements with NESCAUM and MARAMA. In this capacity, the OTC Executive Staff Office shall comply with all appropriate grant requirements.

Involvement of Regional Organizations

- Existing regional organizations, specifically MARAMA and NESCAUM, sha ll be employed in the conduct of MANE

- VU’s efforts to the greatest extent possible to advance the scientific understanding of regional haze in the Eastern United States. These efforts shall include the assessment of modeling, meteorology, emissions invent ories, monitoring, and visibility improvement strategies and other activities. The OTC Executive Staff Office shall coordinate MANE

- VU’s efforts to reduce duplication of effort, secure economies of scale, and coordinate organization, administrative, logis tical and management issues.

MANE

- VU Committees

- There shall initially be two committees formed, a Technical Support Committee and a Communications Committee. The Technical Support Committee will be responsible for assessing the nature and magnitude of the regional haze problem in the region, interpreting the results of technical work done by or for MANE

- VU, and reporting on this work to the MANE

- VU Board. The Communications Committee will be responsible for developing approaches to informing the publ ic about5

the regional haze problem in the region, and making any recommendations to the Board that would facilitate this goal. Members of the committees will be designated staff members of member organizations, plus representatives of OTC, NESCAUM, and MA RAMA.

The Chair may establish such ad hoc committees as are needed to achieve the goals of MANE

- VU. Ad hoc committees will remain in effect throughout the period of time associated with their creation, after which they shall automatically dissolve withou t the requirement of action of any sort by the membership.

Stakeholder Involvement

- MANE

- VU will involve stakeholder organizations and individuals in assisting its members in carrying out the requirements of the Federal regional haze rule. MANE

- VU will allow time for stakeholder presentations and comments in all MANE

- VU committee meetings. MANE

- VU committees will hold periodic informal meetings involving stakeholders on MANE

- VU technical work to facilitate an interchange of ideas and data that may help the overall quality and comprehensiveness of MANE

- VU’s efforts to analyze and ultimately reduce regional haze.

Signed this 24 th day of July 2001Technical Comments from the US Forest Service on th e State of Maryland Regional Haze

State Implementation Plan (SIP) November, 2011

The Forest Service is pleased to see that Maryland has committed to reviewing and revising this SIP by July 31, 2018 and every ten years thereafter, repor ting on reasonable progress for each Class I area affected by emissions from the State and adequacy o f its Regional Haze SIP every 5 years and periodically updating the emissions inventory (p. 1 0).

4.2.3 Consultation with the State of West Virginia (p. 19) – there are several facilities listed as n ot a BART facility or not BART eligible but it should be noted that these facilities could be addressed und er reasonable progress as has been done by some states such as Wyoming and North Dakota. Concerns about Mettiki Coal’s BART eligibility are addressed below in the comment section on BART.

4.3 State/Tribe and Federal Land Manager Consultati on

It is stated, or implied, that this SIP was origina lly submitted to FLMs in September 2008 for 60-day comment period and that the State of Maryland has r eceived comments from FLMs. The content of the current SIP is vastly changed from the 2008 SIP wit h many improved sections and full BART analysis’ in the Appendix. Also the 2008 SIP was pulled back pr ior to the end of the 60-day comment period so the
Forest Service never submitted comments on the 2008 version.

The State of Maryland and FLMs have agreed to an ex pedited review of the current SIP to address the State’s concerns about achieving a timely finalizat ion of the Regional Haze SIP from the US EPA. We appreciate the State of Maryland’s commitment to co ntinuing consultation with the FLMs in the Regional Haze process.

RESPONSE: Maryland thanks you for this comment

9.0 Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)

9.5.2 - De Minimus Impacts on Visibility

Independent/St. Lawrence Cement and Mettiki Coal LL C are both listed as having such small improvements under BART controls as to result in a visibility improvement that is so small as to not b e sufficient to justify installation of those control s. Both sources are considered BART eligible and a s such need to have control technologies analyzed in a BAR T analysis as laid out in the BART guidelines. The proximity to Class I areas (e.g. Dolly Sods and Ott er Creek Wilderness areas) are such that even a sma ll reduction in the emissions of visibility impairing pollutants can result in visibility improvement. A s such, it is not appropriate to exempt these two facilitie s from BART analysis and controls. It does not app ear that these sources were exempted from BART analyses for this reason in the SIP.

RESPONSE: Although Independent/St. Lawrence Cement and Mettik i Coal LLC are listed in the SIP as having such small improvements under BART controls as to result in a visibility improvement that is so small as to not be sufficient to justify installati on of those controls; these facilities did do BART analysis, which are included in Appendix G. Further response s to comments on the Independent/St. Lawrence
Cement and Mettiki Coal LLC facilities are discusse d in the source by source BART comments below.Source by Source BART (comments include information from each source’s BA RT analysis from the

appendices and information from Mettiki Coal emaile d to FLMs by Roger Thunell)

Non-EGU

Independent/St. Lawrence Cement

For PM it is agreed that the current electrostatic precipitator is equivalent to BART. It is also agr eed that there are limited options for further SO2 cont rol beyond what is considered inherent dry scrubbing as part of the production of cement. How ever, the analysis for additional NOx controls only include Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNC R) (omitting consideration of Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)) and does not include a discussion of why additional NOx controls are not
considered BART.

Independent SLC claims that SNCR is not an appropri ate BART control when Holcim, also a long dry kiln cement facility, is planning to utilize SNCR f or ozone transport and BART for NOx. Independent needs to analyze utilizing SNCR as BART. There are other cement facilities, besides Holcim in Maryland, utilizing SNCR as BART so this assertion that it is not technically feasible is not appropri ate.

All of the cost analyses for Independent SLC are li mited to rough assumptions with no references to back up the number, such as $/ton of emissions remo ved. The actual analyses as laid out in the EPA control cost manual need to be completed and shown in the company’s BART analysis to justify their assumptions about control technologies, especially when cost effectiveness is used as a reason for not considering the technology.

Holcim/St. Lawrence Cement (SLC)

This facility needs to be considered as its own sou rce in the SIP. It is currently listed under Independence SLC in the RH SIP. While there are po ints within the BART analysis that the Forest Service does not agree with, we do agree with the c hosen technologies of SNCR for NO x , inherent dry scrubbing for SO 2 and ESP for PM as BART.

RESPONSE: Independent/St. Lawrence Cement and Holcim/St. Lawr ence Cement are the same facility. The facility has changed ownership several times. Note that the Independent/St. Lawrence Cement BART analysis was submitted in 2007, while the Holc im/St. Lawrence Cement was a more recent analysis, submitted in 2010.

MDE agrees with Holcim/St. Lawrence and the FLM’s that Holcim’s currently installed controls includin g SNCR for NOx, ESP for PM and the inherent dry scrub bing operations for SO2 are BART.Mettiki Coal, LLC

The Forest Service questions the existence vs. oper ation date as meeting/not-meeting BART eligibility. The Clean Air Act Section 169A (b)(2) (A) states – “a requirement that each major stationary source which is in existence on August 7 , 1977, but which has not been in operation for more than fifteen years as of such date”. We have reviewed the BART guidelines and the associated
discussions on what "in existence" means and if a s ource is BART eligible or not. The discussion starting on page 39110 of the BART guidelines impli es that Mettiki Coal, LLC should be BART eligible and should be analyzed.

There is nothing in the BART guidelines (40 CFR Par t 51 - Regional Haze Regulations and Guidelines for Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Deter minations; Final Rule - July 6, 2005) that suggests that if a facility went through new source review t hat it would no longer be BART eligible. It is important to note that the control technologies ava ilable and practical in 1977 (none per the PSD application Final Approval Determination) differ fr om those available and practical today, so a BART analysis would be beneficial (Venturi Scrubber and Tray Scrubbers). Additionally, our review of the documentation from Mettiki Coal’s PSD Application a nd approval documentation indicated that no Class I area analysis was conducted at the time and the US EPA states that all impacts from the facility are to Class II areas.

Overall, it does not appear that Mettiki Coal’s PSD permit adequately addressed impacts to visibility at Class I areas which is the intent of the Regiona l Haze Rule and BART guidelines. That fact plus th e date the facility was “in existence” indicate that this facility should indeed be BART eligible. Plea se address this by conducting a BART analysis for the Mettiki Coal, LLC coal cleaning facility.

RESPONSE: In the Federal Register document 40 CFR Part 51 Regional Haze Regulations and Guidel ines for Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Deter minations; Final Rule 1 dated July 6, 2005, EPA describes the steps for identifying BART-eligible s ources. Under “Step 2: Identify the Start-Up Dates of the Emission Units,” on page 39159, EPA states “Emi ssions units listed under Step 1 are BART-eligible only if they were “in existence” on August 7, 1977... ..”

In the Federal Register document 40 CFR 51.301 2 , “In existence” is defined as:

In existence means that the owner or operator has obtained all n ecessary preconstruction approvals or permits required by Federal, State, or local air pollution emissions and air quality laws or regulations and either has (1) begun, or ca used to begin, a continuous program of physical on-site construction of the facility or ( 2) entered into binding agreements or contractual obligations, which cannot be cancelled or modified without substantial loss to the owner or operator, to undertake a program of constr uction of the facility to be completed in a
reasonable time.

1 http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2010/julqtr/pdf/4 0cfr51AppY.pdf

2 http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/julqtr/pdf/4 0cfr51.301.pdfThe final review of the Mettiki Coal application wa s not completed until June 19, 1978, postdating the BART “in existence” date of August 7, 19 77. MDE and Mettiki agree that the unit in question is therefore not subject to BART requireme nts.New Page/Westvaco Luke Paper

The analyses did not consider alternative control t echnologies. It appears that the technologies the company did not wish to utilize were not considered technically feasible or cost effective with little or no justification provided or actual analysis sho wn. It appears that the top-down process laid out in the BART guidelines was not followed. SCR was not considered for boiler 25 (and 26 for that matter)? There was no analysis done. We understan d that boiler 25 already has SNCR, but the improvement in NOx reductions are significant and s hould be considered as part of the BART analysis.

Control technologies for natural gas-fired boiler ( like Power Boiler 26) include Low NOx Burners and flue gas recirculation (FGR). If these two technol ogies are combined they could reduce NOx emissions by 60 to 90 percent (almost 200 to 300 to ns per year) (US EPA 1995). In their BART analysis, NewPage listed no additional controls for NOx as BART. We would like to see the above technologies analyzed in their BART analysis.

Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) should also be consi dered and analyzed for Power Boiler 25. The level of control would be greater than the 90% proposed f or spray dryer absorber or a circulating dry scrubber. It is a typical control for a boiler and should be adequately analyzed in the BART analysis

.

RESPONSE: Boiler #26 is natural gas-fired. This boiler was i nstalled in 1970 and converted from oil to natural gas in 1982. While the boiler may have the potential to emit 330 tons per year of NOx, as is cited, in reality Boiler #26 has emitted an average of 17.88 tons per year of NOx since 2002 with the highest NOx emissions reported of 37.5 tons per yea r. In recent years NOx emissions from the boiler were substantially lower: 4.2 tpy in 2008; 12.6 tpy in 2009 and 5.3 tpy in 2010. MDE agrees with New Page/Westvaco/Luke Paper that converting from oil ( the BART unit’s original fuel) to natural gas, whic h has low nitrogen, sulfur and ash content constitute s BART for such a small boiler.

The power boiler #25 is primarily coal-fired. The unit is already equipped with SNCR, low NOx burners
, and over fired air as NOx controls. A baghouse was installed in 2005 for PM controls. The NOx contro ls, including year-round operation of the SNCR, are exp ected to reduce NOx emissions from 0.99 lbs/MMBtu to 0.40 lbs/MMbtu. New Page/Westvaco/Lu ke Paper has also agreed to install a spray dry absorber to reduce SO 2 emissions from the boiler by 90%. MDE agrees with New Page/Westvaco/Luke Paper that the existing controls for NOx and PM as well as the planned new installation of a spray dry absorber fulfill their BART requirements.

As far as FGD, New Page/Westvaco/Luke Paper states in their 2010 BART analysis discussion of SO 2 controls; specifically FGD, “Retrofit consideration s include space restraints in many facilities.” In fact, New Page is located in a valley next to a river wit h related geographic limitations.EGUs

We would like to commend the State of Maryland for asking their BART eligible EGUs to provide full BART analysis for all pollutants including SO2 and NOx which are considered under the now vacated
CAIR and its successor. The Forest Service reviewe d the BART analyses without consideration that SO2 and NOx were similarly considered under CAIR’s succ essor (i.e. as if the BART analysis was the only
method for emission reductions to address visibilit y improvement at these facilities).

Mirant Chalk Point

Overall, the control technology for Mirant Chalk Po int in their BART analysis will help to improve visibility in Forest Service Class I Wilderness Are as.

- We would ask that Maryland addresses the limitation s on operations in permit condition to meet BART without emission controls also should req uire NG year round (when operating) for visibility. Unit 3 needs to be analyzed for the av ailable SO2 control technologies (low Sulfur fuel, dry sorbent injection, spray dryer absorption and/o r FGD). We understand that it is a cycling unit, but it still needs to address the possible co ntrol technologies in a BART analysis.

- We would ask that SCR be analyzed as a potential co ntrol technology for Unit 2. The current analysis only compares SCR to Selective Auto Cataly tic Reduction (SACR) emission levels rather
than to baseline emission rates. The use of SACR an d SCR should both be compared to the baseline to avoid confusion and misinterpretation o f emission reduction and cost effectiveness.
If SCR is not determined to be feasible or cost eff ective then the SACR should be operated all of the time. SACR operation should be included in an enforceable permit.

RESPONSE: Please see Maryland’s response under the “EGU Alter native to BART for SO2 and NOx”

comment.

Mirant Morgantown

We have no concerns with this facility as it has th e best available control technology. We would ask that to meet BART the facility operate its emission redu ction equipment whenever the facility is operating. The State of Maryland should include this in an enf orceable permit.

RESPONSE: Maryland thanks you for this comment.CPSG – Crane

It appears that Crane did not analyze all of the fe asible emission control technologies and only analy zed the current control against uncontrolled emissions.

- There was no consideration of applicable control te chnologies that could further limit NOx (SCR) or SO2 (FGD, circulating dry scrubber, spray dryer absorber). It appears that the facility could improve their SO2 controls beyond the 88 percent st ated as achieved through the use of low sulfur coal from the Powder River Basin through the use of any of the above post-consumption technologies with higher sulfur eastern bituminous coal. The fuel switch emission reduction of 88 percent does not meet presumptive BART limits of 95 percent reduction in SO2 or 0.15 lb SO2/MMBtu.

- The discussion of NOx control technologies states a control efficiency of 80 percent for SNCR when compared to baseline levels, but the descripti on of SNCR states a typical control ranging from 30 to 50 percent. This discrepancy should be explained since it is the basis for the facility determining that SNCR is BART. Similarly the emiss ion rate stated (0.30 lb/MMBtu) is typical for most SNCR systems whereas SCR has been shown to hav e emission rates of 0.10 lb/MMBtu. In general, SCR provides a much higher level of emissi on control for NOx and should be considered in a cost effectiveness analysis in Crane’s BART an alysis. The final BART guidelines list presumptive NOx emission limits for BART eligible d ry bottom wall-fired coal-fired units burning sub-bituminous (e.g. Powder River Basin) coal to be 0.23 lb/MMBtu. An emission rate of 0.30 lb NOx/MMBtu does not meet presumptive BART levels.

RESPONSE: Please see Maryland’s response under the “EGU Alter native to BART for SO2 and NOx”

comment.

CPSG – Wagner

We are concerned that all of the BART analyses and metrics for considering the control technologies
were not consistent. Some facilities used dollars per ton reduced as the metric to consider what is c ost effective, while others (Wagner) used dollars per d eciview for the same function. This is important s ince different metrics tell a different story. We sugge st that both metric be calculated and used as part of the BART analysis and determination

The analysis for Wagner states that visibility impr ovements at Shenandoah NP from SO 2 emission reductions at Wagner equate to $47,000,000 per deci view and that that cost is not reasonable for those controls. However, considering 1) cumulative visib ility improvements and 2) the cost of the emission reductions in dollar per deciview paint a different picture. Also, the analysis used compared the
additional emission reductions from control scenari o 1 to control scenario 2 rather than using emissio n reductions for each control scenario as compared to the baseline emissions. See the table below which makes those comparisons and indicates that FGD is a cost effective emission control technology for Wagner. The cost per ton SO2 removed is within the range stated in the final BART guidelines. Theanalysis in Table 1 also highlights that control op tion 1 is more expensive when measured with both

dollar per deciview and dollar per ton than control option 2. Furthermore, the emission reduction for control option 1 does not meet the presumptive BART limits of 95 percent reduction in SO2 or a limit o f 0.15 lb SO2/MMBtu. We recommend that the State of Maryland determine that control option 2 be determined as BART for Wagner.

Table 1 – Comparison of cost-effectiveness analyses for emission control case 1 and 2 for the Wagner G enerating Station Unit 3.

Cost effectiveness based on dollars per deciview

Class 1 Area Baseline Control1 Control2 Base-C1 Base-C2 C 1-C2 $/dV C1 $/dV C2 $/dV C1VC2 Shenandoah 1.24 0.87 0.21 0.37 1.03 0.66 $84,891,892 $30,49 5,146 $47,590,909 Brigantine 0.77 0.57 0.14 0.2 0.63 0.43 $157,050,000 $49,85 7,143 $73,046,512 Otter Creek 0.39 0.29 0.05 0.1 0.34 0.24 $314,100,000 $92,3 82,353 $130,875,000 Dolly Sods 0.45 0.32 0.06 0.13 0.39 0.26 $241,615,385 $80,5 38,462 $120,807,692 James River Face 0.51 0.37 0.06 0.14 0.45 0.31 $224,357,14 3 $69,800,000 $101,322,581
Cumulative 0.94 2.84 1.9 $33,414,894 $11,059,859 $16,531,579

Cost effectiveness based on dollars per ton of emis sion reduced

Baseline Control1 Control2 Base-C1 Base -C2 C1-C2 $/ton $/ ton $/ton
Tons SO 2 emissions 21,436 17,283 1,730 4,152 19,706 15,553 $7,565 $1,594 $2,01 9

3-yr Avg. 8th highest dV change dV

RESPONSE: Please see Maryland’s response under the “EGU Alter native to BART for SO2 and NOx”

comment.

9.8 EGU Alternative to BART for SO2 and NOx –
The statement “...there are some facilities (Wagner a nd Crane) that are not able to install FGD technology due to space constraints and company dec isions related to control costs.” is not supported by their BART analyses. Also, “company decisions” are not one the factors considered in BART analyse s for emission control technology. If these are inde ed reasons for the determinations of BART technolog y they should be included in the BART analysis and di scussed as such.

The Forest Service would like to commend the State of Maryland for the emission reductions in the Maryland Healthy Air Act that exceed presumptive BA RT reductions. These additional emission reductions should help improve visibility at nearby Class 1 areas faster than expected.

RESPONSE: Above, you quote the BART analysis as saying, “...the re are some facilities (Wagner and Crane) that are not able to install FGD technology due to space constraints and company decisions related to control costs,” and you express that thi s statement “is not supported by their BART analyse s.” The “space constraints” issue was not addressed as it is common knowledge within MDE that the Crane facility is limited in what control devices can be installed as it is surrounded by water on three sid es. The issue was raised years ago during Maryland’s pursui t of the Healthy Air Act.The Maryland Healthy Air Act requires significant S O2 reductions from both BART and non-BART units at

Constellation. The total amount of reductions to w hich Constellation has committed under the Healthy Air Act dwarf the reductions expected from a 95% SO 2 control of the two BART units. As shown in Table 9-8 in the BART analysis, a 95% control of the two BART units would equate to an approximate SO2 reduction of 26,660 tons from a 2002 baseline; wher eas the Maryland Healthy Air Act commits Constellation Energy Group to a SO2 reduction of al most 71,000 tons from the same baseline. In addition, Constellation spent close to $1 billion o n Healthy Air Act controls at its BART and non-BART
units.

Constellation Energy Group has met these SO2 reduct ions.

The Maryland Healthy Air Act requires significant S O2 reductions from both BART and non-BART units at
Mirant. The total amount of reductions to which Co nstellation has committed under the Healthy Air Act dwarf the reductions expected from a 95% SO2 contro l of the two BART units. As shown in Table 9-8 in the BART analysis, a 95% control of the two BART un its would equate to an approximate SO2 reduction of 113,121 tons from a 2002 baseline; whereas the M aryland Healthy Air Act commits Mirant Corporation to a SO2 reduction of almost 153,000 to ns from the same baseline. In addition, Mirant Corporation spent close to $1 billion on Healthy Ai r Act controls at its BART and non-BART units.

Mirant Corporation (now GenOn Energy, Inc.) has me t these SO2 reductions.

10.0 and 11.0 Reasonable Progress

We appreciate Maryland’s commitment to the MANE-VU Reasonable Progress Goals (pp. 104 -105). The discussion on Maryland’s contribution to emission r eductions focuses on sulfur but does not discuss NO x reductions.

The calculations in section 11.5 to demonstrate fai r share appear to support Maryland’s assertion that it
has met its fair share of emission reductions in MA NE-VU. .

RESPONSE: Maryland agrees with the FLMs that they have met th eir fair share of emission reductions

12.0 Long Term Strategy

The Forest Service agrees that fire from land manag ement activities, such as controlled burning, was n ot a major contributor to regional haze in MANE-VU Cla ss I Areas. We do support interagency development of a Smoke Management Program to addres s smoke from land management activities even though there are no National Forests System la nds in Maryland.

RESPONSE: Maryland thanks you for this comment.12.9 New Source Review and Prevention of Significan t Deterioration

We appreciate that the State of Maryland provided l anguage in your SIP linking the Regional Haze and New Source Review programs: “Maryland commits to ensuring NSR and PSD permittin g activity and will ensure that such activity supports Maryland’s regio nal haze SIP commitments.” This will help to ensure that the emissions from new stationary sources or m ajor modifications of existing sources will make reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal (40 CFR 51.307). This could be especially important for emissions from new sources that were not anticipated in 2018 emission inventories.

RESPONSE: Maryland thanks you for this comment.

13.0 Comprehensive Periodic Implementation Plan Rev isions

Similarly, the Forest Service is pleased to see tha t Maryland is committed to regular SIP revisions an d reasonable progress reports as outlined in the fede ral rule for regional haze.

RESPONSE: Maryland thanks you for this comment.

References:

U.S. EPA. 1995. AP 42, Fifth Edition, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volu me 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Offi ce of Air and Radiation, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Tri angle Park.

40 CFR Part 51, Regional Haze Regulations and Guide lines for Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Determinations; Final Rule. Environmental Protectio n Agency. July 6, 2005. Federal Register Vol. 70, No. 128. pp. 39104-39172.

### USDA United States Forest Eastern Region 626 E. Wisconsin 7?:775 Department of Service Suite 800 Agriculture Milwaukee, WI 53202

File Code: 2580

Mr. Roger Thunell Date: 

### JAN 2 5 

## 2012

Chief, Planning and Policy Division Air & Radiation Management Administration Maryland Department of the Environment

,**1800~** Washington Blvd. Baltimore, MD 21230

Dear Mr. Thunell:

Thank you for the opportunity to review the State of Maryland Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP). This document focuses on Maryland's implementation of the Regional Haze Rule including the application of best available retrofit technology (BART) to the eligible facilities in Maryland.

Forest Service comments on the SIP are primarily focused on the emission limits set for each BART eligible facility. In some cases, we ask that you reconsider the BART emission limits. Our technical analysis and comments are enclosed.

We have taken a very active role in the implementation of the Regional Haze SIP in Maryland beginning with our initial consultation letter dated October 13, 2006. We believe it is our shared goal that the Regional Haze SIP make reasonable progress toward the national goal of preventing
any future and remedying any existing impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I areas, such as the DoJly Sods and Lye Brook Wilderness areas.

If you have questions about the technical analysis and comments in the enclosure, please contact Edward Huffman elhuffman@fs.fed.us, Air Resources Specialist, at (304) 636-1800 ext. 192.

Sincerely,

# C~~E~ir' Regional Forester

Enclosure (1)

cc: Brian Hug

- Deputy Program Manager MDE, Cristina Fernandez

- Associate Director EPA Region3, Carol McCoy

- Chief Air Resources Division NPS

""­ Caring for the Land and Serving People Printed on Recycled Paper ",1 Technical Comments from the US Forest Service on the State of Maryland Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) November 2011

The Forest Service is pleased to see that Maryla nd has committed to reviewing and revising this SIP by July 31, 2018, and every ten years thereafte r, reporting on reasona ble progress for each Class I area affected by emissions from the Stat e and adequacy of its Regional Haze SIP every five years and periodically updating the emissions inventory (page 10).

4.2.3 Consultation with the State of West Virginia (page 19) – There are several facilities listed as not BART eligible, but it should be noted that these f acilities could be addressed under reasonable progress, as has been done by States such as Wyoming and North Dakota. Concerns about Mettiki Coal’s BART eligibility are addr essed below in the comment section on BART.

4.3 State/Tribe and Federal Land Manager Consultation

It is stated or implied, this SIP was origina lly submitted to Forest Land Managers (FLMs) in September 2008 for a 60-day comment period and that the State of Ma ryland has received comments from FLMs. However, the 2008 SIP was pulled back prior to the end of the 60-day comment period. Therefore, the Forest Serv ice never submitted comments on the 2008 version. The content of the current SIP is vastly ch anged from the 2008 SIP as well, but with many improved sections and full BART analyses in the Appendix. The State of Maryland and FLMs have agreed to an expedited review of the cu rrent SIP to address the State’s concerns about achieving a timely finalization of the Regional Haze SIP from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). We appreciate the State of Maryland’s commitment to continuing consultation with the FLMs in the Regional Haze process.

9.0 Best Available Retr ofit Technology (BART)

9.5.2 - De Minimus Impacts on Visibility

Independent/St. Lawrence Cement and Mettiki Coal, LLC are both listed as having visibility improvements with BART controls that are so small as to not justify installation of those controls. Both sources are c onsidered BART eligible and, as such, need to have control technologies analyzed in a BART analysis as laid out in the BART guidelines. The proximity to Class I areas (e.g., Dolly Sods and Otter Creek W ilderness areas) are such that even a small reduction in the emissions of visi bility impairing pollutants can resu lt in visibility improvement. As such, it is not appropriate to exempt these tw o facilities from BART anal ysis and controls. It does not appear these sources were exempted from BART analyses for this reason in the SIP.

Source by Source BART (comments include information from each source’s BART analysis from the appendices and informat ion from Mettiki Coal emaile d to FLMs by Roger Thunell)2 Non-EGU

Independent/St. Lawrence Cement

For PM it is agreed that the curr ent electrostatic precipitator is e quivalent to BART. It is also agreed there are limited options for further SO 2 control beyond what is considered inherent dry scrubbing as part of the production of cement. However, the analysis for additional NOx controls only include Selective Non-Catalyti c Reduction (SNCR) (omitting consideration of Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)) and does not include a discussion of why additional NOx controls are not considered BART.

Independent SLC claims that SNCR is not an ap propriate BART control when Holcim, also a long dry kiln cement facility, is planning to utilize SNCR for ozone tr ansport and BART for NOx. Independent needs to analyze utilizi ng SNCR as BART. There are other cement facilities across the nation in addition to Holcim in Maryland utilizing SNCR as BART so this assertion that it is not technical ly feasible is not appropriate.

All of the cost analyses for Independent SLC are limited to rough assumptions with no references to back up the number, such as $/t on of emissions removed. The actual analyses as laid out in the EPA control cost manual need to be completed and shown in the company’s BART analysis to justify their assumptions a bout control technologies, especially when cost effectiveness is used as a reas on for not considering the technology.

Holcim/St. Lawrence Cement (SLC)

This facility needs to be considered as its ow n source in the SIP. It is currently listed under Independence SLC in the RH SIP. While there are points within the BART analysis that the Forest Service does not agree with, we do agree with the chosen technologies of SNCR for NO x , inherent dry scrubbing for SO 2, and ESP for PM as BART.

Mettiki Coal, LLC

The Forest Service questions the existence vs . operation date as m eeting/not-meeting BART eligibility. The Clean Air Act Section 169A (b)( 2)(A) states, “a requirement that each major stationary source which is in existence on August 7, 1977, but which has not been in operation for more than fifteen years as of such date.” We reviewed the BART guidelines and the associated discussions on what "in existence" means and if a source is BART eligible or not. The discussion starting on page 39110 of the BART guidelines implies that Mettiki Coal, LLC should be BART eligible and should be analyzed.

There is nothing in the BART guidelines ( 40 CFR Part 51 - Regional Haze Regulations and Guidelines for Best Available Retrofit Technol ogy (BART) Determinatio ns; Final Rule - July 6, 2005) that suggests if a facili ty went through new source revi ew that it would no longer be BART eligible. It is important to note that th e control technologies available and practical in3 1977 (none per the PSD application Final Appr oval Determination) differ from those available and practical today, so a BART analysis would be beneficial (Venturi Scrubber and Tray Scrubbers). Additionally, our review of the documentation from Mettiki Coal’s PSD Application and approval documentation indi cated that no Class I area analysis was conducted at the time and the US EPA states that all impacts from the facility are to Class II

areas.
Overall, it does not appear that Mettiki Coal ’s PSD permit adequately addressed impacts to visibility at Class I areas which is the intent of the Regional Haze Rule and BART guidelines. That fact plus the date the facility was “in exis tence” indicate that this facility should indeed be BART eligible. Please address this by c onducting a BART analysis for the Mettiki Coal, LLC coal cleaning facility.

New Page/Westvaco Luke Paper

The analyses did not consider alternative contro l technologies. It appears the technologies the company did not wish to utilize were not consider ed technically feasible or cost effective with little or no justification provide d or actual analysis shown. It appears the top-down process laid out in the BART guidelines was not followe d. SCR was not considered for boiler 25 (and 26 for that matter)? There was no analysis don e. We understand boiler 25 already has SNCR, but the improvement in NOx reductions are signifi cant and should be considered as part of the BART analysis.

Control technologies for natura l gas-fired boiler (like Powe r Boiler 26) include Low NOx Burners and flue gas recirculati on (FGR). If these two technol ogies are combined they could reduce NOx emissions by 60 to 90 percent (almos t 200 to 300 tons per year) (US EPA 1995). In their BART analysis, New Page listed no a dditional controls for NOx as BART. We would like to see the above te chnologies analyzed in their BART analysis.

Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) should also be considered and analyzed for Power Boiler 25. The level of control would be gr eater than the 90 per cent proposed for spray dryer absorber or a circulating dry scrubber. It is a typical control for a boi ler and should be adequately analyzed in the BART analysis.

EGUs

We would like to commend the State of Maryland for asking their BART eligible EGUs to provide full BART analysis for all pollutant s including SO2 and NOx which are considered under the now vacated CAIR and its successor. Th e Forest Service reviewed the BART analyses without consideration that SO2 and NOx were si milarly considered under CAIR’s successor (i.e., as if the BART analysis was the only method fo r emission reductions to address visibility improvement at these facilities).4 Mirant Chalk Point

Overall, the control technology fo r Mirant Chalk Point in their BART analysis will help to improve visibility in Forest Service Class I Wilderness Areas.

‐ We would ask that Maryland address limitati ons on operations in permit conditions to meet BART without emission controls and should also require natural gas year round (when operating) to address visi bility. Unit 3 needs to be analyzed for the available SO2 control technologies (low Sulfur fuel, dr y sorbent injection, sp ray dryer absorption, and/or FGD). We understand it is a cyc ling unit, but Maryland should address other possible control technologies in its BART analysis.

‐ We would ask that SCR be analyzed as a potential control technology for Unit 2. The current analysis only compares SCR to Selective Auto Catalytic Reduction (SACR) emission levels rather than to baseline emissi on rates. The use of SACR and SCR should both be compared to the baseline to avoid confusion and misinterpretation of emission reduction and cost effectiveness. If SCR is not determined to be feasible or cost effective then the SACR should be operated continuously . SACR operation should be included in an enforceable permit.

Mirant Morgantown

We have no concerns with this facility as it ha s the best available cont rol technology. We would ask that to meet BART, the facility operate its emission reduction equipment whenever the facility is operating. The Stat e of Maryland should include this in an enforceable permit.

CPSG – Crane

It appears Crane did not analyze all of the f easible emission control technologies and only analyzed the current control against uncontrolled emissions.

‐ There was no consideration of applicable control technologies that could further limit NOx (e.g., SCR) or SO2 (e.g., FGD, circulating dry scrubber, spray dryer absorber). It appears the facility could improve their SO2 controls beyond the 88 percent stated through the use of low sulfur coal or any of the above post-consumption technologies with higher sulfur eastern bituminous coal . The fuel switch emission reduction of 88 percent does not meet presumptive BART li mits of 95 percent reduction in SO2 or 0.15 lb SO2/MMBtu.

‐ The discussion of NOx control technologies st ates a control efficiency of 80 percent for SNCR when compared to baseline levels, but the description of SNCR states a typical control ranging from 30 to 50 pe rcent. This discrepancy shou ld be explained since it is the basis for the facility determining that SNCR is BART. Similarly, the emission rate stated (0.30 lb/MMBtu) is typi cal for most SNCR systems whereas SCR has been shown5 to have emission rates of 0.10 lb/MMBtu. In general, SCR provides a much higher level of emission control for NOx and should be consid ered in a cost effectiveness analysis in Crane’s BART analysis. The final BART guidelines list presumptive NOx emission limits for BART eligible dry bottom wall-fi red coal-fired units burning sub-bituminous (e.g., Powder River Basin) coal to be 0.23 lb/MMBtu. An emission rate of 0.30 lb NOx/MMBtu does not meet presumptive BART levels.

‐ CPSG – Wagner

We are concerned that all of the BART analyses and metrics for considering the control technologies were not consistent. Some facilities used dollars per ton reduced as the metric to consider what is cost effectiv e, while others (e.g., Wagner) used dollars per deciview for the same function. This is important since different metric s tell a different story. We suggest both metrics be calculated and used as part of the BART analysis and determination.

The analysis for Wagner stat es visibility improvements at Shenandoah NP from SO 2 emission reductions at Wagner equate to $47,000,000 per deciview and that that cost is not reasonable for those controls. However, considering 1) cumulative visibility improvements to all nearby Class I areas and 2) the cost of the emi ssion reductions in dollars per decivi ew paint a different picture. Also, the analysis used compared the additional emission reductions from control scenario 1 to control scenario 2 rather than using emission reduc tions for each control scenario as compared to the baseline emissions. See the table below whic h makes those comparisons and indicates that FGD is a cost effective emission control technol ogy for Wagner. The cost per ton SO2 removed is within the range stated in the fina l BART guidelines. The analysis in

Table 1 also highlights that control option 1 is more expensive when measured with both dollar per deciview and dollar per ton than control opt ion 2. Furthermore, the emission reduction for control option 1 does not meet the presumptive BA RT limits of 95 percen t reduction in SO2 or a limit of 0.15 lb SO2/MMBtu. We recommend the State of Maryland determine that control option 2 be determined as BART for Wagner.

Table 1 – Comparison of cost-effectiveness anal yses for emission control case 1 and 2 for the Wagner Generating Station Unit 3.Cost effectiveness based on dollars per deciview

Class 1 Area Baseline Control1 Control2 Base

‐ C1 Base

‐ C2 C1

‐ C2 $/dV C1 $/dV C2 $/dV C1VC2 Shenandoah 1.24 0.87 0.21 0.37 1.03 0.66 $84,891,892 $30,495,146 $47,590,909 Brigantine 0.77 0.57 0.14 0.2 0.63 0.43 $157,050,000 $49,857,143 $73,046,512
Otter Creek 0.39 0.29 0.05 0.1 0.34 0.24 $314,100,000 $92,382,353 $130,875,000 Dolly Sods 0.45 0.32 0.06 0.13 0.39 0.26 $241,615,385 $80,538,462 $120,807,692
James River Face 0.51 0.37 0.06 0.14 0.45 0.31 $224,357,143 $69,800,000 $101,322,581
Cumulative 0.94 2.84 1.9 $33,414,894 $11,059,859 $16,531,579

Cost effectiveness based on dollars per ton of emission reduced Baseline Control1 Control2 Base

‐ C1 Base ‐ C2 C1

‐ C2 $/ton $/ton $/ton
Tons SO 2 emissions 21,436 17,283 1,730 4,152 19,706 15,553 $7,565 $1,594 $2,019 3

‐ yr Avg. 8th highest dV change dV

9.8 EGU Alternative to BART for SO2 and NOx

The statement “...there are some facilities (e.g., Wagner and Crane) that are not able to install FGD technology due to space constraints and company decisions related to control costs.” is not supported by their BART analyses. Also, “co mpany decisions” are not one the factors considered in BART analyses for emission contro l technology. If these are indeed reasons for the determinations of BART technology they s hould be included in the BART analysis and discussed as such.

The Forest Service would like to commend the State of Maryland for the emission reductions in the Maryland Healthy Air Act that exceed presumptive BART reductions. These additional emission reductions should help improve visibility at nearby Cla ss 1 areas faster than expected.

10.0 and 11.0 Reasonable Progress

We appreciate Maryland’s commitment to th e MANE-VU Reasonable Progress Goals (pages 104-105). The discussion on Maryland’s contributi on to emission reductions focuses on sulfur, but does not discuss NOx reductions.

The calculations in section 11.5 to demonstrate fair share appear to support Maryland’s assertion that it has met its fair share of emission reductions in MANE-VU.

12.0 Long Term Strategy

The Forest Service agrees that fire from land ma nagement activities, such as controlled burning, was not a major contributor to regional h aze in MANE-VU Class I Areas. We do support interagency development of a Smoke Management Program to address smoke from land management activities, even though there are no National Forest System lands in Maryland.

12.9 New Source Review and Prevention of Significant Deterioration

We appreciate that the State of Maryland provide d language in its SIP linking the Regional Haze and New Source Review programs: “Maryland commits to ensuring NSR and PSD permitting

67 activity and will ensure that such activity supports Maryland’s regional haze SIP commitments.” This will help ensure the emissions from new stationary sources or major modifications of existing sources will make reasonable progres s toward the national visibility goal (40 CFR 51.307). This could be especially important for emissions from new sources that were not anticipated in 2018 emission inventories.

13.0 Comprehensive Periodic Impl ementation Plan Revisions

Similarly, the Forest Service is pleased to see that Maryland is committed to regular SIP revisions and reasonable progress reports as outlined in the fe deral rule for regional haze.

References:

U.S. EPA 1995. AP 42, Fifth Edition, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources. Office of Air Quality Pla nning and Standards. Office of Air and Radiation, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park.

40 CFR Part 51, Regional Haze Regulations and Guidelines for Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Determinations; Final Rule . Environmental Protection Agency. July 6, 2005. Federal Register Vol. 70, No. 128. pp. 39104-39172.C

o m m e n t s f

r o m t h e M a r

y l a n d D e p a r t m e n t o f P l a n n i n g

R E S P O N S E : M a r

y l a n d t h a n k

s y o u f o r t h i s c o m m e n t

.

## TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT FOR 2002 MANE-VU SIP MODELING INVENTORIES, VERSION 3

Prepared by E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc. 3622 Lyckan Parkway, Suite 2005 Durham, NC 27707

November 20, 2006

for the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Vi sibility Union (MANE-VU)[This page intentionally left blank.]iii CONTENTS

TABLES ......................................................................................................................... ............... vi FIGURES........................................................................................................................ .............viii ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS...................................................................................... ix CHAPTER I – INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................. 1 A. What is the purpose of this TSD? ....................................................................................... 1 B. What are Versions 1, 2, and 3 of the 2002 MANE-VU Inventory?.................................... 2 C. How is this TSD organized? ............................................................................................... 3 CHAPTER II – POINT SOURCES................................................................................................ 4 A. General Methods for all State and Local Agencies ............................................................ 4 1. What Data Sources Were Used?................................................................................... 4 2. What Quality Assurance Steps Were Performed? ........................................................ 5 3. Version 3 Emissions Summary................................................................................... 18 B. State-Specific Methods ..................................................................................................... 2 0 1. Connecticut ................................................................................................................. 20 2. Delaware .................................................................................................................... . 21 3. District of Columbia ................................................................................................... 21 4. Maine ....................................................................................................................... ... 22 5. Maryland.................................................................................................................... . 22 6. Massachusetts ............................................................................................................. 23 7. New Hampshire .......................................................................................................... 23 8. New Jersey.................................................................................................................. 24 9. New York.................................................................................................................... 24 10. Pennsylvania (State, Excluding Alle gheny and Philadelphia Counties) .................... 25 11. Pennsylvania (Allegheny County, FIPS code 42003)................................................. 27 12. Pennsylvania (Philadelphi a County, FIPS code 42101) ............................................. 28 13. Rhode Island ............................................................................................................... 28 14. Vermont .................................................................................................................... .. 30 C. What Issues Need to be A ddressed in Future Versions? .................................................. 30 CHAPTER III – AREA SOURCES ............................................................................................. 32 A. General Methods for all States.......................................................................................... 32 1. What Data Sources Were Used?................................................................................. 32 2. What Quality Assurance Steps Were Performed? ...................................................... 34 3. Version 3 Revisions .................................................................................................... 53 4. Version 3 Emissions Summary................................................................................... 57 B. State-Specific Methods ..................................................................................................... .. 58 1. Connecticut ................................................................................................................. 58 2. Delaware .................................................................................................................... . 59 3. District of Columbia ................................................................................................... 60 4. Maine ....................................................................................................................... ... 60 5. Maryland.................................................................................................................... . 61 6. Massachusetts ............................................................................................................. 62 7. New Hampshire .......................................................................................................... 63 8. New Jersey.................................................................................................................. 65 9. New York.................................................................................................................... 65 10. Pennsylvania ............................................................................................................... 70 11. Rhode Island ............................................................................................................... 71iv 12. Vermont .................................................................................................................... .. 72 C. What Issues Need to be A ddressed in Future Versions? .................................................. 73 CHAPTER IV – NONROAD SOURCES .................................................................................... 75 A. General Methods for all States.......................................................................................... 75 1. What Data Sources Were Used?................................................................................. 75 2. What Quality Assurance Steps Were Performed? ...................................................... 79 3. Version 3 Emission Summaries.................................................................................. 82 B. State-Specific Methods ..................................................................................................... 8 4 1. Connecticut ................................................................................................................. 84 2. Delaware .................................................................................................................... . 84 3. District of Columbia ................................................................................................... 85 4. Maine ....................................................................................................................... ... 86 5. Maryland.................................................................................................................... . 87 6. Massachusetts ............................................................................................................. 88 7. New Hampshire .......................................................................................................... 89 8. New Jersey.................................................................................................................. 89 9. New York.................................................................................................................... 90 10. Pennsylvania ............................................................................................................... 91 11. Rhode Island ............................................................................................................... 92 12. Vermont .................................................................................................................... .. 93 CHAPTER V – ONROAD SOURCES ........................................................................................ 94 A. General Methods for All States......................................................................................... 94 1. Data Sources ............................................................................................................... 9 4 2. What Quality Assurance Steps were Performed? ....................................................... 95 3. Version 3 Emission Summaries.................................................................................. 96 B. State-Specific Methods ..................................................................................................... .. 97 1. Connecticut ................................................................................................................. 97 2. Delaware .................................................................................................................... . 99 3. District of Columbia ................................................................................................. 100 4. Maine ....................................................................................................................... . 102 5. Maryland................................................................................................................... 1 03 6. Massachusetts ........................................................................................................... 105 7. New Hampshire ........................................................................................................ 106 8. New Jersey................................................................................................................ 10 8 9. New York.................................................................................................................. 11 0 10. Pennsylvania ............................................................................................................. 11 1 11. Rhode Island ............................................................................................................. 11 3 12. Vermont .................................................................................................................... 114 CHAPTER VI – BIOGE NIC SOURCES................................................................................... 117 A. General Methods for all States........................................................................................ 117 1. What Data Sources Were Used?............................................................................... 117 2. Version 3 Emissions Summary................................................................................. 118 B. State-Specific Methods ................................................................................................... 118 CHAPTER VII. TEMPORAL, SPECIATION, AND SPATIAL ALLOCATION PROFILES AND PREPARATION OF SMOKE (IDA) AND RPO DATA EXCHANGE PROTOCOL (NIF 3.0) FORMATS ............................................................................... 119 A. Temporal Profiles........................................................................................................... . 119 1. Point and Area Sources............................................................................................. 119v 2. Nonroad Sources....................................................................................................... 120 3. Onroad Sources......................................................................................................... 120 B. Speciation Profiles ......................................................................................................... . 121 1. Point and Area Sources............................................................................................. 121 2. Nonroad Sources....................................................................................................... 121 3. Onroad Sources......................................................................................................... 121 C. Spatial Allocation Profiles .............................................................................................. 122 D. Preparation of SMOKE (IDA) and RPO Data Exchange Protocol (NIF 3.0) Formats .. 122 CHAPTER VIII. METHODS FOR AREAS OUT SIDE OF THE M ANE-VU REGION ..... 155 CHAPTER IX. REFERENCES ........................................................................................... 157

APPENDIX A - POINT SOURCE INVENTORY, VERSION 3: DATA SOURCES BY SCC, EMISSION TYPE PERIOD, AND POLLUTANT....................................................................A-1

APPENDIX B - AREA SOURCE INVENTORY, VERSION 3: DATA SOURCES BY SCC, EMISSION TYPE PERIOD, AND POLLUTANT....................................................................B-1

APPENDIX C - NONROAD SOURCE INVENT ORY, VERSION 3: FINAL COUNTY, MONTHLY NATIONAL MOBILE INVENTORY MODEL (NMIM) INPUTS TEMPORAL PROFILES FOR POINT AND AREA SOURCES....................................................................C-1vi TABLES

Table II-1. Description of the Field Names and Descripti ons for the SCC Control Device Ratios Table ................................................................................................................... ... 14 Table II-2. Version 3 2002 MANE-VU Point Source Emissions by State.................................. 19 Table II-3. Connecticut 2002 Poin t, Version 3: Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types................................................................................................................. 20 Table II-4. Delaware 2002 Point, Version 3: Uni que List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types.......................................................................................................................... ....... 21 Table II-5. District of Columbia 2002 Point, Vers ion 3: Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Type .................................................................................................................. 21 Table II-6. Maine 2002 Point, Version 3: Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types.......................................................................................................................... ....... 22 Table II-7. Maryland 2002 Point, Version 3: Uni que List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types.......................................................................................................................... ....... 22 Table II-8. Massachusetts 2002 Point, Version 3: Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types................................................................................................................. 23 Table II-9. New Hampshire 2002 Po int, Version 3: Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types................................................................................................................. 23 Table II-10. New Jersey 2002 Point, Version 3: Unique List of Star t Date, End Date, and Emission Types................................................................................................................. 24 Table II-11. New York 2002 Poin t, Version 3: Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Type .................................................................................................................. 25 Table II-12. Pennsylvania 2002 Poin t, Version 3: Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types................................................................................................................. 26 Table II-13. Pennsylvania - Allegheny County 2002 Poin t, Version 3: Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types ......................................................................................... 27 Table II-14. Pennsylvania - Phil adelphia County 2002 Point, Versi on 3: Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types................................................................................ 28 Table II-15. Rhode Island 2002 Point, Version 3: Unique List of Star t Date, End Date, and Emission Types................................................................................................................. 30 Table II-16. Vermont 2002 Point, Version 3: Unique List of Star t Date, End Date, and Emission Types.......................................................................................................................... ....... 30 Table III-1. Summary of MANE-V U-Sponsored Inventories Include d in Version 1 of the Area Source Consolidated Emissions Inventory ....................................................................... 41 Table III-2. Area Source Industr ial, Commercial/Institutional, and Residential Fossil Fuel Combustion Uncontrolled Emission Factors for PM10-PRI/FIL, PM25-PRI/FIL, and PM-CON......................................................................................................................... .. 44 Table III-3. SCCs for which PM25-PRI Emissions were Estimated by Applying a Ratio to the PM10-PRI Emissions in the State inventory .................................................................... 49 Table III-4. Revisions to PM 25-PRI and PM25-FIL Emissions for Paved and Unpaved Roads and Construction ............................................................................................................... 56 Table III-5. Version 3 2002 MANE- VU Area Source Emissions by State ................................. 57 Table III-6. Connecticut 2002 Ar ea, Version 3: Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types................................................................................................................. 58 Table III-7. Delaware 2002 Area, Version 3: Unique List of Star t Date, End Date, and Emission Types.......................................................................................................................... ....... 59vii Table III-8. District of Columbia 2002 Area, Vers ion 3: Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types .......................................................................................................... 60 Table III-9. Maine 2002 Area, Version 3: Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types.......................................................................................................................... ....... 60 Table III-10. Maryland 2002 Area, Version 3: Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types................................................................................................................. 61 Table III-11. Massachusetts 2002 Area, Version 3: Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types................................................................................................................. 62 Table III-12. New Hampshire 2002 Area, Version 3: Unique List of Star t Date, End Date, and Emission Types................................................................................................................. 64 Table III-13. New Jersey 2002 Area, Version 3: Unique List of Star t Date, End Date, and Emission Types................................................................................................................. 65 Table III-14. New York 2002 Area, Version 3: Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types................................................................................................................. 66 Table III-15. Summary of Ne w York's Revisions to Version 3 of MANE-VU's Area Source Inventory...................................................................................................................... ..... 68 Table III-16. Pennsylvania 2002 Ar ea, Version 3: Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types................................................................................................................. 70 Table III-17. Rhode Island 2002 Area, Version 3: Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types................................................................................................................. 71 Table III-18. Vermont 2002 Area, Version 3: Uni que List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types.......................................................................................................................... ....... 72 Table IV-1. List of Unique Ai rcraft, Commercial Marine, an d Locomotive SCCs Reported by States in MANE- VU Inventory ........................................................................................ 76 Table IV-2. Summary of Basis for 2002 M ANE-VU Aircraft, Comm ercial Marine, and Locomotive Inventory....................................................................................................... 77 Table IV-3. Data Source Code Descriptions................................................................................ 82 Table IV-4. Annual 2002 Nonroad Sect or Emissions by MANE-VU State................................ 82 Table IV-5. Annual 2002 NONROAD2005 Mode l Emissions by MANE-VU State ................. 83 Table IV-6. Annual 2002 Aircraft, Commerci al Marine, and Locomotive Emissions by MANE-VU State............................................................................................................... 83 Table IV-7. Delaware NONROAD External Data Files............................................................... 85 Table IV-8. Maryland NONROA D External Data Files ............................................................. 87 Table V-1. Annual 2002 Onroad Sector Emissions by MANE-VU State................................... 97 Table V-2. Connecticut Onroad Data in SMOKE Input Files..................................................... 98 Table V-3. Delaware Onroad Da ta in SMOKE Input Files....................................................... 100 Table V-4. District of Columbia On road Data in SMOKE Input Files ..................................... 101 Table V-5. Maine Onroad Data in SMOKE Input Files ............................................................ 102 Table V-6. Maryland Onroad Da ta in SMOKE Input Files....................................................... 104 Table V-7. Massachusetts Onroad Data in SMOKE Input Files ............................................... 105 Table V-8. New Hampshire Onroad Data in SMOKE Input Files ............................................ 107 Table V-9. New Jersey Onroad Data in SMOKE Input Files.................................................... 108 Table V-10. New York Onroad Da ta in SMOKE Input Files.................................................... 110 Table V-11. Pennsylvania Onroad Data in SMOKE Input Files............................................... 112 Table V-12. Rhode Island Onroad Data in SMOKE Input Files ............................................... 113 Table V-13. Vermont Onroad Da ta in SMOKE Input Files ...................................................... 115 Table VI-1. Version 3 2002 MANE-VU Biogenic Source Emissions by State ........................ 118viii Table VII-1. Profiles, Cross-references, and Documentation for Model Inputs for Version 3 of 2002 MANE-VU Inventory ............................................................................................ 123 Table VII-2. Point Source Tempor al Cross-reference Additions .............................................. 126 Table VII-3. Unknown SCCs in the M ANE-VU Point Source Inventory.................................. 130 Table VII-4. Area Source Tempor al Cross-Reference Updates ................................................ 131 Table VII-5. Area Source Tempor al Cross-Reference Additions.............................................. 136 Table VII-6. Area Source Tem poral Cross-Reference and Prof ile Additions for the MANE-VU Inventory...................................................................................................................... ... 141 Table VII-7. Point Source Speci ation Profiles Added to Speciati on Cross-reference File for CBIV with PM Mechanism.................................................................................................. 151 Table VII-8. Point Source SCCs Lacking Speci ation Profile Assignments for CB-IV with PM Mechanism...................................................................................................................... 152 Table VII-9. Summary of Version 3 Mass Emissions and SMOKE Input Files ....................... 153 Table VII-10. Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emissi on Type Combinations for Daily Emissions in the MANE-VU 2002 Point and Area Source Inventories, Version 3 ....... 154 Table VIII-1. Description of Non-MANE-VU Region Invent ory Data Used for MANE-VU BaseB Modeling.............................................................................................................. 156 Table C-1. MANE-VU County, Mont hly NMIM/NONROAD Inputs...................................... C-2

FIGURES

Figure 1. MANE-VU 12-Kilome ter CMAQ Modeling Domain ................................................... 2 Figure VIII-1. MANE-VU 12-Kilometer CMAQ Modeling Domain........................................ 155ix ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ATP Anaerobic Thermal Processor BEIS Biogenic Emissions Inventory System CAA Clean Air Act CAIR Clean Air Interstate Rule CAMD Clean Air Markets Division CAP criteria air pollutant CE Control Equipment (NIF 3.0) table CEM Continuous Emissions Monitoring CENRAP Central Regional Air Planning Organization CERR Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule CMU Carnegie Mellon University CNG compressed natural gas CO carbon monoxide CO 2 carbon dioxide EF emission factor EFIG Emission Factor s and Inventory Group EGU electricity generating unit EI inventory EM Emission (NIF 3.0) table EP Emission Process (NIF 3.0) table EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ERP Emission Release Point (NIF 3.0) table ETBE ethyl tertiary butyl ether ETOH ethanol ETS Emission Tracking System EU Emission Unit (NIF 3.0) table FIPS Federal Information Processing Standard FIRE Factor Information and REtrieval Factor GIS geographic information system GSE ground support equipment HAP hazardous air pollutant HC hydrocarbon HPMS Highway Performance Monitoring System ID identification IDA Inventory Data Analyzer format I/M inspection and maintenance km kilometer LAI leaf area indices LEV low emission vehicle LPG liquified petroleum gas MACT maximum achievab le control technology MANE-VU Mid-Atlantic/Nor theast Visibility Union MARAMA Mid-Atlantic Regiona l Air Management Association MTBE methyl tertiary butyl ether NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standard NAICS North American Indus trial Classification Systemx NEI National Emissions Inventory NH 3 ammonia NIF NEI Input Format NMIM National Mobile Inventory Model NO nitrous oxide NO x oxides of nitrogen NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ORIS Office of Regulatory Information Systems OTC Ozone Transport Commission PAR photosynthetic active radiation PE Emission Period (NIF 3.0) table Pechan E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc. PFC portable fuel container PM particulate matter PM-CON condensible PM PM 10 particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers PM10-FIL filterable PM 10 PM10-PRI primary PM 10 PM 2.5 particulate matter with an aerodynami c diameter less than or equal to a nominal 2.5 micrometers PM25-FIL filterable PM 2.5 PM25-PRI primary PM 2.5 POTWs public owned treatment works ppm parts per million psi pounds per square inch QA quality assurance QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan RPO Regional Planning Organization RVP Reid vapor pressure SCC Source Classification Code SPDPRO speed profile SPDREF speed cross reference SI Site (NIF 3.0) table SIC Standard Industrial Classification SIP State Implementation Plan S/L State and Local SMOKE Sparse Matrix Op erator Kernel Emissions SO 2 sulfur dioxide TAME tertiary amyl methyl ether TR Transmittal (NIF 3.0) table TSD technical support document U.S. United States VISTAS Visibility Improve ment State and Tribal Association of the Southeast VMT vehicle miles traveled VOC volatile organic compound WRAP Western Regional Air Partnership1 CHAPTER I – INTRODUCTION

A. What is the purpose of this TSD?

This technical support document (TSD) explains the data sources, methods, and results for preparing Version 3 of the 2002 base year cr iteria air pollutant (CAP) and ammonia (NH 3 ) emissions inventories for poi nt, area, onroad, nonroad, and biogenic sources for the MidAtlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU) Regional Planning Organization (RPO). The MANE-VU region includes Connect icut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Local air planning agencies in clude Philadelphia and Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. The region also includes the Penob scot Tribe of Maine Indian Nation (Tribal code 018) and the St. Regis Band of Mohawk Indians of New York (Tribal code 007). However, these tribal authorities did not provide any data for the 2002 MANE- VU inventory. MANE-VU will use these inventories to support air quality m odeling, State Implementation Plan (SIP) development, and implementation activities for the regional haze rule and fine particulate matter (PM) and ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).

The inventories and supporting data prepared include the following:

(1) Comprehensive, county-level, mass emissi ons and modeling inventories for of 2002 emissions for CAPs and NH 3 for the State and Local (S/L) agencies included in the MANE-VU region; (2) The temporal, speciation, and spatial a llocation profiles for the MANE-VU region inventories; (3) Inventories for wildfires, prescribed bur ning, and agricultural field burning for the southeastern provinces of Canada; and (4) Inventories for other RPOs, Canada, and Mexico.

The mass emissions inventory files were prepar ed in the National Emissions Inventory (NEI) Input Format Version 3.0 (NIF 3.0). The modeli ng inventory files were prepared in Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions/Inventory Da ta Analyzer (SMOKE/IDA) format. Ancillary files (holding spatial, temporal, and specia tion profile data) were prepared in SMOKE/IDA compatible format. Figure 1 shows the Models -3 Community Multiscal e Air Quality Modeling System (CMAQ) modeling domain for the MANE-VU region.

The inventories include annual em issions for sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), oxides of nitrogen (NO x ), volatile organic compounds ( VOC), carbon monoxide (CO), NH 3 , and particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 and 2.5 micrometers (i.e., primary PM 10 and PM 2.5 ). The inventories included summer day, winter day, and average day emissions. However, not all agencies included daily emissions in their inventories, a nd, for the agencies that did, the temporal basis for the daily emissions va ried between agencies. The temporal profiles prepared for this project will be used to calcu late daily emissions when not available in the inventory files.2 Figure 1. MANE-VU 12-Kilome ter CMAQ Modeling Domain

B. What are Versions 1, 2, and 3 of the 2002 MANE-VU Inventory?

Work on Version 1 of the 2002 MANE-VU inventor y began in April 2004. The consolidated inventory for point, area, onr oad, and nonroad sources was prepared by starting with the inventories that S/L agencies submitted to th e United States (U.S.) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from May through July of 2004 as a requirement of the Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule (CERR). The EPA’s format and content quality assuranc e (QA) programs (and other QA checks not included in EPA’s QA softwa re) were run on each inventory to identify format and/or data content issues (EPA, 2004a). E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc. (Pechan) worked with the MANE-VU S/L agencies and the staff of the Mid- Atlantic Regional Air Management Association (MARAMA) to resolve QA issues and augment the inventories to fill data gaps in accordance with the Quality Assura nce Project Plan (QAPP) prepared for this project (MANE-VU, 2004a). MARAMA is th e MANE-VU organization’s employees, whereas3 MANE-VU is the member S/L agencies plus MA RAMA employees. MARAMA is one of three RPOs (in addition to Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) and North East States for Coordinated Air Use Management) supporti ng the MANE-VU effort.

A draft of the point and area so urce inventories and summary file s were provided for stakeholder review during August 2004. Stakeholder comments were reviewed by the S/L agencies and revisions to the inventory files were made to the files to inco rporate stakeholder comments as approved by each S/L agency. The inventorie s were finalized during December 2004 and the SMOKE input files were prepared and review ed by the modelers during December 2004 and early January 2005. The final inventory and SMOKE input files were finalized during January 2005.

Work on Version 2 (covering the period fr om April through September 2005) involved incorporating revisions requested by some S/L agencies on the poi nt, area, and onroad inventories. Work on Version 3 (covering the period from December 2005 through April 2006) included additional revisions to the point, area, and onroad inventories as requested by some states. Thus, the Version 3 inventory for poi nt, area, and onroad s ources were built upon Versions 1 and 2. This work also included deve lopment of the biogenics inventory. Version 3 of the nonroad inventory was completely redone due to changes that EPA made to the NONROAD2005 model.

C. How is this TSD organized?

Chapters II through V of this TSD present th e general and State-specific methods and data sources used to develop Version 3 of MANE-V U’s 2002 inventory for point, area, nonroad, and onroad sources. Chapter VI presents the methods, data sources, and model used to develop the biogenics inventory. Chapter VII documents th e temporal allocation, speciation, and spatial allocation modeling input files used for Version 3 of MANE-VU’s 2002 invent ory for all sectors. Chapter VIII describes the non-MANE-VU regi on inventory data used for MANE-VU BaseB Modeling. References for the TSD are provided in Chapter IX. Appendices A and B provide the QA Summary Report files prepared during developm ent of the State-specific inventories for point and area sources, respectively. Appendices A and B also provide ta bles that identify for each S/L agency, the Version 3 data sources, emi ssion type period, pollutant, and the number of counties by source classification code (SCC). For the nonroad inventor y, Appendix C provides the final county, monthly National Mobile I nventory Model (NMIM) inputs provided or confirmed by the States for Reid vapor pressu re (RVP), weight percent oxygen, and gasoline sulfur.4 CHAPTER II

– POINT SOURCES

A. General Methods for all State and Local Agencies

1. What Data Sources Were Used?

Version 3 of the 2002 MANE-VU point source inve ntory is based primarily on Version 1 with some state-specific revisions incorporated into Versions 2 and 3. Version 1 was developed using the inventories that S/L agencies submitted to EPA from May through July of 2004 as a requirement of the CERR. All 12 State agencies submitted point source inventories to EPA. In addition, Allegheny and Philadelphia Counties in Pennsylvania each submitted their own point source inventories to EPA. The EPA performed some limited QA review of the S/L inventories to identify format, referential integrity, and duplicate record issues. The EPA revised the inventories to address these issu es and made the file s available to the S/L agencies on August 6, 2004. These inventory files were used as the starting point for Version 1 of the MANE-VU inventory. These inventory files were obtained from EPA, consolid ated into a single data set, subjected to extensive QA review, revised (a s approved by the MANE-VU S/L agencies) to address QA issues and to fill data gaps identifi ed while preparing Version 1. Subsequently, the following agencies provided revisions to their point source inventories:

• Version 2 – Connecticut, Delaware, and Maryland

• Version 3 – Massachusetts, New York, and Rhode Island

The revisions that these states provided for Versions 2 and 3 are discussed in the “State-Specific Methods” section of this chapter.

In order to track the origin of data, the temporal period of emissions, and to facilitate generation of emission summaries, the following NIF plus fields were added to the Transmittal (TR), Site (SI), Emission Unit (EU), Emission Release Point (ER), Emission Process (EP), Emission Period (PE), Emission (EM), and Control Equipment (CE) tables:

• Data Source Codes:

Code Description

S State agency-supplied data. L Local agency-supplied data to inco rporate S/L comments for individual records. P NH 3 emissions from MANE-VU inventory for cement kilns. AUG-A PM Augmentation: ad-hoc change. AUG-C PM Augmentation: standard augmentation method. AUG-O PM Augmentation: set PMxx-FIL = PMxx-PRI for SCCs starting with 10 (external fuel combustion) and 20 (i nternal fuel combustion). Note: emission factors and particle-size data for estimating condensible emissions for fuel combustion SCCs st arting with 30 were not available; therefore, condensible emissions were not estimated for these processes5 if an agency provided filterable and not primary emissions for these processes. In other words, the prim ary emissions were assumed to equal the filterable emissions. AUG-Z PM Augmentation: automated fill-in of zero values where all PM for a particular process is zero.

• Revision Date: This field indicates the m onth and year during wh ich the last revision was made to a record.

• State Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS): This field indicates the state FIPS code of the submittal.

• County FIPS: This field indicates th e county FIPS code of the submittal.

The following NIF plus fields we re added to the EM table:

• Emission Ton Value: This field indicates th e values of the emissi ons in tons. This field was used to prepare summaries of emissions on a consistent EU basis.

• Emission Type Period: This field indicates the period of the Emission Type – either ANNUAL or NONANNUAL. This field was used to prepare summaries of annual emissions.

• CAP_HAP: This field identifies records for CAP versus records for hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). For the MANE-VU inventor y, the flag is CAP for all records.

• Year: This field indicates the year of the data; for this inventory, it is 2002.

Note that the QAPP for Version 1 includes more da ta source codes than were used in Version 3 of the point source inventory. The data sour ce codes listed above ar e the codes used in Version 3. The exception is for Rhode Island, who requested that their Version 2 inventory be replaced with its inventory included in the fi nal 2002 NEI prepared by EPA. Thus, for Rhode Island, it was agreed to maintain the data sour ce codes used in the NEI in Version 3 of the MANE-VU inventory. The data source codes for Rhode Island’ s point source inventory are explained under the state-specif ic section for Rhode Island.

2. What Quality Assurance Steps Were Performed?

A QAPP was prepared and approved by MANE- VU/MARAMA and the EP A Regional Office prior to initiating work on Version 1 of the inventory (M ANE-VU, 2004a). This QAPP was followed during preparation of a ll three versions of the invent ory. This section provides an overview of the QA checks completed on each ve rsion of the inventory. The QA process for each S/L inventory involved the following steps:

• Conduct QA checks on each S/L inventory;

• Prepare a QA Summary Report for subm ittal to the agency for review;6 • Revise the inventory to resolve QA issues as directed by the agency;

• Repeat the QA checks on the revised inventor y to verify that the corrections were completed;

• Perform augmentation to co rrect for missing data; and

• Repeat the QA checks to verify that th e augmentation was completed correctly.

a. QA checks for S/L agency inventories

The following discusses the QA diagnoses that were run on the conso lidated point source inventory data set. For each S/L agency, a “QA Summary Report” was prepared for each QA check in an Excel Workbook file. The results of each QA check was summarized in a separate spreadsheet and submitted to the S/L agency for review and resolution. The agencies provided corrections to the data in the Excel files or via e-mail and the inventory was updated with the corrections.

i. Continuous Emissions Monitoring (CEM) Analysis

The goal of this analysis was to compare annual NO x and SO 2 emissions that were measured with CEM systems and reported to EPA to the annual NO x and SO 2 emissions reported in the S/L inventories. Facilities repor t hourly CEM data to EPA for uni ts that are subject to CEM reporting requirements of the NO x SIP Call rule and Title IV of the Clean Air Act (CAA). Thus, hourly CEM emissions were summed to the annual level and compared to the annual emissions in the S/L inventories. If the S/L agencies ag reed, the CEM hourly emissions would be used to support air quality modeling to accurately reflec t the temporal distribution of emissions from CEM units during 2002. Since some of the states re quire facilities to cert ify the emissions they report for inclusion in the invent ory, the agencies needed proof that the emissions in the CEM inventory compared well with the emissions in the S/L inventory.

The 2002 CEM inventory containing hourly NO x and SO 2 emissions and heat input data were downloaded from the EPA/Clean Air Ma rkets Division’s (CAMD) web site (www.epa.gov/airmarkets) on July 8, 2004 (CAMD, 2004). The data were provided by quarter and state resulting in 48 separate files for the 12 states in the MANE-VU region. For each state, the hourly emissions were summed to the annual level by facility and EU.

The first stage in the CEM analysis involved prep aring a crosswalk file to match facilities and units in the CEM inventory to f acilities and units in the S/L inve ntories. In the CEM inventory, the Office of Regulatory Information Systems (ORI S) identification (ID) code identifies unique facilities and the unit ID identifies unique boilers and internal combustion engines (i.e., turbines and reciprocating engines). In the S/L inventorie s, the state and county FIPS and state facility ID together identify unique facilities and the EU ID id entifies unique boilers or internal combustion engines. However, in some of the S/L inventories, the emissions for multiple EUs were summed and reported under the same EU ID. Thus, an Ex cel Workbook was sent to the S/L agencies that contained an initial crosswalk with the ORIS ID and unit ID in the CEM inventory matched to the state and county FIPS, state facility ID, and EU ID in the S/L inventory. Agencies were asked to confirm/correct/supplement the information in the crosswalk. The initial crosswalk also contained annual emissions summed from the hourly CEM emissions and flags that indicated if7 CEM units were subject to re porting requirements under the NO x SIP Call and/or Title IV of the CAA. It should be noted that the initial matc hing of the IDs in both inventories was based on previous crosswalks that had been devel oped for the 1999 NEI and in-house information compiled by Pechan. The matching at the facili ty level was nearly complete; however, S/L agency assistance was needed to match most of CEM units to EUs in the S/L inventories.

The crosswalk was updated with corrections to fa cility and CEM unit-to-EU matches, and with new matches provided by the S/L agencies. The matching of each CEM unit to an EU was still incomplete. Consequently, the comparison of an nual emissions was performed at the facility level.

The second stage in the CEM analysis was to prepare an Excel Workbook file for each S/L agency that compared the annual emissions summed from the hourly CEM inventory to the annual emissions reported in the S/L inventory. The file included three spreadsheets that compared annual emissions at the facility level, listed the facilities in the CEM inventory that could not be matched to the facilities in the S/ L inventory, and listed the facilities in the S/L inventory identified as an elec tricity generating unit (EGU) that could not be matched to a facility in the CEM inventory. Th e Excel files were sent to the S/ L agencies for review. The S/L agencies then indicated if they did or did not want to use the hourly CEM inventory.

The facility-level comparison of CEM to emission inventory NO x and SO 2 emissions found that for some facilities, the annual emissions fr om the S/L inventory exceeded the CEM annual emissions because the facility in the S/L invent ory contained more than just CEM units. This condition was determined to be acceptable. Howe ver, S/L agencies were asked to review data for facilities where the CEM emissions were hi gher than the emissions summed from the S/L inventory. For these cases, CEM emissions may be higher than those repor ted in a S/L inventory due to methods EPA uses for using artificially high default values to fill in hourly CEM data when not reported or when a CEM unit was not working properly.

After reviewing the comparison of the CEM to S/L inventory emissions, New York and Vermont elected to use the 2002 CEM inventory containing hourly NO x and SO 2 emissions for all facilities. Maryland; New Hampshire; and Al legheny County, Pennsylvania elected to use the 2002 CEM data for some but not all of the fac ilities within their ju risdiction. The Excel Workbook files containing the comparison of CEM to S/L inventories pr ovides a spreadsheet identifying the facilities for which these S/L agencies elected to us e the CEM inventory.

Subsequent to the completion of this analysis, it was determined that the structure of the EPA/CAMD file would not be compatible with the format of the SMOKE input file. The database structure did not affect the annual emissions summed from the hourly CEM emissions used in the comparison to S/L inventory data. Fo r each of the S/L agencies that elected to use the 2002 CEM data, CAMD agreed to provide sepa rate database files for each state with a structure compatible with the SMOKE input file fo rmat. Pechan then used the crosswalk to add to the CEM inventory files the state and county FIPS, state facility ID , and EU ID (if the crosswalk contains a CEM unit to EU match) to the hourly CEM database files provided by CAMD. The modified database was then used to create the SMOKE input files for these states.8 Note that Delaware requested that the 2002 CEM inventory for its facilities not be used for regional haze modeling. However, if the consolid ated point source invent ory prepared under this project is used to support oz one episode modeling, Delaware may consider using the CEM hourly data for the episodes modeled. Theref ore, the 2002 CEM inventory was also processed for Delaware’s facilities.

ii. PM Emissions Consiste ncy and Completeness Review

The following consistency checks were performed at the EM table data key level (for annual emissions) to compare PM emissions:

• If a process was associated with a PM em ission record, but was missing one or more of the following (as appropriate for the S CC [i.e., condensible PM (PM-CON) is associated with fuel combustion only]): filterable PM 10 (PM10-FIL), primary PM 10 (PM10-PRI), filterable PM 2.5 (PM25-FIL), primary PM 2.5 (PM25-PRI), or PM-CON, the record was flagged for review.

• The following equations were used to determine consistency:

PM10-FIL + PM-CON = PM10-PRI PM25-FIL + PM-CON = PM25-PRI PM-FIL + PM-CON = PM-PRI

• The following comparisons were app lied to determine consistency:

PM10-PRI >= PM10-FIL PM25-PRI >= PM25-FIL PM10-PRI >= PM-CON PM25-PRI >= PM-CON PM10-FIL >= PM25-FIL PM10-PRI >= PM25-PRI PM-PRI >= PM10-PRI PM-PRI >= PM25-PRI PM-FIL >= PM10-FIL PM-FIL >= PM25-FIL

If the data failed one of these checks it was diagnosed as an e rror, summarized in an Excel Workbook file, and provided to the S/L agency for corrections. If a S/L agency did not provide corrections to these errors, the errors were corrected or filled in according to the augmentation procedures.9 iii. ERP Coordinate Review

Location coordinates for point sources were ev aluated using geographic information system (GIS) mapping to determine if th e coordinates were w ithin 0.5-kilometers of the boundary of the county in which the source was located. If not , the S/L agency was asked to review the coordinates and provide corrections to either the coordinates or the state and county FIPS codes. The 0.5-kilometer test resulted in a large number of ERPs for review by the agencies. Therefore, to assist S/L agencies in priori tizing their review of coordinates, ERP records with coordinates located more than 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, and 10 or more kilometers from their county boundary, and coordinates that mapped outside of their stat e boundary were identified. Annual emissions summed to the ERP level were included in the QA Summary Report to identify records with zero emissions for all pollutants and to identify the highest emitting stacks. The QA Summary Report was provided to the S/L agency for review and corrections.

iv. ERP Parameter Review

The EPA’s QA guidance for diagnosing ERP issu es for the point source NEI (EPA, 2004b) was applied to identify QA issues in the S/L point source inventories. The QA guidance involved diagnosing the correct assignment of the ERP type (i.e., stack or fugitive), parameters with zero values, parameters not within the range of values specified in the EPA’s QA procedures, and consistency checks (i.e., comparing calculated values against the values reported in the inventory). In many cases errors were caused by missing or zero values. In other cases, out-ofrange errors were caused by unit conversion issues (e.g., stack parameters were in ft, ft/sec, cu ft/sec, or degrees Fahrenheit). The QA issues were summari zed in a separate QA Summary Report for each agency and each agency was asked to provide corrections. If an agency did not provide corrections for out-of-range or missing values, the data were corrected or filled in according to the ERP augmentation procedures.

v. Control Device Type and Control Efficiency Data Review

The CE codes in the “Primary Device Type C ode” and “Secondary Device Type Code” fields were reviewed to identify invalid codes (i.e., co des that did not exist in the NIF 3.0 reference table) and missing codes (e.g., records with a nu ll or uncontrolled code of 000 but with control efficiency data).

QA review of control efficiency data involved dia gnosis of two types of errors. First, records were reviewed to identify control efficiency values that were reported as a decimal rather than as a percent value. Records with control efficien cies with decimal values were flagged as a potential error (although not necessarily an error, since the real control efficiency may be less than 1%).

The second check identified reco rds where 100% control was reporte d in the CE table, but the emissions in the EM table were greater than zero and the rule effectiveness value in the EM table was null, zero, or 100% (implying 100% control of emissions). Because many agencies did not populate the rule effectiveness field or a default value of zero was assigned, records with null or zero rule effectiveness values were included wh ere the CE was 100% and emissions were greater10 than zero. The records that met these criteria were summarized in a QA Summary Report for review and correction, if necessary, by the S/L agency.

vi. Start and End Date Checks

QA review was conducted to identify start date and end date values in the PE and EM tables to confirm consistency with the inventory year in th e TR table, and to confirm that the end date reported was greater than the star t date reported. This check di d not identify any QA issues in the three versions of the inventory.

vii. Annual and Daily Emissions Comparison

The following QA checks were conducted to iden tify potential errors associated with the incorrect reporting of dail y and/or annual emissions:

• Any “DAILY” type record that is grea ter than its associ ated “ANNUAL”.

A review of the daily vs. annual comparison reve aled that in many cases, the daily value was nonzero (but very small), but the annual value was zero. This was generally a result of rounding in a S/L agency’s original emissions database, where annual records were recorded in tons per year to a set number of decima l places, while the co rresponding daily records were recorded in pounds per year to a set number of decimal places. The annual record rounds to zero in the original database, while the daily value re mains non-zero. A tolerance check reveals the following (comparison in tons):

• Difference Tolerance (daily - annual)> 0

• Difference Tolerance (daily - annual)> .000001

• Difference Tolerance (daily - annual)> .00001

• Difference Tolerance (daily - annual)> .0001

• Difference Tolerance (daily - annual)> .001

• Difference Tolerance (daily - annual)> .01

For Version 1, the affected S/L agencies were as follows:

• Connecticut (09) 11 records

• Maine (23) 4 records

• Maryland (24) 72 records

• New Jersey (34) 2935 records

• Pennsylvania Allegheny County (42003) 17 records

• Pennsylvania Philadelphia County (42101) 146 records

• Rhode Island (44) 1 record

Rhode Island, Philadelphia, and Ne w Jersey responded that the dailie s that were greater than the annuals could be deleted. Maryland determined that they should be ke pt since the difference values were small. The records for the remain ing S/L agencies were kept. This QA issue only occurred during processing of Version 1.11 b. Responses from S/L agencies

Each S/L agency reviewed its “QA Summary Report” files and the S/L agency provided direction for correcting QA issues either in the QA Summary Report Excel files or via e-mail. The inventory was then revised to incorporate responses from each agency and the QA checks were run again to verify that the QA issues were addressed. If an agency responded to a QA issue by e-mail, the direction was recorded in the “QA Summary Re port” file. The “QA Summary Report” file for each S/L agency was updated to document QA issues and resolution of issues associated with developing Versions 2 and 3 of the point sour ce inventory. The “QA Summary Report” files for Version 3 are provided with this report in a separate zip file. The files in the zip file are organized in separate folders for each S/L agency. Each folder includes a separate Excel workbook file for the following QA checks if a QA issue existed:

• PM Augmentation QA Summary;

• Stack Parameter QA Summary;

• Stack Coordinates QA Summary;

• Stack Parameter and Coordina te Augmentation Summary;

• CEM Comparisons and Revisions; and

• Control Device/Efficiency Summary.

c. Gap Filling and Augmentation

The following discusses the augmentation procedures that were used to fill in missing data that were not supplied by the S/L agencies. The S/L agencies approved the procedures before they were applied. These procedures were applied af ter revising the inventor y to address QA issues as directed by each S/L agency.

i. MANE-VU-Sponsored Inventories

MANE-VU prepared a 2002 NH 3 emissions inventory for cement kilns for SCCs 30500606 and 30500706 located in four MANE-VU states. Maryland chose to add one new facility 24013/0012 (state and county FIPS code /facility ID). New York chose to add the following three sites 36001/4010300016, 36001/4012400001, and 36111/3514800084. Maine and Pennsylvania chose not to add emissions from th is inventory. The datafor Maryland and New York were added to Version 1. These data were not changed in Versions 2 and 3 of the point source inventory.

ii. PM Augmentation

The PM augmentations process gap-fills missing PM pollutant complements. For example, if a S/L agency provided only PM10-PRI pollutants the PM augmentation process filled in the PM25-PRI pollutants. The steps in the PM augmentation process were as follows:

• Step 1: Initial QA and remediati on of S/L provided PM pollutants;12 • Step 2: Development of PM factor ra tios based on factors from the Factor Information and REtrieval (FIRE) Data Sy stem, version 6.2, and the PM Calculator (EPA, 2003a; EPA, 2004c);

• Step 3: Implementation of the ra tios developed in step 2.; and

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

An Access database (named Reference Tables for PM Augmentation ) accompanies this document. This database contains the SCC C ontrol Device Ratio table, the Emission Factors table, and Emission Factors Crosst ab table discussed in Step 2. The Emission Factors Crosstab table contains the ratios devel oped from the Emission Factors tabl e. The Emission Factors table contains detailed information on the emission f actors used to develop the ratios. The PM Calculator ratio table can be provided upon request – it contains all possible combinations for SCC and Control Device types th at are available in the PM Calculator. Ratios from the PM calculator were developed us ing a standard input of 100 TONS of uncontrolled PM-FIL emissions.

1. Initial QA and Remediation of PM Pollutants

S/L agencies were initially presented with file s that detailed potenti al inconsistencies and missing information in their PM pollutant invent ory. Inconsistencies in PM pollutants include the following:

• PM-PRI less than PM10-PRI, PM25-PR I, PM10-FIL, PM25-FIL, or PM-CON;

• PM-FIL less than PM10-FIL, PM25-FIL;

• PM10-PRI less than PM25-PRI, PM10-FIL, PM25-FIL or PM-CON;

• PM10-FIL less than PM25-FIL;

• PM25-PRI less than PM25-FIL or PM-CON;

• The sum of PM10-FIL and PM-CON not equal to PM10-PRI; and

• The sum of PM25-FIL and PM-CON not equal to PM25-PRI.

Potential missing information was summarized in a table which detailed the variety of cases provided by each S/L agency. For example, an S/L agency might have provided PM10-FIL and PM25-FIL for some processes, but provide d only PM10-FIL for other processes.

S/L agencies were asked to review this informa tion and provide corrections where possible. In general, corrections (or general directions) were provided in the case of the potential inconsistency issues. An exam ple of a general direction pr ovided by a S/L agency was to remove PM25-FIL where greater than PM10-FIL because the PM10- FIL was (in their particular case) known to be more reliable. In other ca ses, the agency-provided specific process-level pollutant corrections. If specifi c direction was not provided by the agency, zero PM pollutants were generally removed, or complement s were set equal to the higher number.13 2. Development of PM Factor Ratio

The primary deliverable of this step of the process was the development of a table keyed by SCC, primary control device, and secondary contro l device. This table is called the SCC Control Device Ratios table (see Table II-1). This ta ble was filled according to the following steps:

• Ratios (both condensible and noncondensible ) were added from FIRE for SCCs starting with 10* (external fuel combustion) and 20* (internal fuel combustion) where there was a direct match between the pr ovided SCC, and primary and secondary control devices.

• Ratios (non-condensable) were added from th e PM Calculator for SCCs starting with 10* and 20* where there was not a direct match between the provided SCC, and primary and secondary control devices. C ondensible ratios were added from the PM Calculator based on the unc ontrolled SCC for these SCCs. In some cases, it was necessary to map the SCC and control device s to the PM calculator to find a match for the noncondensible ratios. In other cas es, it was necessary to map the SCC to FIRE to find a match for condensible ratios.

• For natural gas, process gas, and liquified petroleum ga s (LPG) SCCs starting with10* and 20*, it was assumed (based on FIRE emission factors) that the PMPRI/PM10-PRI/PM25-PRI ratio wa s equal to 1. It was also assumed that the PMFIL/PM10- FIL /PM25- FIL was equal to 1. Condensible ratios were calculated from uncontrolled FIRE emission factors for these SCCs. In some cases it was necessary to map the SCC to FIRE to find a match for condensible ratios.

• Ratios for SCCs not like 10* and 20* were obtai ned from the PM Calculator. It was assumed that the condensible component was zero.14 Table II-1. Description of the Field Nam es and Descriptions for the SCC Control Device Ratios Table

Field Name Field Description PM Calculator A “Yes” in this field indicates that at least some of the information was retrieved from the PM Calculator FIRE A “Yes” in this field indicates that at least so me of the information was retrieved from the Emission Factors table. A “Condensible Ratios” in this field indicates that the condensible ratios factors were retrieved from this table. Other A field to indicate other sources as necessary. SCC Source category code from the S/L agency-provided data. SCC_DESC Description of source category code from the S/L agency-provided data. maptoSCC This field equals SCC unless the SCC provided was not found in the appropriate source table. In that case, the SCC was mapped using the cl osest available appropr iate mapping choice. maptoSCC_DESC Description of the maptoSCC. mapSCCNote Any notes related to the mapping of the SCC. A “Yes” in this field indicates that the SCC was mapped. PD Primary device type from the S/L agency provided data. PD_DESC Description of the primary device (PD). maptoPD This field equals PD unless the PD provided was not found in the appropriate source table. In that case, the PD was mapped using the closes t available appropriate mapping choice. maptoPD_DESC Description of the maptoPD. mapPDNote Any notes related to the mapping of the PD. A “Yes” in this field indicates that the PD was mapped. SD Secondary device type from the S/L agency provided data. SD_DESC Description of the secondary device (SD). maptoSD This field equals SD unless the SD provided was not found in the appropriate source table. In that case, the SD was mapped using the closes t available appropriate mapping choice. maptoSD_DESC Description of the maptoSD. mapSDNote Any notes related to the mapping of the SD. A “Yes” in this field indicates that the SD was mapped. PM-FIL/PM10-FIL This field and the following are ratios calc ulated from emission factors found either in FIRE or the PM calculator. PM-FIL/PM25-FIL This field and the following are ratios calc ulated from emission factors found either in FIRE or the PM calculator. PM-FIL/PM-PRI This field and the following are ratios calcul ated from emission factors found either in FIRE or the PM calculator. PM-PRI/PM10-PRI This field and the following are ratios calc ulated from emission factors found either in FIRE or the PM calculator. PM-PRI/PM25-PRI This field and the following are ratios calc ulated from emission factors found either in FIRE or the PM calculator. PM10-FIL/PM25-FIL This field and the following are ratios calc ulated from emission factors found either in FIRE or the PM calculator. PM10-PRI/PM25-PRI This field and the following are ratios calc ulated from emission factors found either in FIRE or the PM calculator. PM-CON/PM10-FIL Condensible ratios were calculate from FIRE if available for 10* and 20* SCCs. If condensible ratios were not found in FIRE for 10* and 20* these ratios were set to zero. PM-CON/PM10-PRI Condensible ratios were calculate from FIRE if available for 10* and 20* SCCs. If condensible ratios were not found in FIRE for 10* and 20* these ratios were set to zero. PM-CON/PM25-FIL Condensible ratios were calculate from FIRE if available for 10* and 20* SCCs. If condensible ratios were not found in FIRE for 10* and 20* these ratios were set to zero. PM-CON/PM25-PRI Condensible ratios were calculate from FIRE if available for 10* and 20* SCCs. If condensible ratios were not found in FIRE for 10* and 20* these ratios were set to zero. PM-CON/PM-FIL Condensible ratios were calculate from FIRE if available for 10* and 20* SCCs. If condensible ratios were not found in FIRE for 10* and 20* these ratios were set to zero. PM-CON/PM-PRI Condensible ratios were calculate from FIRE if available for 10* and 20* SCCs. If condensible ratios were not found in FIRE for 10* and 20* these ratios were set to zero. RPO Specific Note Indicates SCC and control dev ice combinations are in the RPO inventory. Additional Notes Any notes regar ding assumptions about ratios.15 3. Implementation of the QA Ratios

In order to calculate the additional PM polluta nts based on the SCC Control Device ratio table developed in the above step, a crosstab table was created from the EM table based on the following fields:

• State FIPS

• County FIPS

• Tribal Code

• EU ID

• Process ID

• Start Date

• End Date

• Emission Type

• SCC

• Primary Device Type

• Secondary Device Type

The primary and secondary device type fields were added based on information from the CE table. If CE information was not availa ble these fields were defaulted to 000 (“UNCONTROLLED”). In the few cases where th ere was a conflict betwee n the control devices reported for the same process for PM pollutant s (e.g., a PM10-PRI is liste d as controlled, but PM-PRI did not have control information), the control device type was selected based on the controlled pollutant.

In addition to the fields list ed above, the crosstab included the PM emission amounts for the particular process and a field that indicated wh ether those emissions exis ted in the inventory. These fields were as follows:

• PM_PRI

• PM_FIL

• PM10_PRI

• PM10_FIL

• PM25_PRI

• PM25_FIL

• PM_CON

• PM_PRI_EXISTS

• PM_FIL_EXISTS

• PM10_PRI_EXISTS

• PM10_FIL_EXISTS

• PM25_PRI_EXISTS

• PM25_FIL_EXISTS

• PM_CON_EXISTS16 The emission values were in the PM_PRI, PM_FIL, PM10_PRI, PM10_FIL, PM25_PRI, PM25_FIL, PM_CON fields. The _EXISTS field i ndicated whether the po llutant was provided by the S/L agency. A zero indicated that the po llutant was not provided; a number greater than zero (usually one) indicates that it was provided by the S/L agency.

Prior to the development of this crosstab, the EM table was fille d in as much as possible using basic assumptions. For example, if the S/L agen cy provided zero emissions for some but not all forms of PM for a particular pro cess, it was assumed that all forms of PM for that process were zero and they were filled in accordingly. Si nce that assumption was that for non 10* and 20* SCCs, the condensible value was zero – that would lead to PM10-FIL = PM10-PRI and PM25- FIL = PM25-PRI and PM-FIL = PM-PRI. Given that assumption, values for these pollutants were also filled in. After this data insertion, a subset of the crosstab was created. This subset only contained processes that required additional augmentation. The SCC Control Device Type ratio table was based on only those SCC and cont rol device types that required augmentation.

The next step was to fill in the missing informa tion in this crosstab using the information found in the SCC Control Device Ratio table.

In calculating PM complement pollutants, prio rity was given to calculating –PRI and –CON pollutants. FIL pollutants were onl y calculated if necessary to calcu late other pollutants or if it was a by-product of this calculation.

In augmenting the PM pollutants, the non 10* and 20* SCCs were augmented first, with order given to augmenting based on PM 10 where available, PM 2.5 where available, and then PM.

Augmenting the PM pollutants for the 10* and 20* SCCs is more complicated, but the basic approach was to augment based on PM 10 (FIL or PRI) where available, PM 2.5 (FIL or PRI) where available, and then PM (FIL or PRI) if PM 10 or PM 2.5 variations were not av ailable. Where both PM 10 (FIL or PRI) and PM 2.5 (FIL or PRI) variations were bot h available, the calculation for PM-CON was generally driven from the PM 10 number and the complements as necessary were back calculated. Where a PRI emission factor ra tio was required and was not available, the FIL emission factor ratio was used.

After completing the calculations , the data was QA checked to ensure that the calculations resulted in consistent values for the PM comple ment. On a few occasions, the mix of ratio value and the pollutants and values provided by the S/ L agency resulted in negative values when FIL was back-calculated. In this case the negative FIL value was set to zero and the PRI value was readjusted. In a few cases the appropriate combin ation of ratios, SCC, and control efficiencies were not available to calculat e the PM10-PRI and PM25-PRI valu es. In these cases, PM10-PRI and PM25-PRI were set equal. The resultant PM table information wa s appended to the EM table.

Note: The augmentation procedures resulted in some high condensible ratios that were calculated for some SCC control device type combinations. In most cases, these high condensible ratios were the resu lt of the back calculation of PM-CON from PMxx-PRI records.17 Since the state had already pr ovided the PMxx-PRI records, these PM-CON values were not added.

The data source code field was used to identify records that were added to the inventory to complete the set of PM10-PRI and PM25-PRI emissions.

iii. ERP Coordinates

If an S/L agency did not provide corrections for ERP coordinates that map more than 5 km outside of the county boundary, or provide coordinates for ERP r ecords that did not have any coordinates in the S/L inventory, the followi ng procedures were applied to replace the coordinates:

• Coordinates for other ERPs at the same f acility, if available, that map within the county;

• Coordinates for the centroid of the zip code for a facility if a valid zip code was provided or could be obtained from th e agency if it is not valid; or

• County centroid coordinates.

The zip code was taken from the SI NIF 3.0 table. The zip code was compared to a reference table of valid zip codes to verify that it was an active zip code and existe d in the state and county reported in the inventory. If a valid zip code for a facility coul d not be identified, the centroid for the facility’s county was used as a last re sort. In some cases, the S/L agency provided confirmation that the S/L coordinates were corr ect even if the analysis indicated that the coordinates were outside of the county. These coordinates were not changed. Additionally, all coordinates were converted to la titude/longitude measurements.

iv. ERP Parameters

If valid ERP parameters were not provided by the S/L agency, the ERP augmentation procedures that EPA developed for the 2002 point source NE I were applied to the MANE-VU inventory (EPA, 2004b). It has been determ ined that the augmentation pr ocedures in this document regarding SCC-specific ERP types and temperatures may be difficult to resolve. When this situation occurs, preference was given to the S/ L agency -supplied ERP type and SCC. For example, the procedures do not account for cases where an EU has two processes with one defined as a stack source and the other as a f ugitive source. Therefore, the S/L-supplied ERP type was used when this situation occurred. If the ERP type was null, and information was not available from the S/L agency, the stack height in formation was used as a guide. If stack height information was available, the ERP was treated as a stack, if stack height information was not available, the ERP was treated as a fugitive. An additional modification to the augmentation procedure was also implemented. Since in many cases null values were filled in with zeros by S/L local databases when comparing out-of-range velocities and flows (after it was determined that the stack and diameter information was corre ct) – null and zero values were treated in the same manner to prevent inappropriate replacemen t of stack parameter values. Additionally, stack parameter values were rounded to 1 decimal place when comparing with range values (just18 for the purposes of comparison) to prevent re placement of S/L parameter values based on negligible decimal differences.

v. Control Device Type and Control Efficiency Data

Control efficiencies that were 100% and rule effectiveness of 100% with non-zero emissions were diagnosed as potential errors and sent to the S/L agencies. Where possible these data were updated with S/L data corrections. Decimal control efficiencies were also diagnosed and sent to the S/L agencies. A decimal control efficiency wa s usually a sign that a control efficiency had not been entered as a percenta ge as is required by NIF 3.0. Where possible these data was updated with S/L data corrections.

c. QA Review of Final Inventory

Final QA checks were run on the revised point so urce inventory data set to ensure that all corrections provided by the S/L agencies were in corporated into the S/L inventories and that there were no remaining QA issues that could be addressed during the dura tion of the project. The EPA QA program was run on the inventory a nd the QA output was reviewed to verify that all QA issues that could be a ddressed were resolved. The QA output file was provided in an Access database along with Vers ion 3 of the inventory.

3. Version 3 Emissions Summary

Table II-2 presents a State-level summary of th e annual point source emissions in Version 3 of the 2002 MANE-VU inventory. Note that PM10-P RI and PM25-PRI emissions are included in the inventory for all SCCs for which S/ L agencies reported any form of PM, PM 10 , and/or PM 2.5 emissions. If an agency did not report PM 10-PRI and/or PM25-PRI but reported PM-PRI, PMFIL, PM-CON, PM10-FIL, and/or PM25-FIL, the PM augmentation procedures discussed in the TSD were applied to the form of PM emissions supplied by the agency to calculate emissions for the other forms of PM emissions. If an agen cy reported PM10-PRI and/or PM25-PRI emissions but not PM10-FIL, PM25-FIL, or PM-CON em issions, the agency's inventory was not augmented to calculate filterable or condensible emissions. Note that PM-CON is associated with only fuel combustion sources.19 Table II-2. Version 3 2002 MANE-VU Point Source Emissions by State (Tons/Year)

State CO NH 3 NO x PM10- FIL PM10- PRI PM25- FIL PM25- PRI PM-CON SO 2 VOC Connecticut 4,053 12,923 738 1,617 0 1,283 389 15,988 4,907 Delaware 9,766 196 16,345 2,466 4,217 1,919 3,666 1,750 73,744 4,755 District of Columbia 248 4 780 91 161 54 132 68 963 69
Maine 17,005 845 19,939 4,535 7,289 2,567 5,787 2,753 23,711 5,319 Maryland 99,024 305 95,328 3,723 9,029 0 5,054 2,018 290,927 6,184 Massachusetts 21,262 1,463 47,086 2,776 5,852 997 4,161 2,984 101,049 8,263 New Hampshire 2,725 74 9,759 1,180 3,332 786 2,938 2,151 46,560 1,599
New Jersey 12,300 51,593 2,928 6,072 2,543 4,779 3 61,217 14,401 New York 66,427 1,861 118,978 1,808 10,392 1,965 7,080 210 294,729 11,456 Pennsylvania 121,524 1,388 297,379 18,044 40,587 6,038 20,116 5,065 995,175 37,323 Rhode Island 2,234 58 2,764 233 300 117 183 68 2,666 1,928 Vermont 1,078 787 130 304 97 267 2 905 1,097 MANE-VU 357,645 6,194 673,660 38,654 89,150 17,083 55,447 17,462 1,907,634 97,30020 B. State-Specific Methods

For each of the MANE-VU states and two local agen cies in Pennsylvania, this section identifies the temporal basis of the emissions included in Version 3 and discusses revisions incorporated into Version 3. In addition, this section also di scusses the origin of each S/L agency’s emissions included in Version 3. For each agency, a table is provided in Appendix A that lists the data source codes by SCC, emission type period, and pollu tant. In addition, an electronic folder is provided for each S/L agency containing the QA Summary Reports prepared during Version 1 and other files documenting revisions included in Versions 2 and 3.

1. Connecticut

Connecticut’s Version 3 point source inventory originates from Version 1 except for the following revisions that Connec ticut provided for Version 2 and included in Version 3:

• Changed coordinates for AES Thames, Inc. in New London County to -72.3184, 41.4499 (FIPS code 09011, facili ty identifier 1544).

• Changed values for Hartford Steam (FIPS code 09003, facility identifier 3471), EU P0250, process 02 for summer daily values as follows: Changed actual throughput from 1934 E6FT3 to 1.934 E6FT3, CO summer daily em issions from 53.185 tons to 0.0532 tons, NO x summer daily emissions from 255.288 t ons to 0.1021 tons, and VOC summer daily emissions from 1.2569 tons to 0.0027 tons.

Table II-3 shows the emission type periods for which Connecticut provided emissions.

Table II-3. Connecticut 2002 Point, Version 3: Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types

Emission Type Period Start Date End Date Emission Type ANNUAL 20020101 20021231 30 NONANNUAL 20011201 20020228 27 NONANNUAL 20011201 20020228 29 NONANNUAL 20020601 20020831 27 NONANNUAL 20020601 20020831 29

Table A-1 in Appendix A identifies the data sour ces by SCC, emission type period, and pollutant in the Version 3 point source inventory. This table also shows the number of counties by SCC. Note that some SCC and emission type period comb inations are listed more than once because the data source codes are different for more than one SCC and emission type period combination. Connecticut provided the data for CO, NO x , PM10-PRI, SO 2 , and VOC. Connecticut did not provide any data for NH 3 . Emissions for PM10-FIL, PM25- PRI, PM25-FIL, and PM-CON were calculated from the PM10-PRI emissions provide d by Connecticut using the PM augmentation procedures.21 2. Delaware

Delaware’s Version 3 point source inventory orig inates from Version 1 except for some updates to ORIS Boiler IDs in the EU table that were incorporated into Version 2 and included in Version 3. Table II-4 shows the emission type periods for which Delaware provided emissions.

Table II-4. Delaware 2002 Point, Version 3: Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types

Emission Type Period Start Date End Date Emission Type ANNUAL 20020101 20021231 30 NONANNUAL 20020601 20020831 29

Table A-2 in Appendix A identifies the data sour ces by SCC, emission type period, and pollutant in the Version 3 point source inventory. This table also shows the number of counties by SCC. Note that some SCC and emission type period comb inations are listed more than once because the data source codes are different for more than one SCC and emission type period combination. Delaware provided the data for CO, NH 3 , NO x , SO 2 , and VOC. Delaware also provided much of the PM emissions data but in some cases the PM augmentation procedures were applied to the PM data provided by Delaware to calculate emissions for other forms of PM (e.g., to estimate PM10-PRI from PM10-FIL, PM25-PRI from PM 25-FIL, PM10-PRI and PM10-FIL from PM25- PRI and PM25-FIL).

3. District of Columbia

The District of Columbia’s Vers ion 3 point source i nventory originates fro m Version 1. Table II-5 shows the emission type period for which the District of Columbia provided emissions.

Table II-5. District of Colu mbia 2002 Point, Version 3: Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Type

Emission Type Period Start Date End Date Emission Type ANNUAL 20020101 20021231 30

Table A-3 in Appendix A identifies the data sour ces by SCC, emission type period, and pollutant in the Version 3 point source inventory. This table also shows the number of counties by SCC. The District of Columbia provided the data for CO, NH 3 , NO x , SO 2 , and VOC. The District of Columbia provided at least one form of PM emissions and the PM a ugmentation procedures were applied to the emissions provided by the Dist rict of Columbia to calculate emissions for the other forms of PM.22 4. Maine

Maine’s Version 3 point source inventory origin ates from Version 1. Table II-6 shows the emission type periods for whic h Maine provided emissions.

Table II-6. Maine 2002 Point, Version 3: Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types

Emission Type Period Start Date End Date Emission Type ANNUAL 20020101 20021231 30 NONANNUAL 20020601 20020831 29

Table A-4 in Appendix A identifies the data sour ces by SCC, emission type period, and pollutant in the Version 3 point source inventory. This table also shows the number of counties by SCC. Note that some SCC and emission type period comb inations are listed more than once because the data source codes are different for more than one SCC and emission type period combination. Maine provided the emissions data for CO, NH 3 , NO x , SO 2 , and VOC. Maine provided PM10- FIL and/or PM25-FIL emissions data and the PM augmentation procedures were applied to the emissions that Maine provided to calculat e emissions for the other forms of PM.

5. Maryland

Maryland’s Version 3 point source inventory orig inates from Version 1 except for some updates to ORIS Boiler IDs in the EU table that were incorporated into Version 2 and included in Version 3. Table II-7 shows th e emission type periods for whic h Maryland provided emissions.

Table II-7. Maryland 2002 Point, Version 3: Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types

Emission Type Period Start Date End Date Emission Type ANNUAL 20020101 20021231 30 ANNUAL 20040101 20041231 30 NONANNUAL 20020101 20021231 29 NONANNUAL 20020501 20020930 29 NONANNUAL 20040101 20041231 29

Table A-5 in Appendix A identifies the data sour ces by SCC, emission type period, and pollutant in the Version 3 point source inventory. This table also shows the number of counties by SCC. Note that some SCC and emission type period comb inations are listed more than once because the data source codes are different for more than one SCC and emission type period combination. Maryland provided the emissions data for CO, NH 3 , NO x , SO 2 , VOC, PM10-PRI, and PM-PRI. The PM augmentation procedures were applie d to the PM10-PRI emissions that Maryland provided to calculate emissions for the other forms of PM. Maryland provided NH 3 emissions for its point sources except for one new facility (state and county FIPS code 24013, facility ID 0012, SCC 30500622, data source code P) for which it used NH 3 emissions for four EUs (preheater kiln/dry process) prepared by MANE-VU.23 6. Massachusetts

Massachusetts’ Version 3 point s ource inventory originates from Version 1 except for the some stack parameter revisions that Ma ssachusetts provided and were incorporated into Version 3. For Version 3, Massachusetts provi ded revisions to stack paramete rs in the ERP table for six EUs at three facilities. The revisions are list ed in the Excel file named “MA Revisions to MANEVU V3 Point EI_040706.xls”. Table II-8 s hows the emission type periods for which Massachusetts provided emissions.

Table II-8. Massachusetts 2002 Point, Version 3: Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types

Emission Type Period Start Date End Date Emission Type ANNUAL 20020101 20021231 30 ANNUAL 20030101 20031231 30

Table A-6 in Appendix A identifies the data sour ces by SCC, emission type period, and pollutant in the Version 3 point source inventory. This table also shows the number of counties by SCC. Note that some SCC and emission type period comb inations are listed more than once because the data source codes are different for more than one SCC and emission type period combination. Massachusetts provided the emissions data for CO, NH 3 , NO x , SO 2 , and VOC. Massachusetts provided PM-FIL, PM10-FIL, and/or PM25-FIL emissions data and the PM augmentation procedures were applied to the emissions that Massachusetts provi ded to calculate emissions for the other forms of PM.

7. New Hampshire

New Hampshire’s Version 3 point source in ventory originates from Version 1. Table II-9 shows the emission type periods fo r which New Hampshire provided emissions.

Table II-9. New Hampshire 2002 Point, Version 3: Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types

Emission Type Period Start Date End Date Emission Type ANNUAL 20020101 20021231 30 NONANNUAL 20020601 20020831 29

Table A-7 in Appendix A identifies the data sour ces by SCC, emission type period, and pollutant in the Version 3 point source inventory. This table also shows the number of counties by SCC. Note that some SCC and emission type period comb inations are listed more than once because the data source codes are different for more than one SCC and emission type period combination. New Hampshire provided the emissions data for CO, NH 3 , NO x , SO 2 , and VOC. New Hampshire provided PM-FIL, PM10-FIL, and/ or PM25-FIL emissions data and the PM augmentation procedures were applied to the emissions that New Hampshire provided to calculate emissions for th e other forms of PM.24 8. New Jersey

New Jersey’s Version 3 point sour ce inventory originates from Ve rsion 1. In addition to the QA checks discussed previously in this TSD, New Jersey’s original inventory submittal to EPA contained several issues with SCCs. For Vers ion 1, per direction provi ded by New Jersey, SCCs that were less than 8 digits were changed to SCCs with 8 digits. Also, as approved by New Jersey, inactive SCC 39999901 was changed to active SCC 39999999. The invalid unit “GAL” was changed to the valid unit “E 6GAL” in the EP table.

Table II-10 shows the emission type periods for which New Jersey provided emissions.

Table II-10. New Jersey 2 002 Point, Version 3: Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types

Emission Type Period Start Date End Date Emission Type ANNUAL 20020101 20021231 30 NONANNUAL 20011201 20020228 29 NONANNUAL 20020601 20020831 29

Table A-8 in Appendix A identifies the data sour ces by SCC, emission type period, and pollutant in the Version 3 point source inventory. This table also shows the number of counties by SCC. Note that some SCC and emission type period comb inations are listed more than once because the data source codes are different for more than one SCC and emission type period combination. New Jersey provided the em issions data for CO, NO x , SO 2 , and VOC. New Jersey provided PMPRI, PM10-PRI, and/or PM25-PRI emissions data and the PM augmentation procedures were applied to the emissions that New Jersey provide d to calculate emissions for the other forms of PM. New Jersey did not provide any data for NH 3
.

9. New York

New York’s Version 3 point source inventory orig inates from Version 1 except for the following revisions that New York provided and we re incorporated into Version 3.

For Version 3, New York provided an Access database named “MANEVU_NY2002_ Point_Corrected_093005.mdb” with revisions to r ecords in the EM table. New York also provided in this database 651 r ecords that were not included in Version 2 of MANE-VU's point source inventory, and, therefore, these records were added to Version 3 of MANE-VU's point source inventory. The new records added emissions for pollutants (not in Version 2) for EUs and processes that existed in Version 2 of MANE-VU's point source inventory.

The records in Version 2 that were revised and the records that were added to Version 3 are listed in the Excel file named “NY Revi sions to MANE-VU V3 Point EI_040706.xls”. Table II-11 shows the emission type period for which New York provided emissions.25 Table II-11. New York 2002 Point, Version 3: Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Type

Emission Type Period Start Date End Date Emission Type ANNUAL 20020101 20021231 30

Table A-9 in Appendix A identifies the data sour ces by SCC, emission type period, and pollutant in the Version 3 point source inventory. This table also shows the number of counties by SCC. Note that some SCC and emission type period comb inations are listed more than once because the data source codes are different for more than one SCC and emission type period combination. New York provided the emissions data for CO, NH 3 , NO x , SO 2 , and VOC. New York provided PM-PRI, PM10-PRI, and/or PM25-PRI emissions data and the PM augmentation procedures were applied to the emissions that New York pr ovided to calculate emissions for the other forms of PM. New York provided NH 3 emissions for its point sources except for four cement kilns for which it used NH 3 emissions from a MANE-VU-sponsored inventory. The following identifies the facilities for which the MAEN-VU-sponsored NH 3 emissions inventory for cement kilns was used.

FIPS Code Facility ID SCC Data Source 36001 4010300016 30500606 (2 kilns/dry process) P 36001 4012400001 30500706 (1 kiln/wet process) P 36111 3514800084 30500606 (1 kiln/dry process) P

10. Pennsylvania (State, Excluding Allegheny and Philadelphia Counties)

The Version 3 point source inventory for the stat e of Pennsylvania originates from Version 1. The following summary excludes Allegheny and Ph iladelphia Counties who provided their own point source inventories fo r Versions 1, 2, and 3.

Table II-12 shows the emission type periods for which Pennsylvania provided emissions. Table A-10 in Appendix A identifies the data sources by SCC, emission type period, and pollutant in the Version 3 point source inventor y. This table also shows the number of counties by SCC. Note that some SCC and emission type period comb inations are listed more than once because the data source codes are different for more than one SCC and emission type period combination. Pennsylvania provided the emissions data for CO, NH 3 , NO x , SO 2 , and VOC. Pennsylvania provided PM10-PRI and/or PM25-PRI emissions data and the PM augmentation procedures were applied to the emissions that Pennsylvani a provided to calculate emissions for the other forms of PM.26 Table II-12. Pennsylvania 2002 Point, Version 3: Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types

Emission

Type Period Start Date End Date Emission Type Emission Type Period Start Date End Date Emission Type ANNUAL 20020101 20020104 30 ANNUAL 20020131 20020812 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20020111 30 ANNUAL 20020131 20021231 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20020120 30 ANNUAL 20020201 20020228 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20020123 30 ANNUAL 20020201 20020424 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20020130 30 ANNUAL 20020201 20020831 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20020131 30 ANNUAL 20020201 20020930 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20020212 30 ANNUAL 20020201 20021030 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20020215 30 ANNUAL 20020201 20021130 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20020221 30 ANNUAL 20020201 20021231 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20020228 30 ANNUAL 20020205 20021223 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20020313 30 ANNUAL 20020213 20020913 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20020329 30 ANNUAL 20020214 20021231 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20020331 30 ANNUAL 20020216 20020331 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20020412 30 ANNUAL 20020301 20020331 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20020414 30 ANNUAL 20020301 20020430 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20020422 30 ANNUAL 20020301 20020531 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20020427 30 ANNUAL 20020301 20021031 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20020430 30 ANNUAL 20020301 20021130 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20020503 30 ANNUAL 20020301 20021231 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20020514 30 ANNUAL 20020311 20021213 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20020517 30 ANNUAL 20020311 20021231 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20020521 30 ANNUAL 20020314 20021209 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20020531 30 ANNUAL 20020318 20021223 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20020603 30 ANNUAL 20020320 20020915 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20020614 30 ANNUAL 20020320 20021231 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20020626 30 ANNUAL 20020328 20021120 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20020628 30 ANNUAL 20020330 20021122 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20020630 30 ANNUAL 20020401 20020430 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20020701 30 ANNUAL 20020401 20020531 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20020731 30 ANNUAL 20020401 20020731 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20020813 30 ANNUAL 20020401 20020930 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20020831 30 ANNUAL 20020401 20021231 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20020909 30 ANNUAL 20020409 20021205 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20020930 30 ANNUAL 20020415 20021117 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20021031 30 ANNUAL 20020415 20021231 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20021101 30 ANNUAL 20020421 20021024 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20021112 30 ANNUAL 20020424 20021016 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20021130 30 ANNUAL 20020428 20021231 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20021213 30 ANNUAL 20020429 20020922 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20021216 30 ANNUAL 20020429 20021031 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20021217 30 ANNUAL 20020501 20020630 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20021220 30 ANNUAL 20020501 20020930 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20021223 30 ANNUAL 20020501 20021013 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20021230 30 ANNUAL 20020501 20021031 30 ANNUAL 20020101 20021231 30 ANNUAL 20020501 20021231 30 ANNUAL 20020102 20020703 30 ANNUAL 20020506 20021202 30 ANNUAL 20020102 20021203 30 ANNUAL 20020511 20021231 30 ANNUAL 20020102 20021215 30 ANNUAL 20020515 20021231 30 ANNUAL 20020102 20021223 30 ANNUAL 20020519 20020727 30 ANNUAL 20020102 20021227 30 ANNUAL 20020525 20021231 3027 Table II-12. (Continued)

Emission

Type Period Start Date End Date Emission Type Emission Type Period Start Date End Date Emission Type ANNUAL 20020102 20021228 30 ANNUAL 20020601 20020602 30 ANNUAL 20020102 20021229 30 ANNUAL 20020601 20020831 30 ANNUAL 20020102 20021230 30 ANNUAL 20020601 20020930 30 ANNUAL 20020102 20021231 30 ANNUAL 20020601 20021019 30 ANNUAL 20020103 20021126 30 ANNUAL 20020603 20021231 30 ANNUAL 20020103 20021228 30 ANNUAL 20020606 20021127 30 ANNUAL 20020103 20021231 30 ANNUAL 20020629 20021231 30 ANNUAL 20020104 20020930 30 ANNUAL 20020701 20020731 30 ANNUAL 20020104 20021223 30 ANNUAL 20020701 20020930 30 ANNUAL 20020104 20021231 30 ANNUAL 20020701 20021231 30 ANNUAL 20020105 20021218 30 ANNUAL 20020708 20021231 30 ANNUAL 20020105 20021231 30 ANNUAL 20020801 20020831 30 ANNUAL 20020106 20021231 30 ANNUAL 20020801 20020930 30 ANNUAL 20020107 20021231 30 ANNUAL 20020801 20021130 30 ANNUAL 20020108 20021221 30 ANNUAL 20020801 20021231 30 ANNUAL 20020108 20021228 30 ANNUAL 20020802 20021231 30 ANNUAL 20020110 20021204 30 ANNUAL 20020901 20020930 30 ANNUAL 20020111 20021231 30 ANNUAL 20020901 20021231 30 ANNUAL 20020113 20021006 30 ANNUAL 20020920 20021231 30 ANNUAL 20020114 20021203 30 ANNUAL 20021001 20021030 30 ANNUAL 20020115 20020318 30 ANNUAL 20021001 20021231 30 ANNUAL 20020115 20020323 30 ANNUAL 20021028 20021231 30 ANNUAL 20020115 20020326 30 ANNUAL 20021101 20021231 30 ANNUAL 20020115 20020830 30 ANNUAL 20021118 20021231 30 ANNUAL 20020123 20020127 30 ANNUAL 20021201 20021231 30 ANNUAL 20020124 20021127 30

11. Pennsylvania (Allegheny County, FIPS code 42003)

The Version 3 point source inventory for A llegheny County, Pennsylvania originates from Version 1. Table II-13 shows the emission type periods for which Allegheny County provided emissions.

Table II-13. Pennsylvania - Allegheny County 2002 Point, Version 3: Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types

Emission Type Period Start Date End Date Emission Type ANNUAL 20020101 20021231 30 NONANNUAL 20011201 20020228 29 NONANNUAL 20020601 20020831 2928 Table A-11 in Appendix A identifies the data sources by SCC, emission type period, and pollutant in the Version 3 point source inventory. This table al so shows the num ber of counties by SCC. Allegheny County provided the emissions data for CO, NH 3 , NO x , SO 2 , and VOC. Allegheny County provided PM-FIL, PM10-FIL, PM25-FIL, and/or PM-CON emissions data and the PM augmentation procedures were a pplied to the emissions that Allegheny County provided to calculate emissions for the other forms of PM.

12. Pennsylvania (Philadelphia County, FIPS code 42101)

The Version 3 point source inventory for Philade lphia County, Pennsylvania originates from Version 1. Table II-14 shows th e emission type periods for whic h Philadelphia County provided emissions.

Table II-14. Pennsylvania - Philadelphi a County 2002 Point, Version 3: Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types

Emission Type Period Start Date End Date Emission Type ANNUAL 20020101 20021231 30 NONANNUAL 20011201 20020228 29 NONANNUAL 20020601 20020831 29

Table A-12 in Appendix A identifies the data sources by SCC, emission type period, and pollutant in the Version 3 point source inventory. This table al so shows the num ber of counties by SCC. Philadelphia County provide d the emissions data for CO, NH 3 , NO x , SO 2 , and VOC. Philadelphia County provided PM-FIL, PM10-FIL, and/or PM25-FIL emissions data and the PM augmentation procedures were applied to the emissions that Philadel phia County provided to calculate emissions for th e other forms of PM.

13. Rhode Island

Rhode Island requested that their Version 2 inventory be replaced with the CAP and NH 3 inventory in the final 2002 point source NEI th at EPA released during March 2006. Therefore, all of Rhode Island’s point source data in Vers ion 2 was replaced with the point source data provided in the final 2002 point source NEI. The following provides a summary of the QA issues identified and addressed in Version 1. The Excel file named “R I Revisions to MANE-VU V3 Point EI_040706.xls” provides documentation a nd correction of each of these issues for Version 3.

The Site table in the NEI did not include the ORIS IDs for all of the EGUs identified in the EGU crosswalk table. Therefore, the crosswalk table was used to add th e ORIS IDs to the Site table. Matching of boiler IDs to the EU table for one facil ity was maintained in the NEI, and, therefore, included in Version 3 of MANE-V U’s inventory. However, ma tching of boiler IDs for other facilities was not available in the crosswalk table.29 The data source codes that EPA used in the R hode Island’s point sour ce inventory for the NEI were maintained in the MANE-VU invent ory. The following defines the codes:

Code Description

A Augmented PM data. CAMD Record only in 2002 Emission Tracking System (ETS)/CEM for SO 2 , NO x , and heat input values; other emissions estimated. SCAMD1 Data were received fr om the state. The state’s NO x and SO 2 emission values were replaced with the ETS values. 99_PMPRI Not defined – presumed to mean PM-PRI data originating from the 1999 NEI. SUM Primary PM emissions calculated as the sum of the filterable PM and PM-CON emissions DIFF PM-CON emissions calculated as the difference between the primary PM and filterable PM emissions

QA of PM emissions was also performed in accordance with the QAPP for the 2002 base year inventory for EM table records th at were revised or added for R hode Island and New York. As a result, it was identified that the emission t on value was not correctly calculated from the emission unit numerator and emission numeric valu e fields in the NEI file, therefore, the emission ton value was corrected for the MANE- VU inventory. In addition, the final NEI for Rhode Island contained NH 3 emissions for several facilities but no SCCs were provided for the NH 3 emissions; therefore, the NH 3 emissions were removed for the MANE-VU inventory as requested by Rhode Island.

For Version 3 of MANE-VU's inventory, F acility ID EGU1036 and Facility Name MANCHESTER STREET in the final 2002 NEI was ch anged to Facility ID AIR936 and Facility Name USGEN NEW ENGLAND INC per Rhode Isla nd’s request because this is the same facility (with ORIS ID 3236). Also, for State Facility ID AI R594, EU ID 2, ERP 2, and Process ID 2, the SCC was changed from 39000589 to 39000599. In addition, the ORIS IDs reported in the NEI were revised to make them consistent with the crosswalk prepared for MANE-VU that matches state facility IDs to ORIS IDs.

One issue was identified with one record for Rhode Island where the su m of the PM10-FIL and PM-CON emissions was more than the PM10-PRI emissions, and the sum of the PM25-FIL and PM-CON emissions was more than the PM25-PRI emissions for facility ID AIR1248 in County FIPS 44007; SCC 10300601 (External Combustion Boile rs : Commercial/Ins titutional : Natural Gas : > 100 Million Btu/hr). In addition, the PM10-FIL emissions reported was 1.6 tons more than the PM10-PRI emissions reported, and the PM25-FIL emissions reported was 1.6 tons more than the PM25-PRI emissions reported for this facility. The record has very low emissions and it was not clear how the PM consistency issues shoul d be addressed; therefore, due to time and resource constraints, this issue was not corrected in Version 3.

Table II-15 shows the emission type periods fo r which Rhode Island provided emissions.30 Table II-15. Rhode Island 2002 Point, Version 3: Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types

Emission Type Period Start Date End Date Emission Type ANNUAL 20020601 20020831 29 NONANNUAL 20020601 20020831 29 NONANNUAL 20020601 20020831 30

Table A-13 in Appendix A identifies the data sources by SCC, emission type period, and pollutant in the Version 3 point source inventory. This table al so shows the num ber of counties by SCC. Note that some SCC a nd emission type period combinati ons are listed more than once because the data source codes are different fo r more than one SCC and emission type period combination. Rhode Island provided the emissions data for CO, NO x , SO 2 , VOC, and PM-PRI. The EPA applied PM augmentation procedures to the PM-PRI emissions that Rhode Island provided to calculate emissions for the other forms of PM. The EPA added NH 3 emissions for an EGU from EPA’s CAMD data; otherwise, NH 3 emissions are not available for other point sources in Rhode Island.

14. Vermont

Vermont’s Version 3 point source inventory origin ates from Version 1. Table II-16 shows the emission type periods for which Vermont provided emissions.

Table II-16. Vermont 2002 Point, Version 3: Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types

Emission Type Period Start Date End Date Emission Type ANNUAL 20020101 20021231 30 NONANNUAL 20020101 20020331 27 NONANNUAL 20020101 20021231 29 NONANNUAL 20020601 20020831 27

Table A-14 in Appendix A identifies the data sources by SCC, emission type period, and pollutant in the Version 3 point source inventory. This table al so shows the num ber of counties by SCC. Note that some SCC a nd emission type period combinati ons are listed more than once because the data source codes are different fo r more than one SCC and emission type period combination. Vermont provided the emissions data for CO, NO x , SO 2 , and VOC. Vermont provided PM-FIL, PM10-FIL, and/or PM25-FIL emissions data and the PM augmentation procedures were applied to the emissions that Vermont provided to calculate emissions for the other forms of PM. Vermont’s inventory does not include NH 3 emissions.

C. What Issues Need to be Addressed in Future Versions?

This section provides a summary of potential revisions to incorporat e into future versions of the MANE-VU point sour ce inventory.31 All States – A coordinated effort between th e S/L agencies should be developed to apply consistent methods to avoid havi ng to apply procedures to augmen t inventory data to correct for the QA issues and fill in missing data as discussed previously in this chapter. For example, this will ensure that consistent methods are applied across S/L agencies to ensure accurate reporting of stack parameters, PM emissions, and minimize other QA issues that we re identified during the development of Versions 1, 2, and 3 of the inventory.

For PM emissions, the S/L agencies should deve lop and apply a consistent method for including condensible emissions for fuel combustion sour ces that can be applied when the agencies develop their inventories. This may include co mpiling the emission factors for all forms of PM into one database, organized by SCC and control t ype (for filterable emissions), and sharing the database among the MANE-VU S/L agencies. Use of a consistent set of emission factors will help to avoid the PM consistency issues iden tified in Versions 1, 2, and 3 of the MANE-VU inventory as well as ensure that condensible emissions are included in the primary emissions reported in the inventory.

The EGU crosswalk should be maintained to en sure that State Facil ity IDs and EU IDs are correctly matched with ORIS IDs and boiler IDs.

State-specific suggestions are as follows:

Connecticut, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont – Include NH 3 emissions.

New Jersey – Develop a method to translate the SCCs that are less than 8 digits reported by facilities to 8 digit SCCs fo r reporting in the inventory.32 CHAPTER III

– AREA SOURCES

A. General Methods for all States

1. What Data Sources Were Used?

Version 1 of the 2002 MANE-VU area source inve ntory was built on the inventories that the State agencies submitted to EPA from May through July of 2004 as a requirement of the CERR. Except for Rhode Island, all of the MANE-VU St ates also submitted area source inventories to EPA. Rhode Island elected to use the preliminary 2002 NEI for its area source inventory. The EPA performed some limited QA review of the St ate inventories to iden tify format, referential integrity, and duplicate record issues. The EPA re vised the inventories to address these issues and made the files available to the State agencies on August 6, 2004. These inventory files were used as the starting point for the MANE-VU i nventory. These inventory files were obtained from EPA, consolidated into a single data set, subjected to extensive QA review, and revised (as approved by the MANE-VU State agencies) to ad dress QA issues and fill data gaps identified while preparing Version 1. Subse quently, the following agencies pr ovided revisions to their area source inventories:

• Version 2 – District of Columbia, Massachus etts, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, and Vermont.

• Version 3 – Massachusetts, Maine, Ne w Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island.

The Version 2 and 3 revisions for these States are discussed in secti on III.B (State-Specific Methods) of this chapter. In addition, as requested by MANE-VU, revisions were made to Version 3 to (1) add emissions for portable fuel containers (PFCs), industrial adhesives, and outdoor residential wood combustion fo r some States; (2) decrease the PM 2.5 emissions for paved and unpaved roads and construction for all States ; and (3) remove invalid CE records that originated from the preliminary 2002 NEI for some States. These revisions are explained in section III.A.3 of this chapter.33 To track the origin of data, the temporal peri od of emissions, and to facilitate generation of emission summaries, the following NI F plus fields were added to the EP, PE, EM, and CE tables:

• Data Source Codes:

For the area source inventory data, the data sour ce codes are based on the following 9-character format:

[Data Origin]-[Year]-[Grown/Not Grown/Ca rried Forward]-[PM Augmentation Code]

Code Field Length Data Origin 1 Year 3 (including leading hyphen) Grown/Not Grown/Carried Forward 2 (including leading hyphen) PM Augmentation 3 (including leading hyphen)

Data Origin Codes

Code Description S State agency-supplied data L Local agency-supplied data R Tribal agency-supplied data P Regional Planning Organization E EPA/Emission Factors and Invent ory Group (EFIG)-generated data

Year Codes

Year for which data are supplied (e.g., Year = -02 for 2002), or from which prior year data are taken (e.g., Year = -99 for 1999; -01=2001).

Grown/Carried Forward/Not Grown Codes

Code Description -G Used when emissions in a pre-2002 inventory are grown to represent 2002 emissions. -F Used when emissions in a pre-2002 i nventory are carried forward and included in the 2002 inventory without adjustment for growth. -X Used when the emissions are not grown or are not carried forward. For example, X is used when emissions ar e calculated for the 2002 inventory using 2002 activity, or when data are repl aced with 2002 State data.34 PM Augmentation Codes

-PA PM Augmented Emissions: Record for PM 10 /PM 2.5 emissions that were updated or added using ad-hoc updates. -PC PM Augmented Emissions: Record added for PM 10 /PM 2.5 emissions estimated using the PM Calculator. -PR PM Augmented Emissions: Record added for PM 10 /PM 2.5 emissions estimated using ratios of PM 10 -to-PM or PM 2.5 -to-PM 10 . If PM 10 and PM 2.5 emissions are equal and one of the pollu tants is assigned this code , the ratio is assumed to be 1.

• Revision Date: This field indicates the mont h and year during which the last revision was made to a record.

• State FIPS: This field indicates the State FIPS code of the submittal.

• County FIPS: This field indicates th e county FIPS code of the inventory.

The following NIF plus fields we re added to the EM table:

• Emission Ton Value: This field indicates the values of the em issions in tons. This field was used to prepare summaries of emi ssions on a consistent EU basis.

• Emission Type Period: This field indicates the period of the Emission Type – either ANNUAL, SEASONAL, MONTHLY, or DAILY. Emission table records designated as ANNUAL were used to prepare su mmaries of annual emissions.

• CAP_HAP: This field identifies records fo r CAP versus records for HAPs. For the MANE-VU inventory, the flag is CAP for all records.

• Year: This field indicates the year of the data; for this inventory, it is 2002.

2. What Quality Assurance Steps Were Performed?

A QAPP was prepared and approved by MANE- VU/MARAMA and the EP A Regional Office prior to initiating work on Version 1 of the inventory (M ANE-VU, 2004a). This QAPP was followed during preparation of a ll three versions of the invent ory. This section provides an overview of the QA checks completed on each ve rsion of the inventory. The QA process for each State inventory involved the following step s that are also included in the following discussion:

• Conduct QA checks on each State inventory;

• Prepare a QA Summary Report for subm ittal to the agency for review;

• Revise the inventory to resolve QA issues as directed by the agency;

• Repeat the QA checks on the revised inventor y to verify that the corrections were completed;35 • Perform augmentation to co rrect for missing data; and

• Repeat the QA checks to verify that th e augmentation was completed correctly.

a. QA checks for State emission inventories

The following QA checks were run on each State inventory:

i. County and SCC coverage ii. Pollutant coverage iii. EPA QA summaries sent to State agencies iv. Range errors

v. PM emissions consistency and completeness review vi. Control device type and contro l efficiency data review vii. Start and end date checks viii. Annual and daily emissions comparison County and SCC Coverage

The county coverage in the State inventories appeared to be reas onable for all States. The SCC coverage was difficult to evaluate simply by show ing a count of the number of SCCs by State. Each State inventory was compared to the pre liminary 2002 NEI, and area source categories in the NEI but not in a State inventor y were sent to each agency for re view. Each State agency then selected the NEI categories that were th en added to the MANE-VU inventory.

Pollutant Coverage

The pollutant coverage in the State inventorie s was complete for all pollutants except for PM 10 and PM 2.5 . Diagnosis and resolution of PM 10 and PM 2.5 pollutant emissions is discussed later in section III.A.2.c. The exception was Connecticut who included only VOC, NO x , and CO emissions in its inventory submittal to EPA.

EPA QA Summaries Sent to State Agencies

Under a separate project with EPA, Pechan performed QA review of the State area source inventories. This QA review involved running EPA’s QA program on each data set to identify and resolve QA issues. Using the results of th is QA work, Pechan prep ared two sets of QA summaries that EPA sent to the State agencies. Pechan contacted each State agency with QA issues identified in the EPA reports to obtain di rection for correcting the QA issues identified in the reports. The following explains these two summaries:36 High-level Summary of State I nventories Submitted to EPA:

The first summary was an Excel workbook file w ith four spreadsheets that provided the following information:

• 2002 Nonpoint File Names: This spreadshee t documented names and formats of the files that EPA received from the State agencies and the dates on which they were transferred to Pechan.

• 2002 Nonpoint Summary: This spreadsheet documented the name of the state agency, type of inventory (i.e., CAP, HAP, or both), a comparison of the number of the counties in the inventory to the total number of countie s in the State to identify the geographic coverage of the inventory, a unique list of CAP codes, and the total number of area source SCCs. This spread sheet also indicated if any nonroad or onroad emissions data were moved from the agency’s area source inventory to its nonroad or onroad inventory.

• 2002 Nonpoint Emission Sums: This spr eadsheet summarized emissions by start date, end date, and emission type and assi gned the appropriate code to the emission type period NIF plus field.

• 2002 Nonpoint Error Summary: This sp readsheet provided a copy of the “SummaryStats” table from the EPA QA program (EPA, 2004a). This table provided the count of records for each NI F 3.0 table and identif ied the number of records with errors by type of error.

Detailed Summary of QA Issues:

This summary (sent to State agencies on August 11) was prepared in a text file that listed by State and NIF table the number of records with er rors, and provided corrections for the errors. To support documentation of corrections to some of the errors in the text file, Pechan prepared an Excel workbook file that summarized the follo wing errors and corrections by State: invalid pollutants codes; invalid units; invalid maximu m achievable control technology (MACT) codes; and invalid and inactive SCCs. A spreadsheet was also included to show the mapping of standard industrial classificati on (SIC) codes to North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes. This crosswalk was used to co rrect invalid NAICS code s if a valid SIC code was available in the State inventories and vice versa.37 Additional QA for the MANE- VU Area Source Inventory

The following explains additional QA and data tracking that was perf ormed for the MANE-VU inventory. The following data elements were reviewed to identify QA issues:

• Range Errors;

• PM Emissions Consistency and Completeness;

• Control Device Codes and Control Efficiency Values;

• Start and End Dates;

• Annual and Daily Emissions Comparison; and

• Comparison of State Inventorie s to the 2002 Preliminary NEI.

For each State inventory for which QA issues we re identified, a separa te QA Summary Report was prepared in an Excel workbook file, and sent to each State agency for review. The State agencies provided directions in the Excel Wo rkbook file, via e-mail, or by submitting revised records in NIF 3.0 in an Access database to correct the inventories. The QA reports are discussed under section III.A.2.b.

Range Errors

The EPA’s QA program contains ro utines that compare annual em ission values, numeric fields in the PE and EP tables, and ot her temporal numeric fields agai nst a range of values. The QA program flags records that are less than or greate r than the range of valu es for review. Pechan summarized the range errors for the State agencies to review and provide corrections. According to EPA, the ranges to which values in inventor ies are compared represent “normal” ranges that are based on percentiles from prev ious inventories. The range va lues are conservative in that EPA wants to identify suspicious values even though the values may be real (Thompson, 2002).

PM Emissions Consistency and Completeness Review

The following consistency checks were performed at the EM table data key level (for annual emissions) to compare PM emissions:

• If an SCC was associated with a PM emi ssion record, but was missing one or more of the following (as appropriate for the SCC [i.e., PM-CON is associated with fuel combustion only]): PM10-FIL, PM10-PRI, PM25-FIL, PM25-PRI, or PM-CON, the record was flagged for review.

• The following equations were used to determine consistency:

PM10-FIL + PM-CON = PM10-PRI PM25-FIL + PM-CON = PM25-PRI38 • The following comparisons were made to determine consistency:

PM10-PRI >= PM10-FIL PM25-PRI >= PM25-FIL PM10-PRI >= PM-CON PM25-PRI >= PM-CON PM10-FIL >= PM25-FIL PM10-PRI >= PM25-PRI

If the data failed one of these checks it was diagnosed as an erro r. If a State agency did not provide corrections to these errors, the errors were corrected/filled in according to an augmentation procedure explaine d in section III.A.2.c.

For information purposes, all PM-PRI and PM-FIL records were flagged to indicate that these pollutants were included instead of, or in addition to, the standard PM10-PRI/FIL, PM25- PRI/FIL, and PM-CON pollutants.

Control Device Type and Control Efficiency Data Review

The CE codes in the “Primary Device Type C ode” and “Secondary Device Type Code” fields were reviewed to identify invalid codes (i.e., co des that did not exist in the NIF 3.0 reference table) and missing codes (e.g., records with a nu ll or uncontrolled code of 000 but with control efficiency data).

QA review of control efficiency data involved dia gnosis of two types of errors. First, records were reviewed to identify control efficiency values that were reported as a decimal rather than as a percent value. Records with control efficien cies with decimal values were flagged as a potential error (although not necessarily an error, since the real control efficiency may be less than 1%). Records with a 1% control efficiency value were also identified for review by the State agency to determine if the value was reported as a decimal in its internal data system but rounded to 1% when the data were converted to NIF 3.0.

The second check identified reco rds where 100% control was reporte d in the CE table, but the emissions in the EM table were greater than zero and the rule effectiveness value in the EM table was null, zero, or 100% (implying 100% control of emissions). Because many agencies did not populate the rule effectiveness field or a default value of zero was assigned, records with null or zero rule effectiveness values were included wh ere the CE was 100% and emissions were greater than zero. For records that met these criteria , Pechan consulted with the State agency to determine if corrections were n eeded to any of the fields.

Start and End Date Checks

QA review was conducted to identify start and end date values in the PE and EM tables to confirm consistency with the inventory year in th e TR table, and to confirm that the end date reported was greater than the start date reported.39 Annual and Daily Emissions Comparison

The State inventories were revi ewed to determine if any of the following conditions existed:

• Multiple records coded at the SCC level as emission type 30, but with different start and end dates. While not a tr ue duplicate, this may indicate an error or inclusion of both annual and seasonal values.

• Multiple records coded at the SCC level as a daily emission type (27, 29, etc.) but with different start and end dates. While not a true dup licate, this may indicate an error or just inclusion of addi tional types of daily emissions.

• Multiple records coded at the SCC level with the same start and end date, but different emission types. Wh ile not a true duplicate, this may indicate an error or just inclusion of additional types of daily emissions.

• Any “DAILY” type record that was missing its associated “ANNUAL” record was flagged for review.

• Any “DAILY” type record that was greater than its associated “ANNUAL” record was flagged for review.

b. Responses from State Agencies

QA Summary Reports were sent to the State agencies to review the QA issues identified. The State agencies were asked to return these reports to MANE-VU with their corrections documented in the reports. These reports were then used to document revisions to the State inventories. The QA Su mmary Reports containing the revisions provided by the State agencies are provided in Excel Workbook files with this TSD.

c. Gap Filling and Augmentation

This section explains the methods used to add data for categories and/or pollutants missing in a State’s inventory after revising th e inventory to address QA issues.

i. MANE-VU sponsored inventories ii. PM augmentation iii. Fossil fuel combustion sources iv. Other sources of PM emissions

v. Merging of NEI data into S/L inventories vi. Revisions to the preliminary 2002 NEI incorporated into Version 1 of the MANE-VU inventory vii. Additional work on Area source methods - Fugitive Dust Emissions from Paved and Unpaved Roads - Wildfires and Prescribed Burning40 The following discusses the augmentation procedures that were applied to the State inventories to improve the inventories or to fill in missi ng data not supplied by the State agencies.

MANE-VU -Sponsored Inventories

MANE-VU sponsored inventory development for residential wood combustion, open burning, public owned treatment works (POTWs), compos iting, and industrial refrigeration. At the beginning of the project for developing Version 1, each State agency was requested to indicate if it (1) included the MANE-VU-sponsored inventory for one or more of these categories in the inventory it submitted to EPA; (2) included its ow n estimates for a category in the inventory it submitted to EPA; or (3) if it did not include a category in its inventory, if the MANE-VUsponsored inventory or the 2002 preliminary NEI s hould be used as the source of data for the category. The results of this Version 1 invent ory development request are summarized in Table III-1.

Improvements to fugitive dust emissions for the paved and unpaved road categories were completed after the draft version of the cons olidated area source inventory was prepared. Agencies provided guidance on if they wanted the MANE-VU-sponsored inventory for these two categories to replace the pave d and unpaved road inventorie s they had included in their inventories. For paved roads, all States requ ested that the MANE-VU- sponsored inventory be used; however, New Jersey and Ma ryland requested that the winter -time sand/silt adjustment not be included in their inventories. For unpaved ro ads, nine of the 12 States requested that the MANE-VU-sponsored inventory be used. New Jers ey requested that its unpaved road inventory be used instead of the MANE-VU-sponsored inve ntory. In addition, the District of Columbia and Delaware do not have any unpaved road acti vity and excluded this category from their inventories.

PM Augmentation

Procedures were developed to estimate missing pollutant data fr om data provided by the State agencies in order to develop a complete set of PM10-PRI and PM25-PRI emissions to support air quality modeling. The following discusses the pro cedures for fossil fuel combustion sources first followed by the procedures for all other area sources of PM emissions.

Fossil Fuel Combustion Sources

Fossil fuel combustion sources include industria l, commercial/institutional, and residential anthracite coal, bituminous/subbituminous coal, dist illate oil and kerosene, residual oil, natural gas, and LPG. All of these sources emit bot h filterable and condensible emissions. The QA review of the PM emissions data for these so urces focused on verifying that the emissions reported in the State inventor ies included both filterable a nd condensible emissions. The emissions for these pollutants can be reported in St ate inventories individually (i.e., as filterable and condensible separately) or as primary em issions (i.e., the sum of the filterable and condensible emissions). The QA review also fo cused on evaluating the emission factors reported in the State inventories to determ ine if they were reasonable.41Table III-1. Summary of MANE-VU-Sponsored Inventories Included in Version 1 of the AreaSource Consolidated Emissions InventoryMANE-VU Inventory Included inState’s Inventory Submitted toEPANot Included in State’sInventory - Add to MANE-VUInventoryState’s Inventory Includes StateDeveloped EstimatesNot Included in State’sInventory - Add 2002Preliminary NEI Data toState’s InventoryArea SourceCategory Pollutant SCCsAnnualSummerDayWinterDay AnnualSummerDayWinterDay AnnualSummerDayWinterDay AnnualPOTWsNH3,VOC 2630020010(WastewaterTreatment)DE, NJ, PA DE, NJ, PAVT VTCT, DC, DE,MA, MD, NH,NJ, NYCT, DC, DE,MA, MD, NH,NJNJ ME, RI2630020020(BiosolidsProcesses)DE, NJ, PA DE, NJ, PAVT VTCT, DC, DE,MA, MD, NH,NJ, NYCT, DC, DE,MA, MD, NH,NJNJ ME, RI2630050000(Digested Sludge)DE, NH,NJ, PADE, NH, NJ,PAVT VTCT, DC, DE,MA, MD, NYCT, DC, DE,MA, MDME, RICompostingNH3,VOC 2680001000(Biosolids)NH, NJ NH, NJCT, DC,MA, ME,PA, VTCT, DC, MA,ME, PA, VT2680002000(Mixed Biosolids andGreen Waste)NH, NJ NH, NJCT, DC,MA, ME,PA, VTCT, DC, MA,ME, PA, VT2680003000(Composting; GreenWaste)DC, MA,MEDC, MA, MEIndustrialRefrigerationNH32399010000 ME, NH,NJME, NH, NJCT, MA,PA, VTCT, MA, PA,VT2104008000(Indoor)MA, MD,NHMA, MD,NHMA, MD,NHCT, DE,MECT, DE, ME CT, DE,MENJ, NY, VT NJ NJ DC, PA, RIResidentialWoodCombustionAll criteriapollutants/precursors, andmany toxic airpollutants2104008070(Outdoor)MA, MD,NHMA, MD,NHMA, MD,NHCT, DE,MECT, DE, ME CT, DE,ME2610000100(Leaves)MA, MD,NH, PADC, DE,NY, VTNJ NJ NJ ME, RI2610000400(Brush)MA, MD,PACT, DC,DE, NY, VTNJ NJ NJ ME, NH, RI2610030000(Municipal SolidWaste)MA, MD,PADC, DE,NYNH, NJ NH, NJ NJ ME, RI, VTOpen BurningAll criteriapollutants/precursors, andmany toxic airpollutants2610040400(Municipal YardWaste)MA, NY,PADC, NY,VTDE, NJ DE, NJ DE, NJTable III-1 (continued)42Notes:Gray shading identifies categories for which daily emissions are not available.POTWs:CT, MD: Provided VOC but not NH3emissions in its State inventory.DC, MA, MD, ME, NH, RI: Reported POTW emissions under SCC 2630020000 (Total Processed).DE: MANE-VU inventory used for NH3; DE provided its own VOC emissionsunder SCC 2630020000 (Total Processed).NJ: MANE-VU-sponsored inventory used for NH3only. NJ included its own inventory for the other criteria pollutants under SCCs 2630010000 and 2630020000.NY: Reported VOC emissions under SCC 2630000000 (from the preliminary 2002 NEI) and SCC 2630020000 (State-developed inventory).MANE-VU-sponsored NH3inventory was not used.Composting:CT, NH: SCC 2680003000 is not in the MANE-VU-sponsored composting inventory for these States.DE: This State does nothave composting activity.MD: State requested that the MANE-VU inventory for this category not be included in its inventory.NY, RI: Did not include emissions for this category in the 2002 inventory.Industrial Refrigeration:DC: Requested that the preliminary 2002 NEI be used but theNEI does not contain any emissions for this category in DC.DE: State-developed emissions are included in point source inventory.MD, RI: Did not include emissions for this category in its inventory.ME: Used the MANE-VU inventory emissions under SCC 2302080002 (Miscellaneous Foodand Kindred Products/Refrigeration).NH: Original inventorysubmittal to EPA includes SO2and PM emissions for SCC 2399000000 from the preliminary 2002 NEI; NH3emissions for SCC 2399010000 are from the MANE-VU inventory.NY: Original inventorysubmittal to EPA includes SO2and PM emissions for SCC 2399000000 from the preliminary 2002 NEI; NY did not use the MANE-VU-sponsored NH3inventory for SCC2399010000.Residential Wood Combustion:DC: RWC inventory in 2002 NEI covers seven SCCs and does not include daily emissions.Open Burning:CT: Statewide activity for SCC 2610000100 (Leaves) and SCC 2610030000 (Municipal Solid Waste) is negligible.For SCCs 2610000400 (Brush) and 2610040400 (Municipal Yard Waste), State initially provided VOC, NOx, and CO emissions under SCC 2610000000 which is no longer a valid SCC in EPA’smaster SCC list. CT recalculated emissions to include VOC, NOx, CO, PM10-PRI/-FIL, and PM25-PRI/-FIL, and placed the emissions on valid SCC 2610000500 (Land Clearing Debris)since the majority of the activity is associated with activities covered by this SCC.MD: The MANE-VU inventory for SCC 2610040400 (Municipal Yard Waste)reports zero emissions indicating that the activity for thecategory does not occur in MD. MD did not include the SCC in itsinventory for this reason.NH: Did not include NH3emissions in MANE-VU inventory forSCC 2610040400 (Municipal Yard Waste).43 To support the QA review effort, the uncontrolle d PM emission factors shown in Table III-2 were compiled from AP-42. The emission fact ors reported in the St ate inventories were compared to the emission factors in this table. Emission factors that appeared too high or too low were flagged for review by the State agency. In addition, inventory data were flagged for review by the State agency if the emissions were reported under the primary PM pollutant codes but the emission factors matched with the emissi on factors for filterable PM in Table III-2. Finally, if emission factors were not reported in the State agency inventory, the emission factors were back-calculated using the throughput data (if available), emissions, rule effectiveness values, and control efficiency data (if availabl e). The back-calculated emission factors were compared to the factors in Table III-2 to identify data with major difference between the factors. It is emphasized that the uncontro lled emission factors in Table III-2 were used as a reference for reviewing State inventory data. The emission factor s in this table should not be construed to be the best available for all State agencies since the emission fact ors will vary depending on the composition of the boiler population in an agency’s area source inventory.

Delaware, Massachusetts, Maryla nd, New Hampshire, New Jerse y, New York, and Pennsylvania provided their own inventory for al l fossil fuel combustion categorie s. Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Maine, Rhode Island, and Vermont us ed fossil fuel combustion inventory data in the preliminary 2002 NEI for some or all of the ca tegories. The following provides details on the origin of the fossil fuel combustion inventories for these States:

Connecticut supplied VOC, NO x , and CO emissions from its 1999 inventory for industrial and commercial/institutional fossil fuel combustion. PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI, SO 2 , and NH 3 emissions were taken from preliminar y NEI estimates (carried forward from Version 3 of the 1999 NEI). For the residentia l sector, Connecticut’s inventory was taken from the preliminary 2002 NEI. Connectic ut provided guidance on the counties with natural gas and LPG activity for which to use the NEI estimates.

For the District of Columbia, the preliminary NEI was used to gap fill missing PM10-PRI and PM25-PRI emissions for commercial/inst itutional bituminous/ subbituminous coal combustion and PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI, SO 2 , and NH 3 for commercial/institutional natural gas combustion. The NEI estimates for these commercial/institutional categories were carried forward from Version 3 of the 1999 NEI. The District of Columbia used the NEI estimates for residential bituminous/subbituminous coal combustion.

Maine and Rhode Island used the preliminar y 2002 NEI for all three sectors. The NEI estimates for the industrial and commercial/instit utional sectors were carried forward from Version 3 of the 1999 NEI, while the reside ntial sector estimate s are based on 2000 or 2002 activity estimates pr epared by EPA.

Vermont used the preliminary 2002 NEI for th e industrial and comme rcial/ institutional sectors and residential anthrac ite coal (carried forward fr om Version 3 of the 1999 NEI), but provided its own inventory for residentia l distillate oil, natural gas, and LPG.44Table III-2. Area Source Industrial, Commercial/Institutional, and Residential Fossil Fuel CombustionUncontrolled Emission Factors for PM10-PRI/FIL, PM25-PRI/FIL, and PM-CONPollutant1UncontrolledEmission Factor(EF) EF Numerator EF DenominatorCalculatedUncontrolled EF ReferenceIndustrial Boilers: Anthracite Coal (SCC 2102001000)PM10-FIL 2.3 x % Ash contentof coalLB TON 30.77 AP-42 Table 1.2-4 EF calculated from formula of 2.3 * % Ash Content(13.38%). Reference for ash content is EPA, 2002.PM25-FIL 0.6 x % Ash contentof coalLB TON 8.03 AP-42 Table 1.2-4 EF calculated from formula of 0.6 * % Ash Content(13.38%) (used Commercial/Institutionalemission factors). Reference for ashcontent is EPA, 2002.PM-CON 0.08 x % Ashcontent of coalLB TON 1.07 AP-42 Table 1.2-3 Used formulafor SCC 10300101, EF calculated fromformula of .08 * % Ash Content (13.38%).Reference for ash content is EPA,2002.PM10-PRI LB TON 31.84PM25-PRI LB TON 9.10Industrial Boilers: Bituminous/Subbituminous Coal (SCC 2102002000)PM10-FIL 13.2 LB TON 13.2 AP-42 Table 1.1-9 EF (used Commercial/Institutional emission factors)PM25-FIL 4.6 LB TON 4.6 AP-42 Table 1.1-9 EF (used Commercial/Institutional emission factors)PM-CON 1.04 LB TON 1.04 AP-42 Table 1.1-5 (used Commercial/Institutional emission factors)PM10-PRI LB TON 14.24PM25-PRI LB TON 5.64Industrial Boilers and IC Engines: Distillate Oil (SCC 2102004000)PM10-FIL 1 LB E3GAL 1 AP-42 Table 1.3-6PM25-FIL 0.25 LB E3GAL 0.25 AP-42 Table 1.3-6PM-CON 1.3 LB E3GAL 1.3 AP-42 Table 1.3-2PM10-PRI LB E3GAL 2.30PM25-PRI LB E3GAL 1.55Industrial Boilers: Residual Oil (SCC 2102005000)PM10-FIL 7.17 x % Sulfurcontent of oilLB E3GAL 10.683 AP-42 Table 1.3-5. EF calculated from formula of 7.17(A); whereA=1.12(S)+0.37; Assumed S=1% for purpose of calculating EF ratios.PM25-FIL 4.67 x % Sulfurcontent of oilLB E3GAL 6.958 AP-42 Table 1.3-5. EF calculated from formula of 7.17(A); whereA=1.12(S)+0.37; Assumed S=1% for purpose of calculating EF ratios.PM-CON 1.5 LB E3GAL 1.5 AP-42 Table 1.3-2PM10-PRI LB E3GAL 12.18PM25-PRI LB E3GAL 8.46Industrial Boilers and IC Engines: Natural Gas (SCC 2102006000)PM10-FIL 1.9 LB E6FT3 1.9 AP-42 Table 1.4-2PM25-FIL 1.9 LB E6FT3 1.9 AP-42 Table 1.4-2PM-CON 5.7 LB E6FT3 5.7 AP-42 Table 1.4-2PM10-PRI 7.6 LB E6FT3 7.60PM25-PRI 7.6 LB E6FT3 7.60Table III-2 (continued)45Pollutant1UncontrolledEmission Factor(EF) EF Numerator EF DenominatorCalculatedUncontrolled EF ReferenceIndustrial Boilers - Liquified Petroleum Gas (SCC 2102007000)PM10-FIL 0.6 LB E3GAL 0.6 AP-42 Table 1.5-1PM25-FIL 0.6 LB E3GAL 0.6 AP-42 Table 1.5-1PM-CON 0.506 LB E3GAL 0.506 Used natural gas PM-CON emission factor of 5.7 lb/Million Cubic Feet (for allPM controls and uncontrolled). Used factor of 0.0887 to convert emissionfactor from lb/Million Cubic Feet of natural gas to lb/1,000 gallons of propane.Reference: AP-42, Table 1.4-2. Conversion factor assumes 1020 Btu/scf fornatural gas (AP-42, Table 1.4-2) and 90,500 Btu/gallon for propane (AP-42,Appendix A, page A-5).PM10-PRI LB E3GAL 1.11PM25-PRI LB E3GAL 1.11Industrial Boilers: Kerosene (SCC 2102011000)PM10-FIL 1 LB E3GAL 1 AP-42 Table 1.3-6PM25-FIL 0.25 LB E3GAL 0.25 AP-42 Table 1.3-6PM-CON 1.3 LB E3GAL 1.3 AP-42 Table 1.3-6PM10-PRI LB E3GAL 2.30PM25-PRI LB E3GAL 1.55Commercial/Institutional Heating:Anthracite Coal (SCC 2103001000)PM10-FIL 2.3 x % Ash contentof coalLB TON 30.77 AP-42 Table 1.2-4 EF calculated from formula of 2.3 * % Ash Content(13.38%). Reference for ash content is EPA, 2002.PM25-FIL 0.6 x % Ash contentof coalLB TON 8.03 AP-42 Table 1.2-4 EF calculated from formula of 0.6 * % Ash Content(13.38%). Reference for ash content is EPA, 2002.PM-CON 0.08 x % Ashcontent of coalLB TON 1.07 AP-42 Table 1.2-3 Used formulafor SCC 10300101, EF calculated fromformula of 0.08 * % Ash Content (13.38%).Reference for ash content is EPA,2002.PM10-PRI LB TON 31.84PM25-PRI LB TON 9.10Commercial/Institutional Heating:Bituminous and Lignite (SCC 2103002000)PM10-FIL 13.2 LB TON 13.2 AP-42 Table 1.1-9 EFPM25-FIL 4.6 LB TON 4.6 AP-42 Table 1.1-9 EFPM-CON 1.04 LB TON 1.04 AP-42 Table 1.1-5 (0.04 lb/MMBtu * 26MMBtu/ton=1.04)PM10-PRI LB TON 14.24PM25-PRI LB TON 5.64Commercial/Institutional Heating: Distillate Oil (SCC 2103004000)PM10-FIL 1.08 LB E3GAL 1.08 AP-42 Table 1.3-7PM25-FIL 0.83 LB E3GAL 0.83 AP-42 Table 1.3-7PM-CON 1.3 LB E3GAL 1.3 AP-42 Table 1.3-2PM10-PRI LB E3GAL 2.38PM25-PRI LB E3GAL 2.13Table III-2 (continued)46Pollutant1UncontrolledEmission Factor(EF) EF Numerator EF DenominatorCalculatedUncontrolled EF ReferenceCommercial/Institutional Heating: Residual Oil (SCC 2103005000)PM10-FIL 5.17 x % Sulfurcontent of oilLB E3GAL 7.703 AP-42 Table 1.3-7. EF calculated from formula of 5.17(A); whereA=1.12(S)+0.37; Assumed S=1% for purpose of calculating EF ratios.PM25-FIL 1.92 x % Sulfurcontent of oilLB E3GAL 2.861 AP-42 Table 1.3-7. EF calculated from formula of 5.17(A); whereA=1.12(S)+0.37; Assumed S=1% for purpose of calculating EF ratios.PM-CON 1.5 LB E3GAL 1.5 AP-42, Table 1.3-2PM10-PRI LB E3GAL 9.20PM25-PRI LB E3GAL 4.36Commercial/Institutional Heating: Natural Gas (SCC 2103006000)PM10-FIL 1.9 LB E6FT3 1.9 AP-42 Table 1.4-2PM25-FIL 1.9 LB E6FT3 1.9 AP-42 Table 1.4-2PM-CON 5.7 LB E6FT3 5.7 AP-42 Table 1.4-2PM10-PRI LB E6FT3 7.60PM25-PRI LB E6FT3 7.60Commercial/Institutional Heating:Liquified Petroleum Gas (SCC 2103007000)PM10-FIL 0.4 LB E3GAL 0.4 AP-42 Table 1.5-1 (Propane for Commercial Boilers)PM25-FIL 0.4 LB E3GAL 0.4 AP-42 Table 1.5-1 (Propane for Commercial Boilers)PM-CON 0.506 LB E3GAL 0.506 Used natural gas PM-CON emission factor of 5.7 lb/Million Cubic Feet (for allPM controls and uncontrolled). Used factor of 0.0887 to convert emissionfactor from lb/Million Cubic Feet of natural gas to lb/1,000 gallons of propane.Reference: AP-42, Table 1.4-2. Conversion factor assumes 1020 Btu/scf fornatural gas (AP-42, Table 1.4-2) and 90,500 Btu/gallon for propane (AP-42,Appendix A, page A-5).PM10-PRI LB E3GAL 0.91PM25-PRI LB E3GAL 0.91Commercial/Institutional Heating: Kerosene (SCC 2103011000)PM10-FIL 1.08 LB E3GAL 1.08 AP-42 Table 1.3-7 Used EF for Distillate Oil (per EIIP)PM25-FIL 0.83 LB E3GAL 0.83 AP-42 Table 1.3-7 Used EF for Distillate Oil (per EIIP)PM-CON 1.3 LB E3GAL 1.3 AP-42 Table 1.3-2 Used EF for Distillate Oil (per EIIP)PM10-PRI LB E3GAL 2.38PM25-PRI LB E3GAL 2.13Residential Heating: Anthracite Coal (SCC 2104001000)PM10-FIL 10 LB TON 10 EPA, 2002.PM25-FIL 0.6 x % Ash contentof coalLB TON 8.03 EF calculated from formula of 0.6 * % Ash Content (13.38%). Reference forEF and ash content is EPA, 2002.PM-CON 0.08 x % Ashcontent of coalLB TON 1.07 EF calculated from formula of 0.08 * % Ash Content (13.38%). Reference forEF and ash content is EPA, 2002.PM10-PRI LB TON 11.07PM25-PRI LB TON 9.10Table III-2 (continued)47Pollutant1UncontrolledEmission Factor(EF) EF Numerator EF DenominatorCalculatedUncontrolled EF ReferenceResidential Heating: Bituminousand Lignite Coal (SCC 2104002000)PM10-FIL 6.2 LB TON 6.2 AP-42 Table 1.1-11PM25-FIL 3.8 LB TON 3.8 AP-42 Table 1.1-11PM-CON 1.04 LB TON 1.04 AP-42 Table 1.1-5 (0.04 lb/MMBtu * 26 MMBtu/ton=1.04)PM10-PRI LB TON 7.24PM25-PRI LB TON 4.84Residential Heating: Distillate Oil (SCC 2104004000)PM10-FIL 1.08 LB E3GAL 1.08 AP-42 Table 1.3-7 (Commercial/Institutional EF)PM25-FIL 0.83 LB E3GAL 0.83 AP-42 Table 1.3-7 (Commercial/Institutional EF)PM-CON 1.3 LB E3GAL 1.3 AP-42 Table 1.3-2PM10-PRI LB E3GAL 2.38PM25-PRI LB E3GAL 2.13Residential Heating: Natural Gas - All types (SCC 2104006000)PM10-FIL 1.9 LB E6FT3 1.9 AP-42 Table 1.4.2PM25-FIL 1.9 LB E6FT3 1.9 AP-42 Table 1.4.2PM-CON 5.7 LB E6FT3 5.7 AP-42 Table 1.4.2PM10-PRI LB E6FT3 7.60PM25-PRI LB E6FT3 7.60Residential Heating: Liquified Petroleum Gas (SCC 2104007000)PM10-FIL 0.4 LB E3GAL 0.4 AP-42 Table 1.5-1 (Same factor used for Propane for Commercial Boilers;based on EIIP)PM25-FIL 0.4 LB E3GAL 0.4 AP-42 Table 1.5-1 (Same factor used for Propane for Commercial Boilers;based on EIIP)PM-CON 0.506 LB E3GAL 0.506 Used natural gas PM-CON emission factor of 5.7 lb/Million Cubic Feet (for allPM controls and uncontrolled). Used factor of 0.0887 to convert emissionfactor from lb/Million Cubic Feet of natural gas to lb/1,000 gallons of propane.Reference: AP-42, Table 1.4-2. Conversion factor assumes 1020 Btu/scf fornatural gas (AP-42, Table 1.4-2) and 90,500 Btu/gallon for propane (AP-42,Appendix A, page A-5).PM10-PRI LB E3GAL 0.91PM25-PRI LB E3GAL 0.91Residential Heating: Kerosene (SCC 2104011000)PM10-FIL 1.08 LB E3GAL 1.08 AP-42 Table 1.3-7 Used EF for Distillate Oil (per EIIP)PM25-FIL 0.83 LB E3GAL 0.83 AP-42 Table 1.3-7 Used EF for Distillate Oil (per EIIP)PM-CON 1.3 LB E3GAL 1.3 AP-42 Table 1.3-2 Used EF for Distillate Oil (per EIIP)PM10-PRI LB E3GAL 2.38PM25-PRI LB E3GAL 2.131 PM10-PRI EF = sum of PM10-FIL and PM-CON emission factors;PM25-PRI EF = sum of PM25-FIL and PM-CON emission factors.48 Revisions to the NEI for residential LPG and ke rosene were completed after the preliminary 2002 NEI was released in February 2004. Connec ticut, the District of Columbia, Maine, and Rhode Island approved replacement of the preliminary 2002 NEI estimates with the revised estimates for LPG. Connecticut was the only State that elected to use the NEI for the residential kerosene category, and Connecticut approved replacing the preliminary 2002 NEI for this category with the revised inve ntory prepared by EPA.

Other Sources of PM Emissions

For States that provided onl y PM10-FIL and PM25-FIL emissions , PM10-PRI emissions were set equal to PM10-FIL emissions and PM25-PR I emissions were set equal to PM25-FIL emissions. The PM10-PRI and PM25-PRI emissions that were added to the inventory were assigned a data source code of S-02-X-PR wher e S-02-X represents the code assigned to the PM10-FIL and PM25-FIL emissions provided by the State agency and the “-PR” indicates that the ratio was applied to estimate the primary emissions (in this case, the ratio of primary to filterable emissions is “1”).

PM25-PRI emissions missing from State inventor ies were estimated by applying a ratio of PM25-PRI-to-PM10-PRI emissions to the PM10-PR I emissions provided by the State agency. Table III-3 identifies the agencies with SCCs fo r which ratios were applied to estimate PM25- PRI emissions. This table also shows the ratios and the reference for the ratios.49 Table III-3. SCCs for which PM25-PRI Em issions were Estimated by Applying a Ratio to the PM10-PRI Emissions in the State inventory

SCC SCC Description Agency Ratio of PM25- PRI to PM10-

PRI Reference 2309100010 Industrial Processes: Fabricated Metals: SIC 34: Coating, E ngraving, and Allied Services: Electroplating NY 0.947 AP-42 emission factors for hard chrome plating tank controlled with mist eliminator. AP-42 (Table 12.20-3) shows 94.7% of total PM as less than 2.35 micrometers. Applied factor to State-supplied PM10-PRI emissions to estimate PM25-PRI emissions.2461023000 Solvent Utilization: Miscellaneous Nonindustrial: Commercial: Asphalt Roofing: Total: All Solvent Types MA 1 No data available; assumed PM25-PRI equals PM10-PRI.

2601000000 Waste Disposal, Treatment, and Recovery: On-site Incineration: All Categories: Total MD, NH 1 No data available; assumed PM25-PRI equals PM10-PRI. 2610000100 Waste Disposal, Treatment, and Recovery: On-site Incineration: All Categories: Yard Waste - Leaf Species Unspecified NH 1 No data available; assumed PM25-PRI equals PM10-PRI.

2810001000 Miscellaneous Area Sources: Other Combustion: Forest Wildfires: Total MD 1 No data available; assumed PM25-PRI equals PM10-PRI. 2810015000 Miscellaneous Area Sources: Other Combustion: Prescribed Burning for Forest Management: Total MD 1 No data available; assumed PM25-PRI equals PM10-PRI.

2810020000 Miscellaneous Area Sources: Other Combustion: Prescribed Burning of Rangeland: Total MD 0.86 Based on ratio of PM25-PRI to PM10- PRI for same SCC used by States in 2002 NEI. 2810030000 Miscellaneous Area Sources: Other Combustion: Structure Fires: Total MD, NH 0.91 NEI Method.

2810050000 Miscellaneous Area Sources: Other Combustion: Motor Vehicle Fires: Total MD, NH 0.91 NEI Method.

d. 2002 NEI

Merging of NEI Data in to State Inventories

The area source inventory provided by each Stat e agency was compared to the 2002 NEI to identify categories in the NEI that were not in each State inventory. The list of categories identified was provided to each State agency and each agency then selected the NEI categories to be added to its inventory. Iden tification of categories included in the 2002 NEI but not in a State inventory involved a two-step process. First, Pech an identified the categories in the NEI that did not have an electronic match on th e data key of the EM table betw een the State inventory and the NEI. Then, Pechan manually compared the NEI categories without an electronic match to the State inventory to identify and eliminate NEI categories that were in the State inventory but had a different SCC. For example, a State inventor y may use a general SCC for a category while the NEI may use different SCCs to breakout emissions at a finer detail. Examples of categories where this typically occurred include the residen tial wood combustion, open burning of land clearing debris, solvent utiliza tion, and petroleum marketing and transportation categories. In50 addition, if a State agency requested that a MANE-VU-sponsored inventory be added to its inventory, the NEI categories that overlapped with the MANE-VU -sponsored categories were removed from the list of NEI cate gories considered for incorporat ion into a State inventory.

The source categories in the 2002 NEI that were added to a State inventory can be identified where the data source code starts with “E”. These categories can be identified using the data source code field in the NIF 3.0 f iles or in the summary of area s ource emissions that contains the data source code.

Revisions to the Preliminary 2002 NEI

During preparation of the MANE-V U inventory, EPA completed re visions to the emissions for six categories in the preliminary 2002 NEI released in February 2004. As agreed to with each State agency, the revised emissions were used in the MANE-VU inventory in lieu of the preliminary 2002 NEI emissions if the agency re quested that the categor y be included.

• Non-Residential Construction (SCC 2311020000) : 2002 emissions data replaced data in preliminary 2002 NEI that were carried forward from 1999 NEI.

• Highway Construction (SCC 2311030000): 2002 emissions data replaced data in preliminary 2002 NEI that were carried forward from 1999 NEI.

• Open Burning of Land Clearing Debr is (SCC 2610000500): 2002 emissions data replaced data in preliminary 2002 NEI that were carried forward from 1999 NEI. The activity for this categor y was based on activity prepared for the non-residential and highway construction categories. Fo r 2002, emissions were set to zero for counties with a population that was 80% ur ban or more based on 2000 Census data. This was not done for the 1999 NEI. For the NEI method, it was assumed that highly urban counties do not allow this act ivity to take place. Note that 2002 emissions data were already included in the preliminary 2002 NEI for the open burning of residential municipal solid wast e, open burning of yard waste, and the residential construction categories.

• Residential LPG Combustion (SCC 2104007000) : 2000 emissions data replaced data in the preliminary 2002 NEI that were carried forward from 1999 NEI.

• Residential Kerosene Combustion (SCC 2104011000): 2000 emissions data replaced data in the preliminary 2002 NE I that were carried forward from 1999 NEI.

• Residential Wood Combustion (SCCs starting with 2104008xxx; 4 SCCs for fireplaces and 3 SCCs for woodstoves): The preliminary 2002 NEI emissions were revised to:51 • Correct the CO, PM10-PRI, and PM25- PRI emission factors for fireplaces without inserts (this cha nge doubled the emission factors associated with correcting an error in converting the values fr om g/kg to lb/ton);

• Correct the climate zone map for allo cating national activity to States;

• Replace 1997 total residential wood consumption with 2001 estimates (this change reduced wood consumption for fireplaces with inserts and woodstoves);

• Update urban/rural population data to reflect 2002 estimates based on year 2002 total county population and year 2000 county ratios of urban/rural population to total population; and

• Change the data source code from E-02- X (this was incorrect) to E-01-X to reflect 2001 activity data adjusted to 2002.

e. QA Review of Final Inventory

Final QA checks were run on the revised data set to ensure that all corrections provided by the State agencies were incorporated into the State inventories and that there were no remaining QA issues that could be addressed during the duration of the project. After exporting the inventory in Oracle to an Access database in NIF 3.0, the EPA’s QA program was run on the Access database and the QA output was reviewed to verify that all QA issues that could be addressed were resolved (EPA, 2004a).

The output file from the EPA’s QA program r un on the area source inve ntory is provided in an Access 2000 database along with the Access da tabase containing the area source inventory in NIF 3.0.

Additional Work on Area Source Methods

• Fugitive Dust Emissions from Paved and Unpaved Roads

Review of Methods

This work involved compiling and summarizi ng information on emission estimation methods and data sources from the MANE-VU State agencies, RPOs, and EPA for the following fugitive dust area source categories: windblown dust, paved and unpaved roads, agricultural tiling and harvesting, and construction activities. A short survey form was prepared and sent to the MANE-VU State agencies to collect informati on on whether an agency had activity for each category during 2002. For each agency for which activity occurred in its jurisdiction during 2002, information was requested on the methods a nd data sources it used to prepare its 2002 inventory for each category. This information wa s used to prioritize the categories (e.g., work on agricultural field burning was eliminated from fu rther consideration if MANE-VU State agencies52 did not have activity for this category). The methods and data applied by RPOs other than MANE-VU were obtaine d from RPO websites and discussions with the RPOs.

The results of this review were documente d in a technical memorandum (MANE-VU, 2004b). Based on the results of the review, MANE-VU d ecided to proceed with developing a paved and unpaved road fugitive dust inventory that incorpor ated improvements to activity data used in the NEI methodology.

Methods for Improving Paved and Unpa ved Road Fugitive Dust Inventory

Fugitive dust emissions from paved and unpaved roads are classified under SCCs 2294000000 and 2296000000, respectively. Fugitive dust emissions from paved and unpaved road traffic were estimated for PM10-PRI, PM10-FIL, PM25- PRI, and PM25-FIL. Since these categories are not sources of PM-CON, PM10-PRI emission s are equal to PM10-FIL emissions and PM25- PRI emissions are equal to PM25-FIL. The following provides a summary of the methods.

Paved Roads

Several changes were made in the paved road fugitive dust emission calculations to improve these estimates over those prepared for EPA’s 2002 NEI. First, the monthly precipitation data representing the number of days in a month w ith at least 0.01 inches of precipitation were developed at the county level. In comparison, a single monthly precipitation value was used to model an entire State in the 2002 NEI. Thus, the resulting MANE-VU county-specific paved road fugitive dust emission estimates should be more representative of each county than the NEI data since precipitation events can vary significantly from one part of the State to another.

The second improvement made to the paved road fugitive dust emission calculations was the use of county and road-type-specific av erage vehicle weights. This is an improvement over the NEI where a single average vehicle weight is applie d nationwide. Thus, in the MANE-VU inventory, county/road type combinations with significant he avy truck traffic have a higher average vehicle weight and a corresponding emission factor compar ed to county/road type combinations with primarily lighter vehicle traffic.

The final improvement made to the MANE-VU pave d road emission calculations was the use of the winter silt loading adjustments. These ad justments account for the application of sand and salt on the roads during months with frozen precipitation. Th e 2002 NEI does not include any wintertime silt loading adjustments. The effect of the wintertime silt loading adjustments is an increase in the paved road emissi on factors during the months in which it is applied. The months during which this adjustment was applied va ried by State in the MANE-VU inventory.

Unpaved Roads

The county-specific precipitation data used in the paved road fugitive dust calculations were also used to improve the unpaved road fugitive dust calculations. As with the paved roads, this represents an improvement over the State-spec ific precipitation data used in the 2002 NEI53 unpaved road emission inventory. The other impr ovement made to the unpaved roads was the use of State-supplied unpaved road m ileage data by county for Maine.

• Wildfires and Prescribed Burning

Review of Methods

This work involved compiling and summarizi ng information on emission estimation methods and data sources from the MANE-VU State agencies, RPOs, and EPA for the following area source categories: wildfires, prescribed burni ng, slash burning, and agri cultural field burning. The approach previously described for the f ugitive dust categories was used to collect and compile data from the MANE-VU State agencies, RPOs other than MANE-VU, and EPA for the fire categories. All of the in formation collected from these various information sources was summarized in a technical memorandum (MANE-VU, 2004c).

Results of Methods Review

MANE-VU recognized the need to improve the me thods for estimating emissions for the fire categories. The most important re vision would be to inventory fire events as point sources rather than as area sources at the county-level. Howe ver, due to resource cons traints, it was decided not to pursue improvements to the methods for estim ating emissions from the fire categories. It should be noted that during this project, some of the MANE-VU States provided revisions to their wildfire and prescribed burning inventorie s to add PM25-PRI emissions and to improve the spatial allocation of activity data at the county level. These improvements were incorporated into the MANE-VU area source inventory.

3. Version 3 Revisions

The following explains revisions to Version 3 that applied to several or all of the MANE-VU States.

Gap Filling

In Version 2 of MANE-VU’s inventory, emissions for PFCs, industrial adhesives, and residential outdoor wood burning existed for some States but were missing for ot her States. Since these are categories for which SIP rules may be developed, it was determined that emissions for these categories should be added to Version 3. The following provides a summary of the Version 3 revisions to address missing data concerns for these categories:

• PFCs: MANE-VU estimated default 2002 emissi ons for these States using a per capita emission factor and county population data for each State. The derivation of the emission factor, population data, and cal culation of annual and daily VOC emissions for PFCs is provided in an Excel file named “PFC _Adhesive Calcs for 2002_022106.xls” along with this TSD.54 Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hamp shire, Rhode Island, and Vermont elected to use MANE-VU’s default inventory which was added to Version 3. Massachusetts elected to use the per capita em ission factor but provided revi sions to the population data, used 2002 owner occupied units to allocate th e emissions to counties, and then allocated emissions between the commercial (16%) and residential (84%) sect ors. Massachusetts’ calculations are provided in the spreadsheet named "Version 3 Revisions" in the Excel file named MA_AR_QA_Report_030806.xl s" provided with this TSD.

• Industrial Adhesives: Emissions for industr ial adhesives were missing in Version 2 for Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. MANE-VU estimated default 2002 emissions for these States using a per capita emission factor and county population data for each State. The derivation of the emission factor, population data, and cal culation of annual and daily VOC emissions for industrial adhesives is provided in an Excel file named “PFC_Adhesive Calcs for 2002_022106.xls” along with this TWD.

Massachusetts elected to use MANE-VU’s ga p-filling inventory which was added to Version 3. The rest of the States elected to use EPA’s 2002 inventory which is based on a top-down, mass balance methodology where national industrial adhesive solvent estimates were allocated to counties using industrial employment. The EPA estimates were adjusted to remove uncontrolled VOC emissions included in the final 2002 point source NEI. The point-source adjustments were conducted at the county level. Note that the point-source-adjusted emissions for Rhode Island are zero for a ll three counties.

Note New Jersey is the only State that prep ared its own 2002 invent ory for this category that is included in Version 3. The industrial adhesive inventory data for the rest of the MANE-VU States originates from the 1999 NEI. These States were contacted to determine if they wanted the 1999 data replaced with the default estimates or with the EPA’s 2002 inventory for industrial adhesi ves. Maine commented that the 1999 estimates are more realistic of the solvent emissions for their State than the 2002 NEI or MANE-VU default estimates. The other States did not indicate that they wanted their data replaced. Therefore, the 1999 NEI da ta for Maine, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, and Vermont was not changed in Version 3 of MANE-VU’s inventory.

• Residential Wood Burning: Residential outdoor wood burning emissions were missing in Version 2 of the MANE-VU inventory for the District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont. In Versions 1 and 2, Ne w Jersey’s and New York’s emissions for outdoor wood burning were included with thei r inventory for indoor wood burning. The District of Columbia, Rhode Island, and Vermont elected to use MANE-VU’s outdoor wood burning inventory which was added to Version 3. In addition, per direction provided by New Jersey, its wood burning in ventory was replaced with the MANE-VUsponsored indoor wood burning inventory in Version 3, and the MANE-VU outdoor wood burning inventory was a dded to Version 3.55 New York’s inventory in Version 2 included emissions for both residential indoor and outdoor wood burning. For Vers ion 3, New York provided re visions that lowered its overall emissions relative to Version 2 and br oke out its inventory to show emissions for fireplaces, woodstoves, and outdoor equipmen t separately. New York also added NH 3 emissions to its inventory for Version 3.

Adjustments to PM 2.5 Emissions for Fugitive Dust Categories

Information developed by the Western Gove rnors’ Association, Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) Dust Emissi ons Joint Forum and EPA indicates that, for paved and unpaved roads and the construction nonpoi nt source categories, the PM 2.5 -to-PM 10 ratio is lower than the ratio used in the EPA method to estimate PM25-PRI/-FIL emissions from PM10-PRI/-FIL emissions (WRAP, 2005). Therefore, for the fi nal 2002 NEI, EPA applied an adjustment factor to the PM25-PRI/-FIL emissions to correct for overestimates of PM25-PRI/-FIL emissions for these categories. Because the PM 2.5 -to-PM 10 ratio used for the MANE-VU States is based on the EPA method, this information was communicated to the MANE-VU States a nd all of the States agreed that these adjustments should be made to the MANE-VU inventory. Table III-4 identifies the categories to which this adjust ment was applied, the old and new PM 2.5 -to-PM 10 ratios, and the adjustment factors applied to the PM25-PRI/-FIL emissions in Version 3 of MANE-VU’s inventory. Note that these adjustments to PM 2.5 emissions were applie d prior to applying the transport adjustment factors for PM 10 and PM 2.5 emissions. The modelers applied the transport adjustment factors to the mass emissions in Vers ion 3. Documentation of the file containing the transport adjustment factors is provided under “S peciation Profiles” sect ion of Table VII-1 in Chapter VII.

For the construction categories, the EPA assumed an original PM 2.5 -to-PM 10 ratio of 0.15 and an adjustment factor of 0.67. However, the original PM 2.5 -to-PM 10 ratio used for both the NEI method and MANE-VU's inventory for construction is 0.2. Based on discussions with EPA, the goal is to revise the original PM 2.5 emissions such that the PM 2.5 -to-PM 10 ratio is 0.1. Therefore, for Version 3 of MANE-VU's 2002 area source invent ory, an adjustment factor of 0.5 (ratio of 0.1-to-0.2) was applied to adjust the PM 2.5 emissions.

Note that based on Pechan’s discussions with EPA during the week of March 6, 2006 concerning the application of the paved road PM 2.5 adjustment factor, it was determined that adjusting the emissions by applying the factor (s hown in Table III-4) to the PM 2.5 emissions is a simplistic approach. The EPA noted that it is evaluating this issue and will be issui ng guidance in the near future for revising the equation for estimating PM 2.5 emissions which, when applied, will likely yield different results. Because EPA was unable to provide guidance on how to address this issue before Version 3 needed to be complete d during the week of Ma rch 6, the adjustment factor shown in Table II I-4 was applied to the PM 2.5 emissions for paved roads because this adjustment will provide a better estimate of PM 2.5 emissions than the unadjusted emissions.56 Table III-4. Revisions to PM25-PRI and PM25-FIL Emissions for Paved and Unpaved Roads and Construction

SCC SCC Description Original PM 2.5 -to-PM 10 Ratio Revised PM 2.5 -to-PM 10 Ratio Adjustment Factor 1,2 2294000000 Mobile Sources : Paved Roads : All Paved Roads : Total: Fugitives 0.25 0.15 0.6

2296000000 Mobile Sources : Unpaved Roads : All Unpaved Roads : Total: Fugitives 0.15 0.1 0.67

2296005000 Mobile Sources : Unpaved Roads : Public Unpaved Roads : Total: Fugitives 0.15 0.1 0.67

2296010000 Mobile Sources : Unpaved Roads : Industrial Unpaved Roads : Total: Fugitives 0.15 0.1 0.67

2311000000 Industrial Processes : Construction: SIC 15 - 17 : All Processes : Total 0.2 0.1 0.50

2311010000 Industrial Processes : Construction: SIC 15 - 17 : Residential : Total 0.2 0.1 0.50

2311010040 Industrial Processes : Construction: SIC 15 - 17 : Residential : Ground Excavations 0.2 0.1 0.50

2311020000 Industrial Processes : Construction: SIC 15 - 17 : Industrial/Commercial/Institutional : Total 0.2 0.1 0.50

2311020040 Industrial Processes : Construction: SIC 15 - 17 : Industrial/Commercial/Institutional : Ground Excavations 0.2 0.1 0.50

2311030000 Industrial Processes : Construction: SIC 15 - 17 : Road Construction : Total 0.2 0.1 0.50

1 For these categories, filterable and primary emissions are equa l because they are not sources of condensible emissions. The adjustment factor was applied to both the PM25-PRI and PM25-FIL emissi ons and emission factors in the MANE-VU inventory.
2 See text for discussion of issue concerni ng the adjustment factor for paved road PM 2.5 emissions. Also, for c onstruction, see text for explanation of PM 2.5 adjustment factor shown in this table.

Removal of Invalid CE Records

For the following SCCs, Version 2 contained invalid CE records fo r Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Maine, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont that were removed in Version 3:

SCC SCC Description 2311020000 Construction: SIC 15 - 17 : I ndustrial/Commercial/Institutional : Total 2311030000 Construction: SIC 15 - 17 : Road Construction : Total 2610000100 Open Burning : All Categories : Yard Waste - Leaf Species Unspecified 2610000400 Open Burning : All Categories : Yard Waste - Brush Species Unspecified 2610030000 Open Burning : Residential : Household Waste

The CE records all originate from the prelimin ary 2002 NEI that have been removed from the final 2002 nonpoint NEI. They are invalid because they have a control efficiency value of 100% and corresponding records in the EM table with rule effectiveness and rule penetra tion values of 100% (implying that the emissions are zero), but with emissions greater than zero. The Excel spreadsheet file named “CE_records_removed fr om V3.xls” provides the CE records by State and county FIPS, SCC, and pollutant code that were removed in Version 3.57 4. Version 3 Emissions Summary

Table III-5 presents a State-level summary of the annual area source emissions in Version 3 of the 2002 MANE-VU inventory. Note that PM10-P RI and PM25-PRI emissions are included in the inventory for all SCCs for which Stat e agencies reported any form of PM, PM 10 , and/or PM 2.5 emissions. If an agency did not report PM 10-PRI and/or PM25-PRI but reported PM-PRI, PMFIL, PM-CON, PM10-FIL, and/or PM25-FIL, the PM augmentation procedures discussed in the TSD were applied to the form of PM emissions supplied by the agency to calculate emissions for the other forms of PM emissions. If an agen cy reported PM10-PRI and/or PM25-PRI emissions but not PM10-FIL, PM25-FIL, or PM-CON em issions, the agency's inventory was not augmented to calculate filterable or condensible emissions. Note that PM-CON is associated with only fuel combustion sources.

For NH 3 , the area source inventory includes emissi ons for natural sources for the following States: SCCs 28060xxxxx for domes tic cats and dogs in Delawa re, Massachusetts, and New Jersey; 28070xxxxx for wild animals in Delaware, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York; and SCC 2810010000 for human perspi ration in Delaware, Massachus etts, and New Jersey. The area source inventory also includes NH 3 biogenic emissions (SCC 2701420000) for Massachusetts.

Table III-5. Version 3 2002 MANE-VU Area Source Emissions by State (Tons/Year)

State CO NH 3 NO x PM10-FIL PM10- PRI PM25- FIL PM25- PRI PMCON SO 2 VOC Connecticut 70,198 5,318 12,689 37,790 48,281 4,038 14,247 846 12,418 87,302 Delaware 14,052 13,279 2,608 12,910 13,039 3,075 3,204 128 1,588 15,519
District of Columbia 2,300 14 1,644 5,745 6,293 507 1,029 147 1,337 6,432

Maine 109,223 8,747 7,360 155,237 168,953 19,090 32,774 686 13,149 100,621 Maryland 141,178 25,834 15,678 31,116 95,060 3,375 27,318 611 12,393 120,254 Massachusetts 136,552 18,809 31,358 150,046 192,839 23,354 42,067 1,156 54,923 162,016

New Hampshire 79,647 2,158 10,960 32,138 43,328 6,688 17,532 449 7,072 65,370

New Jersey 97,657 17,572 26,692 37,282 61,601 2,811 19,350 476 10,744 167,882 New York 356,254 67,422 98,803 288,991 369,595 30,894 87,154 102 130,409 507,292 Pennsylvania 266,935 79,911 47,591 363,173 391,897 51,792 74,925 266 63,679 240,785 Rhode Island 8,007 883 3,886 7,090 8,295 887 2,064 336 4,557 31,402 Vermont 43,849 9,848 3,208 51,392 56,131 6,729 11,065 180 4,087 23,265 MANE-VU 1,325,853 249,795 262,477 1,172,909 1,455,311 153,243 332,729 5,383 316,357 1,528,14158 B. State-Specific Methods

For each of the MANE-VU States, this section id entifies the temporal basis of the emissions included in Version 3 and discusse s revisions incorporated into Version 3. In addition, this section also discusses the origin of each State agency’s emissions included in Version 3. For each agency, a table is provided in Appendix B th at lists the data source codes by SCC, emission type period, and pollutant. In addition, an electr onic folder is provided for each State agency containing the QA Summary Reports prepared for Versions 1, 2, and/or 3 and other files documenting revisions included in Versions 2 and 3. Except for Rhode Island, a QA Summary Report was prepared for Version 1. Subseque ntly, a QA Summary Report was prepared for States that provided Version 2 or 3 revisions. Rhode Island elected to use EPA’s draft 2002 NEI for Versions 1 and 2 but provide d revisions for Version 3; ther efore, a QA Summary Report is available for Version 3 only for Rhode Island.

1. Connecticut

Table III-6 shows the emission type periods for which Connecticut provided emissions.

Table III-6. Connecticut 2002 Area, Version 3: Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types

Emission

Type Period Start Date End Date Emission Type ANNUAL 20020101 20021231 30

DAILY 20011201 20020228 27 DAILY 20020601 20020831 27 DAILY 20020601 20020831 29

Table B-1 in Appendix B identifies the data so urces by SCC, emission type period, and pollutant in the Version 3 area source inventory. This ta ble also shows the number of counties by SCC. Note that some SCC and emission type period comb inations are listed more than once because the data source codes are different for more than one SCC and emission type period combination. Connecticut provided 2002 emissions for many of the area source categories in Version 3. Connecticut elected to use the EPA’s 2002 invent ory for industrial adhesives. Connecticut elected to use MANE-VU-sponsored invent ories for the following source categories:

• Annual and daily VOC, NO x , CO, NH 3 , PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI, and SO 2 emissions for indoor and outdoor residential wood combustion;

• Annual PM10-PRI, PM10-FIL, PM25-PRI, and PM25-FIL emissions for paved and unpaved roads;

• Annual and daily NH 3 emissions for industrial refrigeration processes;

• Annual and daily VOC emissions for PFCs; and

• Annual and daily VOC and NH 3 emissions for composting. Emissions for the remaining area source categor ies were taken from the draft 2002 NEI. For Connecticut, these emissions are either based on 2002 data prepared by EPA or carried forward59 from final Version 3 of the 1999 NEI. Data car ried forward from the 1999 NEI originate from either State data included in the 1999 NEI or EPA data developed for the 1999 NEI.

2. Delaware

Table III-7 shows the emission type periods for which Delaware provided emissions.

Table III-7. Delaware 2002 Area, Version 3: Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types

Emission

Type Period Start Date End Date Emission Type Emission Type Period Start Date End Date Emission Type ANNUAL 20020101 20020831 30 DAILY 20011201 20020228 27 ANNUAL 20020101 20021231 30 DAILY 20020101 20020831 27 ANNUAL 20020512 20020512 30 DAILY 20020512 20020512 27 ANNUAL 20020629 20020629 30 DAILY 20020601 20020831 27 ANNUAL 20021029 20021029 30 DAILY 20020629 20020629 27 ANNUAL 20021104 20021104 30 DAILY 20021029 20021029 27 ANNUAL 20021205 20021205 30 DAILY 20021104 20021104 27 DAILY 20021205 20021205 27

Table B-2 in Appendix B identifies the data so urces by SCC, emission type period, and pollutant in the Version 3 area source inventory. This ta ble also shows the number of counties by SCC. Note that some SCC and emission type period comb inations are listed more than once because the data source codes are different for more than one SCC and emission type period combination. Delaware provided 2002 emissions for the majority of the area source categories in Version 3, and used 2002 data that EPA prepared fo r the draft 2002 NEI or MANE-VU-sponsored inventories for the remaining categories. Dela ware elected to use th e EPA’s 2002 inventory for industrial adhesives, and prepared its own invent ory for PFCs. Delaware elected to use data from MANE-VU-sponsored inventories for the following source categories:

• Annual and daily VOC, NO x , CO, NH 3 , PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI, and SO 2 emissions for indoor and outdoor wood burning;

• Annual PM10-PRI, PM10-FIL, PM25-PRI, a nd PM25-FIL emissions for paved roads (note: there are no unpaved roads in Delaware);

• Annual and daily NH 3 emissions for POTWs; and

• Annual VOC, NO x , CO, NH 3 , PM10-PRI, PM10-FIL, PM25-PRI, PM25-FIL, and SO 2 emissions for open burning categories.60 3. District of Columbia

Table III-8 shows the emission type periods fo r which the District of Columbia provided emissions.

Table III-8. District of Columbia 2002 Area, Version 3: Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types

Emission

Type Period Start Date End Date Emission Type ANNUAL 20020101 20021231 30

DAILY 20011201 20020228 27 DAILY 20020601 20020831 27

Table B-3 in Appendix B identifies the data so urces by SCC, emission type period, and pollutant in the Version 3 area source inventory. This ta ble also shows the number of counties by SCC. The District of Columbia provi ded 2002 emissions for the majority of the area source categories in Version 3. The District of Columbia prov ided annual VOC emissions for PFCs for Version 2 that were kept in Version 3. The District of Columbia elected to us e the EPA’s 2002 inventory for industrial adhesives and indoor wood burning. The exception is for the following categories for which the District of Columb ia elected to use data from MANE-VU-sponsored inventories:

• Annual and daily VOC, NO x , CO, NH 3 , PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI, and SO 2 emissions for outdoor wood burning;

• Annual PM10-PRI, PM10-FIL, PM25-PRI, a nd PM25-FIL emissions for paved roads (note: there are no unpaved roads in the District of Columbia);

• Annual and daily VOC and NH 3 emissions for composting; and

• Annual VOC, NO x , CO, NH 3 , PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI, and SO 2 emissions for open burning categories.

4. Maine

Table III-9 shows the emission type peri ods for which Maine provided emissions.

Table III-9. Maine 2002 Area, Version 3: Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types

Emission

Type Period Start Date End Date Emission Type ANNUAL 20020101 20021231 30

DAILY 20011201 20020228 27 DAILY 20020601 20020831 27 DAILY 20020601 20020831 29 DAILY 20020601 20020929 2961 Table B-4 in Appendix B identifies the data so urces by SCC, emission type period, and pollutant in the Version 3 area source inventory. This ta ble also shows the number of counties by SCC. Note that some SCC and emission type period comb inations are listed more than once because the data source codes are different for more than one SCC and emission type period combination. Maine provided 2002 emissions for many of the area source categories in Version 3. Maine’s inventory for industrial adhesive s originates from the 1999 NEI. Maine provided annual and daily VOC and annual NH 3 emissions for industrial wastewater treatment that were added to Version 3. Maine elected to use data from MA NE-VU-sponsored inventories for the following source categories:

• Annual and daily VOC, NO x , CO, NH 3 , PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI, and SO 2 emissions for indoor and outdoor wood burning;

• Annual PM10-PRI, PM10-FIL, PM25-PRI, a nd PM25-FIL emissions for paved and unpaved roads;

• Annual and daily VOC emissions for PFCs; and

• Annual and daily VOC and NH 3 emissions for composting.

5. Maryland

Table III-10 shows the emission type periods fo r which Maryland provided emissions. Table B5 in Appendix B identifies the data sources by S CC, emission type period, and pollutant in the Version 3 area source inventory. This table al so shows the number of counties by SCC.

Table III-10. Maryland 2002 Area, Version 3: Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types

Emission

Type Period Start Date End Date Emission Type Emission Type Period Start Date End Date Emission Type ANNUAL 20020101 20021231 30 MONTHLY 20020101 20020131 30 SEASONAL 20020401 20020930 30 MONTHLY 20020201 20020228 30 SEASONAL 20020401 20021031 30 MONTHLY 20020301 20020331 30 SEASONAL 20020601 20020831 30 MONTHLY 20020401 20020430 30 DAILY 20011201 20020228 27 MONTHLY 20020501 20020531 30 DAILY 20020101 20021231 29 MONTHLY 20020601 20020630 30 DAILY 20020401 20020930 29 MONTHLY 20020701 20020731 30 DAILY 20020401 20021031 29 MONTHLY 20020801 20020831 30 DAILY 20020601 20020831 27 MONTHLY 20020901 20020930 30 DAILY 20020601 20020831 29 MONTHLY 20021001 20021031 30 MONTHLY 20021101 20021130 30 MONTHLY 20021201 20021231 30

Maryland provided 2002 annual, seasonal, and daily emissions for the majority of the area source categories in Version 3 and used 2002 data th at EPA prepared for the draft 2002 NEI for industrial adhesives and commercia l cooking. Maryland prepared it s own inventory for PFCs.

Maryland elected to use data from MANE-VU-sp onsored inventories for the following source categories:62 • Annual and daily VOC, NO x , CO, NH 3 , PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI, and SO 2 emissions for indoor and outdoor wood burning;

• Annual PM10-PRI, PM10-FIL, PM25-PRI, a nd PM25-FIL emissions for paved and unpaved roads;

• Annual VOC, NO x , CO, NH 3 , PM10-PRI, PM10-FIL, PM25-PRI, PM25-FIL, and SO 2 emissions for open burning categories; and

• Annual and monthly NH 3 emissions for agricultural crop fertilizers.

For Version 2, Maryland provided revisions to annual, seasonal , and daily VOC emissions for SCC 2505030120 (Storage and Transport : Petroleu m and Petroleum Product Transport : Truck : Gasoline). Maryland also removed PM10-FIL and PM25-FIL annual, seasonal, and daily records for open burning of land clearing de bris (SCC 2610000500). Maryland had revised the PM10-PRI and PM25-PRI emissions in an earlie r version of the MANE-VU inventory but not the PM10-FIL and PM25-FIL. As a result of revising the primary emissions, the filterable emissions were no longer met the consistency check as compared to the primary emissions.

QA of PM emissions in Version 3 identified one record for Maryland in county 510 for SCC 2801000003 (Agriculture - Crops : Tilling) wher e PM10-PRI annual emissions are 2317.2 tons and PM25-PRI annual emissions are 0 tons. For th e other counties in Mary land with this SCC, PM25-PRI emissions are about 20% of the PM10-PRI emissions. This issue was not addressed due to time and resource constraints fo r completing revisions to Version 3.

6. Massachusetts

Table III-11 shows the emission type periods for which Massachusetts provided emissions.

Table III-11. Massachusetts 2002 Area, Version 3: Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types

Emission

Type Period Start Date End Date Emission Type ANNUAL 20020101 20021231 30

DAILY 20011201 20020228 27 DAILY 20020601 20020831 27 DAILY 20020601 20020831 29

Table B-6 in Appendix B identifies the data so urces by SCC, emission type period, and pollutant in the Version 3 area source inventory. This ta ble also shows the number of counties by SCC. Massachusetts provided 2002 annual and daily emissions for the majority of the area source categories in Version 3 and used 2002 data th at EPA prepared for the draft 2002 NEI for residential coal combustion, asphalt r oofing, and agricultu ral livestock (NH 3 ).63 Massachusetts elected to use data from M ANE-VU-sponsored invent ories for the following source categories:

• Annual and daily VOC, NO x , CO, NH 3 , PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI, and SO 2 emissions for indoor and outdoor wood burning;

• Annual PM10-PRI, PM10-FIL, PM25-PRI, a nd PM25-FIL emissions for paved and unpaved roads;

• Annual and daily VOC emissions for industrial adhesives and PFCs;

• Annual and daily NH 3 emissions for industrial refrigeration processes;

• Annual and daily VOC and NH 3 emissions for composting; and

• Annual VOC, NO x , CO, NH 3 , PM10-PRI, PM10-FIL, PM25-PRI, PM25-FIL, and SO 2 emissions for open burning categories.

For Version 2, Massachusetts revised annual a nd summer day VOC emissions for 14 counties for the following categories: aircraft refue ling, surface coating, degreasing, miscellaneous nonindustrial: consumer and commercia l products and pesticides, and ga soline service stations (stage 1: balanced submerged fill). Massachusetts also revised a nnual and daily emissions for 14 counties for forest wildfires, revised annual em issions for four counties for residential open burning of brush using the correct rule penetratio n factors for the counties, and revised control efficiency and control device data for sele cted categories in the CE table.

For Version 3, Massachusetts revised annual a nd summer day VOC emissions for 14 counties for auto refinishing. In the CE table, Massachuse tts changed control device code 102 (low-solvent coatings) to 000 (uncontrolled) and associated control efficiency va lues were set to null for all counties. Massachusetts also added annual a nd summer day VOC emissions for 14 counties for gasoline service stations (stage 2: displacement loss/controlled).

For PFCs, Massachusetts elected to use the per capita emission fa ctor but provided revisions to the population data, used 2002 owner occupied units to allocate the emissi ons to counties, and then allocated emissions betw een the commercial (16%) and re sidential (84%) sectors. Massachusetts’ calculations are provided in the spreadsheet named "Version 3 Revisions" in the Excel file named MA_AR_QA_Report_030806.xls".

7. New Hampshire

Table III-12 shows the emission type periods for which New Hampshire provided emissions. Table B-7 in Appendix B identifies the data so urces by SCC, emission type period, and pollutant in the Version 3 area source inventory. This ta ble also shows the number of counties by SCC. New Hampshire provided 2002 emissions for many of the area source categories in Version 3. New Hampshire’s inventory for industrial ad hesives originates from the 1999 NEI.64 Table III-12. New Hampshire 2002 Area, Version 3: Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types

Emission

Type Period Start Date End Date Emission Type ANNUAL 20020101 20021231 30

DAILY 20011201 20020228 27 DAILY 20020601 20020831 27 DAILY 20020601 20020831 29 MONTHLY 20020101 20020131 30 MONTHLY 20020201 20020228 30 MONTHLY 20020301 20020331 30 MONTHLY 20020401 20020430 30 MONTHLY 20020501 20020531 30 MONTHLY 20020601 20020630 30 MONTHLY 20020701 20020731 30 MONTHLY 20020801 20020831 30 MONTHLY 20020901 20020930 30 MONTHLY 20021001 20021031 30 MONTHLY 20021101 20021130 30 MONTHLY 20021201 20021231 30

New Hampshire elected to use data from MA NE-VU-sponsored inventories for the following source categories:

• Annual and daily VOC, NO x , CO, NH 3 , PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI, and SO 2 emissions for indoor and outdoor wood burning;

• Annual PM10-PRI, PM10-FIL, PM25-PRI, a nd PM25-FIL emissions for paved and unpaved roads;

• Annual and daily VOC emissions for PFCs;

• Annual and daily NH 3 emissions for industrial refrig eration processes and POTWs;

• Annual and daily VOC and NH 3 emissions for composting;

• Annual VOC, NO x , CO, NH 3 , PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI, and SO 2 emissions for open burning categories; and

• Annual and monthly NH 3 emissions for agricultural crop fertilizers and livestock.

Emissions for the remaining area source categor ies were taken from the draft 2002 NEI; these emissions are either based on 2002 data prepared by EPA or EPA da ta carried forward from final Version 3 of the 1999 NEI.

New Hampshire provided revisions to Version 2 that were kept in Version 3. For Version 2, New Hampshire revised annual and daily VOC emi ssions for the gasoline storage and transport sector to reflect revisions it made to the 2002 in ventory that EPA prepared for the 2002 NEI. The categories revised include bulk plant breathing losses, gasoline service stations (stages 1 and 2 total and underground tank breathing and empt ying losses), and gasoline tank trucks.65 8. New Jersey

Table III-13 shows the emission type periods for which New Jersey provided emissions.

Table III-13. New Jersey 2002 Area, Version 3: Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types

Emission

Type Period Start Date End Date Emission Type ANNUAL 20020101 20021231 30

DAILY 20011201 20020228 27 DAILY 20011201 20020228 29 DAILY 20020601 20020831 27 DAILY 20020601 20020831 29

Table B-8 in Appendix B identifies the data so urces by SCC, emission type period, and pollutant in the Version 3 area source inventory. This ta ble also shows the number of counties by SCC. New Jersey provided 2002 emissions for the major ity of the area source categories. New Jersey provided its own 2002 inventory for industrial adhesives and PFCs. Emissions for the remaining area source categories were taken from the draf t 2002 NEI (that are eith er based on 2002 data prepared by EPA or EPA data carried forward from final Version 3 of the 1999 NEI) or MANEVU-sponsored inventories. New Jersey elected to use MANE-VU- sponsored inventories for the following source categories:

• Annual and daily VOC, NO x , CO, NH 3 , PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI, and SO 2 emissions for indoor and outdoor residential wood co mbustion (replacing New Jersey’s indoor residential wood combusti on inventory provided in Versions 1 and 2);

• Annual PM10-PRI, PM10-FIL, PM25-PRI, and PM25-FIL emissions for paved roads;

• Annual and daily NH 3 emissions for industrial refriger ation processes and POTWs; and

• Annual and daily VOC and NH 3 emissions for composting.

For Version 3, New Jersey added annual and summer day VOC emissions for 21 counties for SCC 2501060100 (gasoline service stat ions : stage 2: total). Th e emissions are summarized in the spreadsheet named "Version 3 Revisions" in the Excel file named "NJ_AR_QA_Report_ 030806.xls". New Jersey provided 2002 emissions data for the industrial adhesives and PFC categories in Version 1. For Ve rsion 2, New Jersey corrected PM25-PRI emissions that were greater than PM10-PRI emissions for SCC 26010 00000 (on-site incineration : all categories : total).

9. New York

Table III-14 shows the emission type periods fo r which New York provided emissions. Table B9 in Appendix B identifies the data sources by S CC, emission type period, and pollutant in the Version 3 area source inventory. This table also shows the number of counties by SCC. Note that some SCC and emission type period combina tions are listed more than once because the data source codes are different for more than one SCC and emission type period combination or66 because emissions are not reported for all polluta nts for the same SCC and emission type period combination.

Table III-14. New York 2002 Area, Version 3: Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types

Emission

Type Period Start Date End Date Emission Type ANNUAL 20020101 20021231 30 MONTHLY 20020101 20020131 30 MONTHLY 20020201 20020228 30 MONTHLY 20020301 20020331 30 MONTHLY 20020401 20020430 30 MONTHLY 20020501 20020531 30 MONTHLY 20020601 20020630 30 MONTHLY 20020701 20020731 30 MONTHLY 20020801 20020831 30 MONTHLY 20020901 20020930 30 MONTHLY 20021001 20021031 30 MONTHLY 20021101 20021130 30 MONTHLY 20021201 20021231 30

New York provided revisions to annual emissi ons for all 62 counties for the categories and pollutants shown in Table III-15. This revisi on completely replaced the 2002 emissions that New York provided in Version 2. Table III-15 also identifies categories and pollutants for which emissions were added to Version 3 (i.e., not in Ve rsion 2). The emissions are summarized in the spreadsheet named "Version 3 Revi sions" in the Excel file named NY_AR_QA_Report_030806.xls".

New York’s inventory in Version 2 included em issions for both reside ntial indoor and outdoor wood burning. For Version 3, New York provided re visions that lowered its overall emissions relative to Version 2 and broke out its inventory to show emissi ons for fireplaces, woodstoves, and outdoor equipment separatel y. New York also added NH 3 emissions to its inventory for Version 3. New York’s inventor y for industrial adhesives origin ates from the 1999 NEI. New York provided its own 2002 inventory for PFCs. Emissions for the remaining area source categories were taken from the draft 2002 NEI (t hat are either based on 2002 data prepared by EPA or EPA data carried forward from fi nal Version 3 of the 1999 NEI) or MANE-VUsponsored inventories.

New York elected to use MANE-VU-sponsored i nventories for the followi ng source categories:

• Annual PM10-PRI, PM10-FIL, PM25-PRI, and PM25-FIL emissions for paved and unpaved roads;

• Annual and daily NH 3 emissions for agricultural livestock; and

• Annual VOC, NO x , CO, NH 3 , PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI, and SO 2 emissions for open burning categories.67 A QA issue that may affect the use of the M ANE-VU inventory for ai r quality modeling and revisions to the projection year invent ory is the addition of SCCs 2103004001 and 2103004002 by New York that are not in EPA’s master S CC list used by the EPA QA program. These SCCs are defined in Table III-15. In addition, th e QA program shows SCCs for PFCs and outdoor wood burning as invalid because EPA has not update d the master list to include these SCCs for the EPA QA program. These SCCs were included in Version 2 and should have been assigned speaciation profiles and included in the projectio n year inventory prepared from Version 2.68Table III-15. Summary of New York's Revisionsto Version 3 of MANE-VU's Area Source InventorySCC SCC Description Pollutant Type of Revision to EmissionsRevisions to Waste Disposal, Treatment, and Recovery : Wastewater Treatment2630020000 Public Owned : Total Processed VOC Revised emissions for all pollutantsRevisions to Stationary Source Fuel Combustion : Residential : Wood2104008001 Fireplaces: General VOC, NOX, CO, NH3, SO2, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI Added NH3, revised emissions for restof pollutants2104008052 Non-catalytic Woodstoves: Low Emitting VOC, NOX, CO, NH3, SO2, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI Added emissions for all pollutants2104008070 Outdoor Wood Burning Equipment VOC, NOX, CO, NH3, SO2, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI Added emissions for all pollutantsRevisions to Stationary Source Fuel Combustion : Electric Utility2101001000 Anthracite Coal : Total: All Boiler Types VOC, NOX,CO, NH3, SO2, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI No change to emissions2101002000 Bituminous/Subbituminous Coal : Total:All Boiler Types VOC, NOX, CO, NH3, SO2,PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI Revised emissionsfor all pollutants2101004000 Distillate Oil : Total: Boilers and IC Engines VOC, NOX,CO, NH3, SO2, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI Revised emissions for allpollutants2101005000 Residual Oil : Total: All Boiler Types VOC, NOX, CO, NH3, SO2, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI Revised emissions for all pollutants2101006000 Natural Gas : Total: Boilers and IC Engines VOC, NOX, CO, NH3, SO2, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI Revised emissions for all pollutantsRevisions to Stationary Source Fuel Combustion : Industrial2102001000 Anthracite Coal : Total: All Boiler Types VOC, NOX,CO, NH3, SO2, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI No change to emissions2102002000 Bituminous/Subbituminous Coal : Total:All Boiler Types VOC, NOX, CO, NH3, SO2,PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI Revised emissionsfor all pollutants2102004000 Distillate Oil : Total: Boilers and IC Engines VOC, NOX,CO, NH3, SO2, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI Revised emissions for allpollutants2102005000 Residual Oil : Total: All Boiler Types VOC, NOX, CO, NH3, SO2, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI Revised emissions for all pollutants2102006000 Natural Gas : Total: Boilers and IC Engines VOC, NOX, CO, NH3, SO2, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI Revised emissions for all pollutants2102007000 Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG) : Total: All Boiler Types VOC, NOX, CO, SO2, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI Revised emissions forall pollutants2102008000 Wood : Total: All Boiler Types VOC, NOX, CO, SO2, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI No change to emissions2102011000 Kerosene : Total: All Boiler Types VOC, NOX, CO, NH3, SO2, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI Added emissions for all pollutantsRevisions to Stationary Source Fuel Combustion : Commercial/Institutional2103001000 Anthracite Coal : Total: All Boiler Types VOC, NOX,CO, NH3, SO2, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI No change to emissions2103002000 Bituminous/Subbituminous Coal : Total:All Boiler Types VOC, NOX, CO, NH3, SO2,PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI Revised emissionsfor all pollutants2103005000 Residual Oil : Total: All Boiler Types VOC, NOX, CO, NH3, SO2, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI Revised emissions for all pollutants2103004000 Residual Oil : Total: Boilers and IC Engines VOC, NOX,CO, NH3, SO2, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI Removed and replaced with data forSCCs 2103004001 and 21030040022103004001 Distillate Oil : Boilers VOC, NOX, CO, NH3, SO2,PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI Added emissions for all pollutants2103004002 Distillate Oil : IC Engines VOC, NOX, CO, SO2,PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI Added emissions for all pollutants2103006000 Natural Gas : Total: Boilers and IC Engines VOC, NOX, CO, NH3, SO2, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI Revised emissions for all pollutants2103007000 Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG) : Total: All Combustor TypesVOC, NOX, CO, SO2, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI Revised emissions for all pollutants2103008000 Wood : Total: All Boiler Types VOC, NOX, CO, SO2,PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI Revised emissions for all pollutants2103011000 Kerosene : Total: All Combustor Types VOC, NOX, CO, NH3, SO2, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI Added emissions for all pollutants69Table III-15. Summary of New York'sRevisions to Version 3of MANE-VU's Area Source Inventory (Continued)SCC SCC Description Pollutant Type of Revision to EmissionsRevisions to Stationary Source Fuel Combustion : Residential2104001000 Anthracite Coal : Total: All Combustor Types VOC, NOX, CO, NH3, SO2, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI No change to emissions2104002000 Bituminous/Subbituminous Coal : Total:All Combustor Types VOC, NOX, CO, NH3, SO2, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI Revised emissions for all pollutants2104004000 Distillate Oil : Total: All Combustor Types VOC, NOX, CO, NH3, SO2, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI Revised emissions for all pollutants2104006010 Natural Gas : Residential Furnaces VOC, NOX, CO, SO2,PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI Revised emissions for all pollutants2104007000 Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG) : Total: All Combustor TypesVOC, NOX, CO, SO2, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI Revised emissions for all pollutants2104011000 Kerosene : Total: All Heater Types VOC, NOX, CO, NH3,SO2, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI Added emissions for all pollutants70 10. Pennsylvania

Table III-16 shows the emission type periods for which Pennsylvania provided emissions.

Table III-16. Pennsylvan ia 2002 Area, Version 3: Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types

Emission

Type Period Start Date End Date Emission Type Emission Type Period Start Date End Date Emission Type ANNUAL 20020101 20021231 30 MONTHLY 20020101 20020131 30

DAILY 20011201 20020228 27 MONTHLY 20020201 20020228 30 DAILY 20020601 20020831 27 MONTHLY 20020301 20020331 30 MONTHLY 20020401 20020430 30 MONTHLY 20020501 20020531 30 MONTHLY 20020601 20020630 30 MONTHLY 20020701 20020731 30 MONTHLY 20020801 20020831 30 MONTHLY 20020901 20020930 30 MONTHLY 20021001 20021031 30 MONTHLY 20021101 20021130 30 MONTHLY 20021201 20021231 30

Table B-10 in Appendix B identifies the data sources by SCC, emission type period, and pollutant in the Version 3 area so urce inventory. This table also shows the number of counties by SCC. Note that some SCC a nd emission type period combinati ons are listed more than once because the data source codes are different fo r more than one SCC and emission type period combination. Pennsylvania provided 2002 emi ssions for the majority of the area source categories. Pennsylvania provi ded its own 2002 inventory for PFC s and residential indoor wood burning. Pennsylvania’s inventor y for industrial adhesives originates from the 1999 NEI. Emissions for the remaining area source categorie s were taken from the draft 2002 NEI (that are either based on 2002 data prepared by EPA or EPA data carried forward from final Version 3 of the 1999 NEI) or MANE-VU-sponsored inventories.

Pennsylvania elected to use MANE-VU-sponsor ed inventories for the following source categories:

• Annual PM10-PRI, PM10-FIL, PM25-PRI, and PM25-FIL emissions for paved and unpaved roads;

• Annual and daily NH 3 emissions for industrial refrigera tion processes and agricultural crop fertilizers and livestock;

• Annual and daily VOC and NH 3 emissions for POTWs and composting; and

• Annual VOC, NO x , CO, NH 3 , PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI, and SO 2 emissions for open burning categories.71 11. Rhode Island

Table III-17 shows the emission type periods for which Rhode Island provided emissions.

Table III-17. Rhode Island 2002 Area, Version 3: Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types

Emission

Type Period Start Date End Date Emission Type ANNUAL 20020101 20021231 30

DAILY 20011201 20020228 27 DAILY 20020601 20020831 27 DAILY 20020601 20020831 29

Table B-11 in Appendix B identifies the data sources by SCC, emission type period, and pollutant in the Version 3 area so urce inventory. This table also shows the number of counties by SCC. Rhode Island provided 2002 annual VOC emissions for several solvent utilization categories (surface coating, degreas ing, graphic arts, rubber/plastics , and industrial adhesive); annual and daily VOC emissions for petroleum a nd petroleum product stor age (gasoline service stations and all transport type s); and annual VOC emissions for POTWs. Rhode Island’s indoor wood burning inventory originates from the draft 2002 NEI. Emissions for the remaining area source categories were taken from the draf t 2002 NEI (that are either based on 2002 data prepared by EPA or EPA data carried forwar d from final Version 3 of the 1999 NEI) or MANE-VU-sponsored inventories.

Rhode Island elected to use MANE-VU-spons ored inventories for the following source categories:

• Annual and daily VOC, NO x , CO, NH 3 , PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI, and SO 2 emissions for outdoor wood burning;

• Annual PM10-PRI, PM10-FIL, PM25-PRI, and PM25-FIL emissions for paved and unpaved roads; and

• Annual and daily VOC emissions for PFCs.72 12. Vermont

Table III-18 shows the emission type peri ods for which Vermont provided emissions.

Table III-18. Vermont 2002 Area, Version 3: Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types

Emission

Type Period Start Date End Date Emission Type ANNUAL 20020101 20021231 30

DAILY 20011201 20020228 27 DAILY 20020601 20020831 27 DAILY 20020601 20020831 29

Table B-12 in Appendix B identifies the data sources by SCC, emission type period, and pollutant in the Version 3 area so urce inventory. This table also shows the number of counties by SCC. Vermont provided 2002 annual VOC, NO x , CO, PM10-PRI or PM10-FIL, PM25-PRI or PM25-FIL, and SO 2 emissions for residential fuel combusti on (distillate oil, natural gas, LPG, and indoor wood burning); annual VOC emissions for gasoline serv ice stations and breathing losses at bulk terminals; annual VOC, NO x , CO, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI, and SO 2 emissions for residential open burning; annual VOC, NO x , CO, NH 3 , PM10-PRI, and PM25-PRI emissions for forest fires, and annual VOC, NO x , CO, PM10-PRI, and PM25-PRI emi ssions for structure fires. Vermont’s inventory for industrial adhesi ves originates from the 1999 NEI.

For Version 2, Vermont provide d revisions to EPA’s draft 2002 inventory for SCC 2501050120 (bulk stations and terminals : breathing loss : gasoline) to incorporat e the effects of vapor balance controls not accounted for in the EPA estimates. The revi sed inventory for this category was added to Version 2 (and kept in Version 3) that did not include this category. Control records were added to the NIF 3.0 CE table for the counties with vapor balance controls. In addition, Vermont provided emissions for th ree counties (i.e., county FIPS codes 50015, 50017, and 50019) that were not in EPA's inventory. Em issions for the remaining area source categories were taken from the draft 2002 NEI (that are e ither based on 2002 data prepared by EPA or EPA data carried forward from final Version 3 of the 1999 NEI) or MANE-VU-s ponsored inventories. Vermont elected to use MANE-VU-sponsored inve ntories for the following source categories:

• Annual and daily VOC, NO x , CO, NH 3 , PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI, and SO 2 emissions for outdoor wood burning;

• Annual PM10-PRI, PM10-FIL, PM25-PRI, and PM25-FIL emissions for paved and unpaved roads;

• Annual and daily NH 3 emissions for industrial refrig eration processes and POTWs;

• Annual and daily VOC emissions for PFCs;

• Annual and daily VOC and NH 3 emissions for composting; and

• Annual VOC, NO x , CO, NH 3 , PM10-PRI, PM10-FIL, PM25-PRI, PM25-FIL, and SO 2 emissions for open burning categories.73 C. What Issues Need to be Addressed in Future Versions?

This section provides a summary of potential revisions to incorporat e into future versions of the MANE-VU area source inventory.

All States – A coordinated effort between the State agencies should be developed to apply consistent methods to avoid havi ng to apply procedures to augmen t inventory data to correct for the QA issues and fill in missing data as discussed previously in this chapter. For example, this will ensure that consistent methods are applied across State agencies to ensure consistent and accurate reporting of source categories using th e same SCCs across States, PM emissions, and minimize other QA issues that were identified du ring the development of Versions 1, 2, and 3 of the inventory.

For PM emissions, the State agencies should develop and apply a consistent method for including condensible emissions for fuel comb ustion sources that can be applied when the agencies develop their inventories. This ma y include compiling the emission factors for all forms of PM into one database, organized by SCC and control type (for filterable emissions), and sharing the database among the MANE-VU State agen cies. Use of a consistent set of emission factors will help to avoid the PM consistency issues identified in Versions 1, 2, and 3 of the MANE-VU inventory as well as en sure that condensible emissions are included in the primary emissions reported in the inventory.

State-specific suggestions are as follows:

Delaware: Revise the residential wood combustion emissions inventory with the latest revisions sponsored by MARAMA.

Rhode Island: This State felt that the area s ources (from the nonpoint inventory EPA prepared) which they had changed to zeros in Version 3 would revert back to the Version 2 numbers which were from the EPA report. Rhode Island would like to see this change in the next version of the inventory. (Table with change s can be received upon request).

New Jersey:

• Why is the EPA VOC emission factor for firepl aces completely out of proportion with the other emission factors? The ratio of conve ntional wood stoves/fireplaces = 0% to 10% for other pollutants and is 77% for VOC. It is discussed in the P echan Technical Memo #5, 9/3/03, page 19, how a study of the accuracy of the emission factors showed the VOC should be more like 10 to 30 lb/ton, instead of 229 lb/ton and the woodstove emission factors (certified) should be higher than Emission Inve ntory Improvement Program guidance.

• The summer seasonal adjustment factors fo r indoor wood burning used in the model appear high. This combined with the ve ry high VOC emission factor results in high ozone season wood burning emissions.74 • In general, the accuracy of the very large residential wood burning numbers, all pollutants.

• The large fugitive dust inventory numbers don not correlate to dust found in monitors, even with the latest 30% to 40% reduc tion in paved and unpaved road emissions.

• We need consistent guidance from the EP A for adhesives and sealants, PFC, and commercial cooking.75 CHAPTER IV

– NONROAD SOURCES

A. General Methods for all States

This section provides an overview of the data sources and QA steps used in preparing the 2002 nonroad sector inventory for the MANE-VU States. The nonroad se ctor is comprised of nonroad engines included in EPA’s NONROAD model, as well as other engines not modeled in NONROAD, including aircra ft, commercial marine vessels and locomotives.

1. What Data Sources Were Used?

Data sources used for the various nonr oad categories are described below.

a. Aircraft, Commercial Marine, and Locomotive Categories

As a starting point, aircraft, commercial marine vessel and locomotive inventories were prepared using the inventories that State agencies submitted to the EPA in June 2004 as a requirement of the CERR. In addition, some States provided data directly to MANE-VU for use in this inventory that were not submitted for the CERR.

Missing data were supplemented with estimates from EPA’s preliminary 2002 NEI. For the aircraft and commercial marine vessel source categories, the 2002 NEI CAP emissions were estimated by carrying over th e 2001 estimates. 2001 emissions were estimated using the methodologies described in EPA’s Documentation for Aircraft, Commercial Marine Vessel, Locomotive, and Other Nonroad Components of the National Emissions Inventory (EPA, 2003b). The 2002 locomotive emissions were calculated using 2002 activity data and the methodologies described in the EPA, 2003b documentation.

Table IV-1 provides a summary of the aircraft, commercial marine, and locomotive emission SCCs reported in the MANE-VU in ventory. Table IV-2 provides a summary of the basis for these nonroad subsector emissions by State.76Table IV-1. List of Unique Aircraft, Commercial Marine, and Locomotive SCCs Reported by States in MANE-VU InventorySCC SCC Description 1 SCC Description 2 SCC Description 3 SCC Description 42275000000 Mobile Sources Aircraft All Aircraft Types and Operations Total2275001000 Mobile Sources Aircraft Military Aircraft Total2275020000 Mobile Sources Aircraft Commercial Aircraft Total: All Types2275050000 Mobile Sources Aircraft General Aviation Total2275060000 Mobile Sources Aircraft Air Taxi Total2275070000 Mobile Sources Aircraft Aircraft Auxiliary Power Units Total2280000000 Mobile Sources Marine Vessels, Commercial All Fuels Total, All Vessel Types2280002000 Mobile Sources Marine Vessels, Commercial Diesel Total, All Vessel Types2280002010 Mobile Sources Marine Vessels, Commercial Diesel Ocean-going Vessels2280002020 Mobile Sources Marine Vessels, Commercial Diesel Harbor Vessels2280002100 Mobile Sources Marine Vessels,Commercial Diesel Port emissions2280002200 Mobile Sources Marine Vessels, Commercial Diesel Underway emissions2280003100 Mobile Sources Marine Vessels,Commercial Residual Port emissions2280003200 Mobile Sources Marine Vessels, Commercial Residual Underway emissions2285000000 Mobile Sources Railroad Equipment All Fuels Total2285002000 Mobile Sources Railroad Equipment Diesel Total2285002005 Mobile Sources Railroad Equipment Diesel Total Line Haul Locomotives2285002006 Mobile Sources Railroad Equipment DieselLine Haul Locomotives: Class I Operations2285002007 Mobile Sources Railroad Equipment Diesel Line Haul Locomotives: Class II / III Operations2285002008 Mobile Sources Railroad Equipment Diesel Line Haul Locomotives: Passenger Trains (Amtrak)2285002009 Mobile Sources Railroad Equipment Diesel Line Haul Locomotives: Commuter Lines2285002010 Mobile Sources Railroad Equipment Diesel Yard Locomotives77Table IV-2. Summary of Basis for 2002 MANE-VU Aircraft, Commercial Marine,and Locomotive InventoryBasis for Subsector of Nonroad InventoryFIPSST State Aircraft Commercial Marine Vessels Locomotives09 Connecticut 2002 Preliminary NEI 2002 Preliminary NEI State supplied in March 200610 Delaware June 2004 CERR Submittal; Statesupplied revisions in Sep 2004June 2004 CERR Submittal June 2004 CERR Submittal11 District of Columbia Not supplied by State and not availablefrom NEI2002 Preliminary NEI June 2004 CERR Submittal23 Maine State supplied in Oct 2004 State supplied in Oct 2004 State supplied in Oct 200424 Maryland June 2004 CERR Submittal; Statesupplied revisions in Sep 2004June 2004 CERR Submittal; Statesupplied revisions in Oct 2004June 2004 CERR Submittal25 Massachusetts June 2004 CERR Submittal State-supplied for June 2004 CERRSubmittal, with revisions as directed byStateJune 2004 CERR Submittal33 New Hampshire June 2004 CERR Submittal 2002 Preliminary NEI June 2004 CERR Submittal34 New Jersey June 2004 CERR Submittal June 2004 CERR Submittal June 2004 CERR Submittal36 New York 2002 Preliminary NEI State supplied in Oct 2004 2002 Preliminary NEI42 Pennsylvania State supplied to Pechan inJune 2004 State supplied to Pechan in June2004 State supplied to Pechan in June 2004;State supplied revisions in Aug 200544 Rhode Island State-supplied for June 2004 CERRSubmittal, with revisions as directed byStateState-supplied for June 2004 CERRSubmittal, with revisions as directed byStateState-supplied in Oct 200450 Vermont 2002 Preliminary NEI Not supplied by State and not availablefrom NEINot supplied by State and not availablefrom NEI78 b. NONROAD Model Categories

NONROAD model categories include equipment su ch as recreational marine and land-based vehicles, farm and construction machinery, and lawn and garden equipment. Aircraft ground support equipment (GSE) and rail maintenance equipment are also included in NONROAD. These equipment are powered by diesel, gaso line, compressed natural gas (CNG) and LPG engines.

EPA released a final version of NONR OAD during December 2005 called NONROAD2005 (EPA, 2005a). To reflect the updates made to EPA’s final NONROAD model, all MANE-VU Version 2 NONROAD model estimates were replaced with updated NONROAD2005 emission estimates.

EPA also released an updated version of its NMIM, which incorporates the final NONROAD2005 model. EPA’s NMIM2005 is a consolidated modeling system that incorporates the NONROAD and MOBILE models, along with a county database of inputs (EPA, 2005b). The NMIM county database contai ns monthly input data to reflect countyspecific fuel parameters and temperatures. Becau se incorporating revised monthly inputs for use in NMIM2005 is more efficient than preparing county-specific monthly option files needed to run NONROAD2005 independently, Pechan used NM IM2005 for most MANE-VU States. The two exceptions were for the District of Columbia and Maine due to the differences in oxygenated fuel inputs used for NMIM versus NONROAD.

As a first step, Pechan compiled fuel input data available from NMIM2005 by county and by month for all MANE-VU states for 2002. Pechan developed a spreadsheet that summarized the gasoline RVP, gasoline weight pe rcent oxygen, and gasoline and di esel sulfur content proposed as inputs to the updated runs. Values consiste nt with State-supplied MOBILE6 inputs used for the development of 2002 MANE-VU highway vehicl e inventories were presented for use where they differed from NMIM. Pechan requested that States confirm the use of these data for the NONROAD model runs, or provide alternative inputs.

The final county, monthly NMIM inputs provided or confirmed by the States for RVP, weight percent oxygen, and gasoline sulf ur are presented in Appendix C, Table C-1. Pechan used NMIM’s 2002 default value for nonroad diesel su lfur content. This value is 2,457 parts per million (ppm) for land-based equipment, and 2,767 ppm for recreati onal marine, for all MANE-VU counties.

Pechan also requested that States provide a ny local activity data in the format of updated NONROAD external data files. These include da ta files which specify activity parameters such as equipment populations, equipment annual hours of use, county allocation factors, and monthly allocation profiles.

Pechan updated the NMIM county database for 2002 to add in new gasoline profiles to reflect the monthly and county fuel input values provi ded by States. Pechan also updated the NMIM county database to cross refere nce the State-supplied NONROAD data files that replaced default79 NONROAD2005 inputs. Pechan then ran NM IM/NONROAD2005 at the county and monthly level for 2002 and generated the results in NIF 3.0.

c. NONROAD2005 Model Runs

The majority of the model runs were pe rformed using NMIM2005. NMIM and NONROAD have differences in the required format of the oxygenated fuel inputs. For NONROAD, this variable is required to be expr essed as a composite weight per cent oxygen that accounts for the market share and the percent oxygen of all cont ributing oxygenates. Since NMIM models HAP emissions, the volume percent and market share of each of four oxygenates must be entered as fuel inputs. These oxygenates incl ude methyl tertiary butyl ethe r (MTBE), ethyl tertiary butyl ether (ETBE), ethanol (ETOH), and tertiary amyl methyl ether (TAME). In cases where only one known oxygenate is present, this is straightforward to reflect in NMIM, as weight percent can be easily converted to volume percent. However, two States (the District of Columbia and Maine) provided a composite we ight percent value for more th an one oxygenate, but could not provide the corresponding volume percent and market share for each oxygenate to use in NMIM. As such, Pechan used NONROAD2005 for both the Dist rict of Columbia and Maine so that their submitted values for weight percent oxygen c ould be used directly. The 2002 minimum, maximum, and average hourly temperatures in cluded in NMIM2005 were used to calculate average monthly temperature i nputs to NONROAD for both States.

Pechan developed monthly NONROAD option f iles and ran these files through NONROAD2005 to generate monthly emissions that were then summed to develop an annual 2002 inventory. Pechan performed additional calculations using NMIM emission factors and fuel consumption to calculate NH 3 , since NONROAD does not calculate NH 3 emissions.

2. What Quality Assurance Steps Were Performed?

The final MANE-VU nonroad invent ory was comprised of emission es timates that were either: 1) submitted by States for the June 2004 CERR submittal or as additional revisions after this date; 2) developed using NONROAD model inputs provided or a pproved by States; or 3) reported by EPA in the preliminary 2002 NEI. As such, the QA steps were tailored to each of these types of submittals. Note that a Quality Assurance Plan was prepared prior to initiating work on Version 1 (MANE-VU, 2003). This plan was applied during development of all three versions of the MANE-VU inventory.

a. Summary of QA checks for State emission submittals

Nonroad emission submittals were accepted as part of the June 2004 CERR submittals to EPA or as direct submittals to MANE-VU. Upon receipt of an emissions submittal, Pechan prepared spreadsheets providing a unique list of errors identified by running the EPA NIF 3.0 QA software tool on the nonroad source inventory (EPA, 2004a). Notes were provided to identify the NIF 3.0 tables in which the errors appeared, as well as clarification as to where an error occurred (e.g., for what SCC and pollutant). Fo r many of the errors, Pech an provided a potential correction, and States indicated whether they agreed with the correction, or provided their own80 instructions for correcting the error. These spreadsheets serv ed to document each state's direction on how to correct erro rs and the state's representati ve authorizing the correction.

The list of general QA checks include the following:

• Duplicate records (i.e., only one record al lowed for each unique county/SCC/ pollutant) • Invalid record type • Mandatory field is not populated • Invalid field length • Invalid data type (e.g., in valid SCCs or pollutants) • “Out-of-range” emission values • Referential integrity (i.e., the presence of widow or orphan records in the NIF 3.0 relational tables)

Note that EPA’s NIF 3.0 QA software tool also checks for other specific QA issues by field not listed above. See EPA’s User Guide, Appendix A for a listing of all poten tial errors that are checked by the program, and EPA’s guidance for how they should be resolved.

Pechan also performed other general QA procedur es outside of EPA’s NIF 3.0 QA software tool, including pollutant augmentation, SCC reconc iliation, and completene ss and reasonableness checks.

Pechan performed pollutant augmentation in cases where the complete set of CAPs and NH 3 were not provided by a State. For example, se veral States did not pr ovide PM25-PRI, but did provide PM10-PRI, so that PM25-PRI was es timated using EPA-published particle-size multipliers. Where multipliers were not avai lable from EPA documentation, Pechan used available pollutant emission estimates reporte d by all other MANE- VU States to develop “emission ratios” for a given SCC. These “emission ratios” were then used to multiply available pollutant estimates to estimate values for the mi ssing pollutants. Specific values used for a given State and SCC are cited in the “State -Specific Methods” section below.

In addition, SCC assignments were reviewed and r eassigned after clarificati on from States as to what the specific SCC estimate represented. For ex ample, a State may have reported all aircraft activity under one of the specific aircraft type SCCs (e.g., commercial or general aviation), when it should more accurately be reported under the general SCC 2275000000 (All Aircraft Types and Operations).

Finally, completeness checks were performed on th e inventory to determine that emissions for nonroad categories known to operate in a State or county were being reported. Note that emissions may not be reported for all NONROAD SCCs for all counties in the MANE-VU RPO, and will depend on the geographic allocation methods used by the model, or specific allocation data provided by a State.

NONROAD model category estimates originally provided by States for the June 2004 submittal were replaced by emission estimates develope d using NMIM/NONROAD 2005. As such, this81 TSD will not document corrections made by Pechan to these original NONROAD model estimates, since they were replaced for Version 3.

b. Data input summary spre adsheets for State review

As mentioned above for NONROAD model cat egories, Pechan prepared the MANE-VU emission estimates using EPA’s final NMIM/NONR OAD2005 model. An important QA step in running NONROAD is to ensure that the inputs used for fuel specifications and temperatures for a given county and month in 2002 are representa tive. As such, Pechan compiled the RVP, percent oxygen, and gasoline su lfur inputs reported by NMIM2005 by county and month for States to review. If a State had previously submitted input data for the MANE-VU onroad inventory, these data were proposed in lieu of NM IM data. States either confirmed use of the default NMIM/onroad MANE-VU input s, or provided alternate data in the specified format to replace the proposed inputs. Pechan updated the gasoline table in the NMIM county database to add in new gasoline profiles to reflect revised fuel input values provi ded by States. These profiles were then cross-referenced to the approp riate county and month in a separate table called countyyearmonth . Pechan performed QA checks of these NM IM county database tables for each State to ensure that the correct fuel data were input by county and by month as requested by the State.

c. QA of final mass emissions

After performing QA of the inputs, Pechan ran NMIM/NONROAD2005 at the county and monthly level for 2002 and genera ted the results in NIF 3.0. As a QA step, Pechan ran EPA’s NIF 3.0 QA software tool on the NIF 3.0 files. Erro rs identified were resolved and checked to ensure they were corrected in the final files.

As part of final processing of the inventories, and to assist in tracki ng revisions and preparing emission summaries, Pechan added the followi ng NIF plus fields to each table:

TblCE : State FIPS, County FIPS, Data Source, Revision Date TblEM : State FIPS, County FIPS, Data Source, Revision Date, CAP/HAP, Year, Emission Ton Value, Emission Type Period TblEP : State FIPS, County FIPS, Data Source, Revision Date TblPE : State FIPS, County FIPS, Data Source, Revision Date TblTR : State FIPS, County FIPS, Revision Date

Data source codes are included to document the origin of the emissions data, which assists in tracking and quality-assuring revisions made to the emission estimates. Table IV-3 provides a listing of the data source codes included in th e MANE-VU nonroad invent ories, as well as a definition of each code. State FIPS and County FI PS are separated out to assist in developing area-specific emission summaries, and the Emissi on Ton Value places all emissions on the same basis. The Emission Type Period describes the tem poral basis of the estimates (in this case, they are all annual). Finally, the Revision Date tracks when reco rd-specific changes are made.82 Table IV-3. Data Source Code Descriptions

Data Source Code Description E-02-F E = EPA-generated data; -02 = year 2002; -F = emissions are carried fo rward for inclusion in the 2002 base year E-02-X E = EPA-generated data; -02 = year 2002; -F = emissions are not gr own or carried forward P-02-X P = RPO-generated data; -02 = year 2002; -X = emissions are not grown or carried forward S-02-X S = State data; -02 = year 2002 data; -X = emissions are not grown or carried forward

3. Version 3 Emission Summaries

Table IV-4 presents a summary of the annual 200 2 nonroad sector pollutant emissions for each MANE-VU State, as well as a regional total. These emissi ons include SCCs for all NONROAD model engines, as well as aircraft, commercial marine vessel, and locomotive categories, where applicable, for each State. Table IV-5 pres ents the emission results for NONROAD model equipment only, while Table IV-6 provides emissi on estimates for aircraft, commercial marine vessel, and locomotive categories separately.

Table IV-4. Annual 2002 Nonroad Sect or Emissions by MANE-VU State (Tons/Year)

State CO NH 3 NO x PM10-PRI PM25-PRI SO 2 VOC Connecticut 276,773.0 16.6 25,460. 2 1,952.1 1,793.9 2,087.4 33,880.2 Delaware 68,782.0 5.2 16,22 6.5 1,021.4 925.6 3,983.3 8,010.1 District of Columbia 18,844.7 2.4 3,571.3 310.2 298.7 375.4 2,072.5 Maine 153,423.6 11.4 9,820.4 1,436.8 1,329.4 916.8 31,144.1 Maryland 437,400.3 28.2 37,472. 2 4,936.0 4,357.1 7,941.6 56,330.4 Massachusetts 461,514.3 28.2 42,76 8.5 3,531.2 3,226.4 3,791.2 56,748.5 New Hampshire 130,782.2 9.1 9, 912.1 1,057.8 965.4 891.0 22,376.5 New Jersey 704,396.4 43.0 63,479. 0 5,495.1 4,997.2 15, 686.0 83,918.9 New York 1,233,968.3 79.3 109,878.3 9,605.3 8, 820.9 12,919.7 157,611.7 Pennsylvania 931,978.0 55.0 103,824. 2 9,737.9 8,440.1 7,915.0 102,331.0 Rhode Island 73,012.7 4.1 5,001.5 500.2 443. 1 377.2 7,779.7 Vermont 62,248.1 4.5 4,217.1 529.9 485. 8 372.1 10,547.6 Total MANE-VU 4,553,123. 5 286.9 431,631.3 40, 113.9 36,083.6 57, 256.6 572,751.383 Table IV-5. Annual 2002 NONROAD2005 M odel Emissions by MANE-VU State (Tons/Year)

State CO NH 3 NO x PM10-PRI PM25-PRI SO 2 VOC Connecticut 274,387.6 16.6 17,897. 0 1,712.9 1,577.6 1,376.6 33,519.0 Delaware 65,954.1 4.9 5, 798.3 570.4 525.1 513.0 7,530.5 District of Columbia 18,774.9 2.4 3,066.4 298.4 287.8 341.3 2,052.9 Maine 148,555.3 11.4 8,228.9 1 ,204.2 1,135.1 771.8 30,741.0 Maryland 424,776.8 28.2 27,789. 1 3,118.7 2,870.4 2,569.2 53,035.0 Massachusetts 448,398.7 28.2 30,04 6.7 2,887.2 2,658.8 2,428.1 54,835.8 New Hampshire 128,571.5 9.1 8 ,149.5 946.8 871.7 672.7 22,237.8 New Jersey 692,547.9 43.0 43,515. 2 4,285.4 3,950.5 3,524.9 81,900.4 New York 1,219,308.7 79.3 78,648. 3 8,338.9 7,677.1 6,966.3 155,475.1 Pennsylvania 903,167.7 55.0 62,265. 2 6,281.5 5,784.3 5,292.4 99,240.9 Rhode Island 71,573.1 4.1 4 ,563.9 402.8 371. 1 335.5 7,698.7 Vermont 61,732.1 4.5 4,169. 9 517.6 476.6 367.6 10,520.4 Total MANE-VU 4,457,748. 6 286.6 294,138.2 30,564.8 28, 186.1 25,159.4 558,787.4

Table IV-6. Annual 2002 Aircraft, Commercial Marine, and Locomotive Emissions by MANE-VU State (Tons/Year)

State CO NH 3 NO x PM10-PRI PM25-PRI SO 2 VOC Connecticut 2,385.4 0.0 7 ,563.2 239.2 216. 4 710.8 361.2 Delaware 2,827.9 0.3 10,42 8.2 451.1 400.5 3,470.3 479.6 District of Columbia 69.7 0.0 505.0 11.8 10.9 34.1 19.7 Maine 4,868.3 0.0 1,591. 5 232.6 194.3 145.0 403.1 Maryland 12,623.5 0.0 9,683. 2 1,817.3 1,486.7 5,372.3 3,295.4 Massachusetts 13,115.6 0.0 12, 721.7 644.0 567.6 1,363.1 1,912.7 New Hampshire 2,210.7 0.0 1 ,762.5 111.0 93. 7 218.3 138.6 New Jersey 11,848.5 0.0 19,963. 9 1,209.7 1,046.7 12,161.1 2,018.6 New York 14,659.6 0.0 31,230. 0 1,266.4 1,143.8 5,953.4 2,136.6 Pennsylvania 28,810.2 0.0 41,55 9.0 3,456.4 2,655. 8 2,622.7 3,090.2 Rhode Island 1,439.6 0.0 437.6 97.4 72.1 41.7 81.0
Vermont 516.0 0.0 47. 3 12.2 9.2 4.5 27.2 Total MANE-VU 95,374.9 0.3 137,4 93.1 9,549.1 7,897.4 32,097.3 13,963.984 B. State-Specific Methods

The following sections describe the methods us ed and QA issues addres sed for each MANE-VU State in developing Version 3.0 of M ANE-VU’s nonroad sect or inventory.

1. Connecticut

a. What Data Sources Were Used?

Pechan ran EPA’s NMIM2005 to generate NONROAD model SCC emission estimates. Pechan incorporated Connecticut-supplied data for gaso line sulfur content and RVP into the NMIM database. Pechan used NMIM defaults for di esel sulfur content and for weight percent oxygenate values. The final input data by c ounty and by month are summarized in Table B-1.

Aircraft and commercial marine vessel emissi ons are based on the preliminary 2002 nonroad NEI. In March 2006, Connecticut provided county-level emission estimates for VOC, NO x , and CO for all line-haul and sw itchyard locomotive SCCs.

b. What QA Issues were Identified and Addressed?

For commercial aircraft (S CC 2275020000), PM10-PRI and PM25-PRI were not reported in the EPA’s NEI. For completeness, Pechan estimat ed PM10-PRI emissions by applying an average PM10-PRI/NO x emission ratio of 0.058 to available NO x emissions. Commer cial aircraft PM25- PRI emissions were estimated by multiplying PM10-PRI emissions by a particle size multiplier of 0.976 (ERG, 2004).

c. What Issues Need to be A ddressed in Future Versions?

Because EPA’s NEI does not include locomotive category emission estimates for Connecticut, and since Connecticut only provi ded emission estimates for VOC, NO x , and CO, estimates are still missing for PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI, and SO 2
.

2. Delaware

a. What Data Sources Were Used?

Pechan used NMIM2005 to generate NONROAD model SCC emission estimates. Delaware approved of the fuel inputs used in NMIM2005. The final fuel input data by county and by month are summarized in Table B- 1. Delaware provided updated f iles listed in Table IV-7 to replace the default files used in NMIM. These included county allocation files for five nonroad categories, and a revised equipm ent population file with updated populations for specific SCCs.85 Table IV-7. Delaware NONROAD External Data Files

County NR File Name File Type 10000air.alo County allocation for airport GSE 10000gc.alo County allocation for golf carts 10000hou.alo County allocation for lawn & garden 10000log.alo County allocation for logging 10000rvp.alo County allocation for land-based recreational 10000.pop Equipment population

Pechan used Delaware’s June 2004 CERR submitta l as the basis for aircraft, locomotive and commercial marine vessel category estimat es in the 2002 MANE-VU inventory.

i. What Revisions Were Requested by State?

In September 2004, Delaware provided correctio ns to the general aviation emissions (SCC 227505000) for all pollutants for Kent County to a dd in general aviation activity at Dover Air Force Base.

b. What QA Issues were Identified and Addressed?

Pechan performed QA of the file, and revised the file to address QA issues as approved by Delaware. Commercial ai rcraft (SCC 2275020000) included emission estimates for all pollutants except PM25-PRI. Pechan calculated commercial aircraft PM25-PRI emissions using the assumption that 97.6% of PM10-PRI is PM25-PRI (ERG, 2004).

c. What Issues Need to be A ddressed in Future Versions?

None identified by the State.

3. District of Columbia

a. What Data Sources Were Used?

Pechan developed NONROAD Model SCC emi ssions for District of Columbia using NONROAD2005. NONROAD2005 was used directly instead of NMIM 2005 to incorporate State-supplied weight percent oxygen data. The District of Columb ia also requested changes to the default NMIM RVP and gasoline values for some months. The final fuel input data by county and by month are summarized in Table B-1.

The 2002 minimum, maximum, and average hourly temperatures included in NMIM were used to calculate average monthly temperature i nputs to NONROAD. Pech an developed monthly NONROAD2005 option files for the Di strict of Columbia. Pechan ran the option files through NONROAD2005 to generate monthly emissions that were then summed to develop an annual 2002 inventory. Pechan performed additional ca lculations using NMIM emission factors and NONROAD2005 fuel consump tion to calculate NH 3 , since NONROAD does not calculate NH 3 emissions. NMIM reports NH 3 emission factors of 116 grams NH 3 per gallon gasoline for gasoline engines, and 83 grams NH 3 per gallon fuel for diesel engines.86 The District of Columbia pr ovided locomotive emissions for their nonroad sector June 2004 CERR submittal.

b. What QA Issues were Identified and Addressed?

Pechan performed QA of the file , and revised the file to addr ess QA issues as approved by the District of Columbia. PM emissions in th e inventory were not id entified as either PM 10 or PM 2.5 , nor were the emissions identified as primary or f ilterable. The District of Columbia authorized Pechan to change PM to PM10-PRI. Locomotiv e PM25-PRI emissions were estimated using the assumption that 90 percent of PM 10 is PM 2.5 (EPA, 2003b). Hydrocarbon (HC) pollutant emissions were also removed from the inventory, as this is not a valid pollutant code in NIF3.0.

Pechan added commercial marine vessel emissi ons from the preliminary 2002 Nonroad NEI. There are no aircraft emission estimates in the NE I for the District of Columbia, since there are not airports located in th e District of Columbia.

c. What Issues Need to be A ddressed in Future Versions?

None identified by the State.

4. Maine

a. What Data Sources Were Used?

Pechan developed NONROAD model SCC em issions using NONROAD2005. For Maine, weight percent oxygen values were submitted base d on actual fuel survey results by county and by month, but Maine had not tracked the corr esponding oxygenate volume percent and market share. As such, Pechan used NONROAD2005 so th at Maine’s values for weight percent oxygen could be reflected. Maine also provided revision s to the RVP and gasoline sulfur values reported in NMIM2005. Pechan developed NONROAD2005 monthly option files for two county groups in Maine that shared values for all three fu el inputs (see Appendix C, Table C-1). The 2002 minimum, maximum, and average hourly temperatur es included in NMIM were used to calculate average monthly temperature inputs to NONROAD. Pechan ran the option files through NONROAD2005 to generate monthly emissions that were then summed to develop an annual 2002 inventory. Pechan performed additional ca lculations using NMIM emission factors and fuel consumption to calculate NH 3 , since NONROAD does not calculate NH 3 emissions. NMIM reports NH 3 emission factors of 116 grams NH 3 per gallon gasoline for gasoline engines, and 83 grams NH 3 per gallon fuel for diesel engines.87 i. What Revisions Were Requested by State?

In October 2004, Maine provided aircraft, co mmercial marine vessel, and locomotive SCC emissions to be added to their inventory. Commercial marine emissions submitted by Maine only represented in-port emissions. Diesel and residual commercial marine underway emissions (SCCs 2280002200 and 2280003200) were based on EPA’s 2002 preliminary NEI.

b. What QA Issues were Identified and Addressed?

PM25-PRI estimates were missing from all aircra ft SCC records provided by Maine. Pechan estimated general aviation, military aircraft, and air taxi PM25-PRI emissions by multiplying PM10-PRI emissions by a particle size multiplie r of 0.69 (EPA, 2003b). Commercial aircraft PM25-PRI emissions were estimated by multiplying PM10-PRI emissions by a particle size multiplier of 0.976 (ERG, 2004). In-port commer cial marine emissions (SCC 2280002100) were missing estimates for PM10-PRI and PM25-PRI. Pechan estimated PM10-PRI emissions by applying a PM10-PRI/NO x emission ratio of 0.042 to available NO x emissions. PM25-PRI emissions were estimated by multiplying PM10-PRI emissions by a particle size multiplier of 0.92 (EPA, 2003b).

c. What Issues Need to be A ddressed in Future Versions?

None identified by the State.

5. Maryland

a. What Data Sources Were Used?

Pechan used NMIM2005 to prepare NONROAD model SCC emission estimates. Maryland reviewed the default NMIM inputs and provide d revisions to the input values for RVP and weight percent oxygen for all months. Maryland requested that a value of 2.1 percent oxygen be used for all counties and months. This weight percent value was then converted to a volume percent of 11.8 percent for use in NMIM, assu ming MTBE was the only oxygenate. In addition, gasoline sulfur content revisions were incorporated into NMIM for select counties for the months of April through September. The final fuel i nput data by county and by month are summarized in Table B-1.

Maryland also provided updated file s listed in Table IV-8 to repl ace the default files used in NMIM. These included county allocation files for several nonroad categories.

Table IV-8. Maryland NONROAD External Data Files

County NR File Name File Type 24000pop.alo County allocation for several nonroad categories (population) 24000con.alo County allocation for construction 24000hou.alo County allocation for lawn & garden88 Pechan used Maryland’s nonroad sector CERR submittal as the basis for the MANE-VU inventory for the aircraft, locomotive and commercial marine vessel categories.

i. What Revisions Were Requested by State?

In September 2004, Maryland provided revised ai rcraft and commercial marine vessel emission estimates. Pechan replaced the aircraft and commercial marine vessel emissions from their CERR submittal with the revised emissions.

b. What QA Issues were Identified and Addressed?

Pechan performed QA of the file, and revised the file to address QA issues as approved by Maryland. Maryland did not provide PM25-PRI aircra ft emissions in their inventory. Pechan estimated general aviation, military aircraft, and air taxi PM25-PRI emissions by multiplying PM10-PRI emissions by a particle size multiplie r of 0.69 (EPA, 2003b). Commercial aircraft PM25-PRI emissions were estimated by multiplying PM10-PRI emissions by a particle size multiplier of 0.976 (ERG, 2004).

c. What Issues Need to be A ddressed in Future Versions?

None identified by the State.

6. Massachusetts

a. What Data Sources Were Used?

Pechan used NMIM2005 to generate NON ROAD model SCC emission estimates. Massachusetts reviewed the NMIM inputs and ap proved of the fuel input values for RVP and gasoline sulfur content. NMIM2005 reported a weight percent oxygen of 2.1 percent for all months for all counties in Massach usetts, and the State requested a value of 1.5 percent be used for all counties from October through April. Th is weight percent value was then converted to a volume percent of 8.4 percent for use in NMIM, given that MTBE was the only oxygenate. Final fuel input data by county and by month are presented in Table B-1.

Massachusetts provided annual emissions for airc raft, locomotive and commercial marine vessel categories for their nonroad sector CERR submitta l. These inventories included all CAP.

i. What Revisions Were Requested by State?

Massachusetts requested that P echan incorporate revisions supp lied for annual emissions for inport diesel commercial marine (SCC 2280002010) for Dukes County (25007).89 b. What QA Issues were Identified and Addressed?

Pechan changed the aircraft SCC “2275050000” to “2275000000,” since Massachusetts verified that this emission record repr esents all aircraft types, not just general aviation.

c. What Issues Need to be A ddressed in Future Versions?

None identified by the State.

7. New Hampshire

a. What Data Sources Were Used?

Pechan used NMIM2005 to generate NONRO AD model SCC emission estimates. New Hampshire reviewed and approved of the fuel inputs used in NMIM2005. See Table B-1 for a summary of the final fuel i nput data by county and month.

Pechan used New Hampshire’s nonroad sector CERR submittal as the basis for the MANE-VU aircraft and locomotive inventory. Pechan adde d commercial marine vessel emissions from the preliminary 2002 Nonroad NEI.

b. What QA Issues were Identified and Addressed?

Pechan performed QA of the file , and revised the file to addr ess QA issues as approved by New Hampshire. New Hampshire did not provide PM 10 and PM 2.5 aircraft emissions in their inventory. New Hampshire authorized Pechan to develop aircraft PM 10 emissions for all aircraft types by applying an average PM10/NO x emission ratio to the aircraft NO x emissions in their inventory. The PM 10 /NO x ratios used were 3.819 for military and air taxi, 3.642 for general aviation, and 0.058 for commercial aircraft. Pechan estimated general aviation, military aircraft, and air taxi PM25-PRI emissions by multiplyi ng PM10-PRI emissions by a particle size multiplier of 0.69 (EPA, 2003b). For commercia l aircraft, Pechan estimated PM25-PRI emissions using the assumption that 97.6% of PM 10 is PM 2.5 (ERG, 2004).

c. What Issues Need to be A ddressed in Future Versions?

None identified by the State.

8. New Jersey

a. What Data Sources Were Used?

Pechan used NMIM2005 to generate NONROAD model SCC emission estimates. New Jersey approved of the default fuel inputs used in NMIM2005. See Table B-1 for a summary of the final fuel input data by county and month. New Jersey provided an updated data input file90 containing revised equipment popul ations (34000.pop) for specific SCCs for the NMIM model

runs.

Pechan used New Jersey’s nonroad sector CERR submittal as the basis for the aircraft, locomotive and commercial marine vessel catego ries. These inventor ies included all CAPs.

b. What QA Issues were Identified and Addressed?

Pechan performed QA of the file , and revised the file to addr ess QA issues as approved by New Jersey. The only QA issue identified was the inclusion of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) in the inventory, which is not a valid pollutant code in NIF3.0, so these records were removed.

c. What Issues Need to be A ddressed in Future Versions?

None identified by the State.

9. New York

a. What Data Sources Were Used?

Pechan used NMIM2005 to generate NONROAD model SCC emission estimates. New York reviewed the default NMIM inputs and provide d revisions to the input values for RVP and gasoline sulfur for all months. New York also requested revisions to weight percent oxygen values for all counties and months. These wei ght percent values were then converted to a volume percent for use in NMIM, based on MTBE as the only oxygenate for all counties, with the exception of four counties. These included Cattaraugus, Chautauqua, Erie, and Niagara counties, which use ETOH as the oxygenate. Th e final fuel input data by county and by month are summarized in Table B-1.

For the aircraft and locomotive categories, Pech an used emissions reported in the preliminary 2002 Nonroad NEI.

i. What Revisions Were Requested by State?

In October 2004, New York provided commercial ma rine vessel emissions to be added to their inventory. New York did not provide PM-2.5 commercial mari ne vessel emissions for some counties in their inventory. Pechan estimat ed the commercial marine vessel PM25-PRI emissions from PM10-PRI using the assumption that 92% of PM 10 is PM 2.5 (EPA, 2003b).91 b. What QA Issues were Identified and Addressed?

Commercial aircraft (SCC 2275020000) emissi ons for PM10-PRI and PM25-PRI were not reported in the EPA’s preliminary 2002 NEI. Pechan estimated PM10-PRI emissions by applying a PM10-PRI/NO x emission ratio of 0.058 to available NO x emissions for this SCC. Commercial aircraft PM25-PRI emissions were estimated by multiplying PM10-PRI emissions by a particle size multiplier of 0.976 (ERG, 2004).

c. What Issues Need to be A ddressed in Future Versions?

None identified by the State.

10. Pennsylvania

a. What Data Sources Were Used?

Pechan used NMIM2005 to generate NONROAD model SCC emission estimates. Pennsylvania approved of the fuel inputs provided, which we re based on the onroad MOBILE6 inputs. Since these differed from the values in NMIM2005, Pe chan updated the NMIM profiles accordingly. See Table B-1 for a summary of the final fuel input data by county a nd month. Pennsylvania provided one county allocation file for the lawn and garden category (42000hou.alo) to replace the default file used in NMIM.

Pennsylvania submitted an aircraft, locomotive, and commercial marine vessel emissions inventory to MANE-VU after the CERR submittal date.

i. What Revisions Were Requested by State?

In August 2005, Pennsylvania provided Pechan with county-level updates to SCC 2285002006 (Line Haul Locomotives: Class I Operations) emi ssions for all pollutants. Pechan updated all emission records for this SCC in Pennsylvania's inventory.

b. What QA Issues were Identified and Addressed?

Pennsylvania authorized Pechan to remove the CO 2 emission records from their inventory. In addition, the following data augmentation was perf ormed to add missing SCCs and pollutants. Pennsylvania did not provide commercial aircraft emissions in their inventory. Pechan added commercial aircraft emissions from the 2002 pr eliminary NEI to Pennsylvania’s inventory. Pennsylvania did not provide PM10-PRI and PM25- PRI aircraft emissions in their inventory. Pechan developed aircraft PM 10 emissions for all aircraft t ypes by applying an average PM 10 / NO x emission ratio to Pennsylva nia’s available aircraft NO x emissions. The PM 10 /NO x ratios used were 3.819 for military and air taxi, 3.642 for general aviation, and 0.058 for commercial aircraft. Pechan estimated general aviation, m ilitary aircraft, and air taxi PM25-PRI emissions by multiplying PM10-PRI emissions by a partic le size multiplier of 0.69 (EPA, 2003b). For commercial aircraft, Pechan estimated PM25-PRI emissions using the assumption that 97.6% of PM 10 is PM 2.5 (ERG, 2004).92 Pennsylvania also did not provide SO 2 general aviation and air taxi emissions in the inventory. Pechan estimated the SO 2 emissions by applying a SO 2 /NO x emission ratio to the general aviation and air taxi NO x emissions, using ratios of 0.154 and 0.095, respectively.

c. What Issues Need to be A ddressed in Future Versions?

None identified by the State.

11. Rhode Island

a. What Data Sources Were Used?

Pechan used NMIM2005 to generate NONROAD model SCC emission estimates. Rhode Island approved of the fuel inputs used in NMIM2005. See Table B-1 for a summary of the final fuel input data by county and month. Rhode Isla nd provided a revised eq uipment population file (44000.pop) with updated populations for specific S CCs to replace the default file used in NMIM.

Rhode Island provided emissions for aircraft , locomotive and commercial marine vessel categories for their nonroad sector CERR submittal.

i. What Revisions Were Requested by State?

Rhode Island provided updates in September 2004 to their county-level railroad equipment emissions. The new emissions fall under SCC 2285002005 and replace all line haul locomotive emissions provided in their CERR submittal. Emission estimates for yard locomotives were also provided (SCC 2285002010).

b. What QA Issues were Identified and Addressed?

Pechan performed QA of the file, and revised the file to address QA issues as approved by Rhode Island.

PM 10 was not identified as either primary or filte rable. Rhode Island authorized Pechan to change it to PM10-PRI. To avoid double c ounting, Pechan removed the following SCCs from Rhode Island’s inventory: 2275000000, 2280002000, 2280002020, 2280003000, and 2280003020. These emissions are accounted for unde r more specific SCCs for aircraft, and more aggregate SCCs for commercial marine.

Rhode Island did not provide PM10-PRI and PM 25-PRI aircraft emissions in their inventory. Pechan developed aircraft PM 10 emissions for all aircraft t ypes by applying an average PM 10 / NO x emission ratio to the aircraft NO x emissions in their inventory. The PM 10 /NO x ratios used were 3.819 for military and air taxi, 3.642 for general aviation, and 0.058 for commercial aircraft. Pechan estimated general aviation, m ilitary aircraft, and air taxi PM25-PRI emissions by multiplying PM10-PRI emissions by a partic le size multiplier of 0.69 (EPA, 2003b). For93 commercial aircraft, Pechan estimated PM25-PRI emissions using the assumption that 97.6% of PM 10 is PM 2.5 (ERG, 2004).

Rhode Island did not provide yard locomotiv e, and commercial marine vessel PM25-PRI emissions in their inventory. Pechan estimated the yard locomotive PM25-PRI emissions from PM10-PRI using the assumption that 90% of PM 10 is PM25 (EPA, 2003b). Pechan estimated the commercial marine vessel PM25-PRI emissions fr om PM10-PRI using the assumption that 92% of PM 10 is PM 2.5 (EPA, 2003b).

c. What Issues Need to be A ddressed in Future Versions?

None identified by the State.

12. Vermont

a. What Data Sources Were Used?

Pechan developed NONROAD model SCC emi ssions for Vermont using NMIM2005. Vermont approved of the default fuel input values us ed in NMIM2005 for weight percent oxygen, but requested that the RVP and gasolin e sulfur values reflect values used for onroad mobile source emissions.

Pechan added aircraft emissions for Vermont from the preliminary 2002 Nonroad NEI.

b. What QA Issues were Identified and Addressed?

Commercial aircraft (SCC 2275020000) emissi ons for PM10-PRI and PM25-PRI were not reported in the EPA’s preliminary 2002 NEI. Pechan estimated PM10-PRI emissions by applying an average PM10-PRI/NO x emission ratio of 0.058 to available NO x emissions. Commercial aircraft PM25-PRI emissions were estimated by multiplying PM10-PRI emissions by a particle size multiplier of 0.976 (ERG, 2004).

c. What Issues Need to be A ddressed in Future Versions?

Note that there are no locomotive or commercial marine vessel emissions in the NEI for Vermont. Where activity for any of these SCCs occurs in Vermont, th ese categories are not represented in the State’s inventory.94 CHAPTER V

– ONROAD SOURCES

A. General Methods for All States

This section provides an overview of the data sources and QA steps used in preparing the 2002 onroad sector inventory for the MANE-VU Stat es and in preparing the corresponding modeling inputs for the MANE-VU Version 3 modeling invent ory. The onroad sector is comprised of all motorized vehicles that travel on the public highways including passenger cars, light-duty trucks, minivans, sport utility vehicles, heavy-duty trucks , and buses. It should be noted that, unlike the other emission sectors, the modeling inventory inputs for the onroad sector do not include any emissions data. The primary modeling inputs for th e onroad sector instead are the activity inputs (vehicle miles traveled (V MT)) and SMOKE-formatted MOBILE6 input files. The SMOKE model then generates full MOBI LE6 input files using the MOBI LE6 inputs, speed inputs, and meteorological inputs for the episode(s) to be modeled, runs the MOBILE6 emission factor model to calculate the appropriate emission fact ors, and calculates emissions using the supplied VMT and additional temporal allocation factors for the VMT.

1. Data Sources

a. Source of default model data

The MANE-VU 2002 onroad emissions inventory was compiled from data supplied by the MANE-VU State agencies in the form of onroad emissions input data or emissions inventories either directly to MANE-VU or to EPA through their CERR submittal. States provided information in one or more of the following ways: (1) an onroad emission inventory submittal to EPA, (2) MOBILE6 inputs and VMT data in NMIM format to EPA, (3) portions of MOBILE6 inputs or full MOBILE6 input files and supporting files plus VMT to EPA, or (4) portions of MOBILE6 inputs or full MOBILE6 input files and supporting files plus VMT to MANE-VU. Different procedures were followed in developing the MANE-VU 2002 onroad emission inventory depending upon how the data were submitted.

As discussed above, the primary data needed in preparing the inputs for the onroad modeling files were the VMT data and MO BILE6 input files. All of the MANE-VU States provided VMT data, which were incorporated in the SMOKE modeling. The leve l of detail of the supplied VMT data and any additional processing of the VM T data are discussed i ndividually by State, below, in Section B: State-Sp ecific Methods. Therefore, no de fault data were needed for the VMT inputs. Default model inputs for the SMOK E MOBILE6 input files were needed in some cases. The source of default information to be included in these input files was the NMIM national county database, as this was also the default source of data for EPA in preparing the 2002 NEI. This database includes information on monthly fuel data by county, control program information by county, such as inspection and main tenance (I/M) program inputs, and other fleet information, such as vehicle regist ration distributions, that may have been supplied by the States. Additionally, vehicle speed information is needed in the SMOKE modeling files. Some States supplied this information. In cases where no speed data were supplied, the default speeds used by EPA in calculating the NEI were used. These speeds differ by road class group and by vehicle class group.95 For the SMOKE modeling, Pechan did not provide any ambient data such as temperature or humidity. Instead, the SMOKE model needs meteor ological input data sp ecific to the episode(s) being modeled. Thus, although the SMOKE MOBILE6 input files do include temperature data and in some cases humidity data, these inputs will be replaced by the SMOKE model with the appropriate episode-specific data.

b. Model inputs and revisions provided by States

The model inputs and revisions provided by the St ates are discussed in detail in Section B, below. These inputs include VMT data, VMT temporal data, vehicle speeds, I/M program inputs, registrations distributions , and other MOBILE6 input data.

c. Model inputs provided vs. model inputs used

Pechan prepared the followi ng model input files for Versi on 3 of the MANE-VU modeling inventory:

• MANEVU_2002_mbinv_02022006.txt—c ontains VMT and speeds by county and SCC;

• MANEVU_2002_mtpro_02022006.txt—contains VMT temporal profiles;

• MANEVU_2002_mtref_02022006.txt—c ontains cross references between temporal profiles and county/SCC;

• MANEVU_2002_vmtmix_02022006.txt—contains VMT vehicle mix fractions;

• MANEVU_2002_mcref_02022006.txt—contains cr oss reference between MANE-VU counties and the SMOKE MOBILE6 input files;

• MANEVU_2002_mvref_02022006.txt—cont ains general county-level information for SMOKE;

• MANEVU_2002_spdpro.txt—contains hour ly speed profiles (SPDPRO);

• MANEVU_2002_spdref.txt—contains cross re ferences between speed profiles and MANE-VU county/SCC;

• MANEVU_2002_mcodes.txt—contains inform ation on SCCs used in MBINV file;

• MANEVU_SMOKE_M6Inputs_MA_NJ_02022006.zip—contains monthly SMOKEformatted MOBILE6 input files for Massachus etts and New Jersey, updated for Version 3;

• MANEVU_2002_SMOKE_M6_InputFiles0320 04.zip—contains monthly SMOKEformatted MOBILE6 input files for all MANE -VU States. Files for Massachusetts and New Jersey from this zip file should be re placed by the Version 3 files dated 02/02/2006.

• MANEVU_2002_SMOKE_M6_ExternalFiles.zip—cont ains external data files called by the SMOKE MOBILE6 input files.

2. What Quality Assurance Steps were Performed?

This section provides a brief summary of the QA st eps and processes that were performed in the development of the onroad sector modeling input s for MANE-VU. The initial QA procedures were performed on the emissions and input data used to calculate the MANE-VU 2002 onroad96 emission inventory. Some of these QA procedur es are also relevant here to the modeling inventory as many of the inputs are either the same or start with common information.

For States submitting onroad emission inventories to EPA, Pechan performed QA checks on the State-provided emission inventory da ta to ensure completeness, referential integrity, and correct formatting of the data. Where necessary as a re sult of these QA checks, and with the approval of the affected State, Pechan revise d the inventories to meet the nece ssary inventory standards. For the modeling inventory, the VMT checks included in these QA checks are relevant. Note that a Quality Assurance Plan was prepared prior to initiating work on Version 1 (MANE-VU, 2003). This plan was applied during development of all three versions of the MANE-VU inventory.

a. Data input summary spre adsheets for State review

In reviewing the data submitted for both the a nnual onroad inventory and the onroad modeling files, Pechan prepared a State QA report for each St ate. These reports were in the form of Excel spreadsheets. In each of the State QA reports , a page was included that summarized the modeling inputs. This included MOBILE6 input pa rameters, such as I/M data, registration data, and fuel data. Columns were included indica ting the data file name, data coverage (e.g., statewide or for specific countie s), data source, any comments re garding the data , an indication of whether any guidance was requested from th e State agency before proceeding, and columns for State agency approval of the listed inputs. These reports were provided to each State agency and the State could either approve the inputs summa rized or provide an al ternate data source or calculation method. For States th at had submitted emission inventor ies in NIF format, results of the NIF QA checks were also included in these St ate QA reports for the states to review and approve and provide alternate data or methods. This table also include information on the VMT data source and any proposed methodologi es needed for processing the VMT.

b. Responses from State Agencies

The appropriate State agency staff reviewed the State QA reports and provided direction for correcting QA issues either in the QA Summary Report Excel file or vi a e-mail. The modeling inputs were then revised to incor porate responses from the agencies.

3. Version 3 Emission Summaries

Table V-1 presents a summary of the annual 200 2 Version 3 MANE-VU onr oad sector pollutant emissions for each MANE-VU State, as well as a regional total. Diffe rences between these Version 3 annual emission totals and the Vers ion 2 totals documented in the January 2005 MANE-VU mobile sources inventory report are the result of updated da ta provided by New Jersey and Massachusetts. Emissions for the rema ining states have not changed. It should be noted that these emission results are from the annual inventory modeling. These will differ from the results obtained by the SMOKE onroad modeli ng. Additionally, the emissions in this table do not reflect VMT updates from Vermont that were provided after the Version 2 MANE-VU annual inventory had been calculated, but were included in the SMOKE Version 2 and Version 3 modeling inputs.97 Table V-1. Annual 2002 Onroad Sect or Emissions by MANE-VU State (Tons/Year)

State VOC NO x CO SO 2 PM10-PRI PM25-PRI NH 3 Connecticut 31,755.3 68,816.2 562, 124.0 1,666.9 1,580. 0 1,041.6 3,293.9 Delaware 10,563.8 21,340.5 160,760.4 583.9 581.1 414.9 902.8 District of Columbia 4,895.3 8, 902.0 66,017.6 271. 1 222.0 153.0 397.8 Maine 23,037.4 54,686.8 410,9 57.8 1,803.9 1,239. 1 934.4 1,467.5 Maryland 61,846.7 122,210.0 1,000, 762.8 4,057.6 3,168. 3 2,200.4 5,594.3 Massachusetts 57,185.5 143,367.6 1, 039,100.1 4,398.8 3, 407.5 2,409.9 5,499.1 New Hampshire 16,762.3 33,283. 0 306,792.5 776.9 814.3 561.8 1,447.0 New Jersey 89,752.9 152,076.1 1,273, 513.1 3,648.6 3,725. 3 2,469.0 7,382.0 New York 287,845.2 319,7 32.5 3,711,149.6 10,639.5 8 ,457.5 5,897. 7 14,680.9 Pennsylvania 176,090.3 346, 471.5 2,784,196.5 10,924. 1 7,351.5 5,331. 2 10,532.3 Rhode Island 12,537.8 16,677. 2 186,196.8 425.3 345.1 210.5 852.6 Vermont 17,287.8 20,669.9 248,247.6 893.8 669.6 482.8 934.1 Total MANE-VU 789,560.3 1, 308,233.3 11,749,818. 8 40,090.5 31,561.3 22,107.2 52,984.3

B. State-Specific Methods

The following sections describe what modeling inputs were used for each State and how these inputs were developed.

1. Connecticut

a. What Data Sources Were Used?

Table V-2 summarizes the onroad SMOKE input file s that were prepared containing information for the State of Connecticut. This table notes the level of detail of the data included as well as the source of the original information used to create these data files.

The VMT inputs provided by Connecticut were in the form of three sets of data. This included a file with VMT by county and four road types (Expressway, Arterial/C ollector, Local, and Ramp), a set of Statewide VMT mixes at the 16 vehicle type-level fo r each of the four Connecticut road types, and a Statewide hourly VMT distribution file. Additional data provided by Connecticut showing the correspondence between the four Connecticut road types and the 12 Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) ro ad types were used to first distribute the county VMT to the 12 road types. Average da ily miles were converted to annual miles by multiplying the average daily miles by 365. Pech an then developed a simple MOBILE6 input file that used the Connecticut registration distribu tion and with a separate scenario for each of the VMT mixes provided at the 16 vehi cle type level. Pechan used the resulting MOBILE6 output file to extract the 28 vehicle ty pe VMT mix corresponding to each of the four Connecticut road types. The VMT data by county and 12 road type s were then multiplied by the 28 vehicle type VMT fractions to obtain a VMT file at the 28 vehi cle type level and 12 road type level by county (for use in calculating the annual emission inve ntory). VMT from these 28 vehicle types were98 then aggregated to the 12 ve hicle types needed for the SMOK E MBINV input file. The VMT mix fractions by vehicle type for each county and road type were also calcul ated for inclusion in the SMOKE VMTMIX file.

Table V-2. Connecticut Onroad Data in SMOKE Input Files

Final MANE-VU Version 3 SMOKE Input File Level of Detail Data Source VMT MANEVU_2002_mbinv_02022006.txt County/SCC CT Speeds MANEVU_2002_mbinv_02022006.txt Road type/3 vehicle groups Default NEI Speed profiles MANEVU_2002_spdpro.txt and MANEVU_2002_spdref.txt County/hour/road type CT

VMT mix MANEVU_2002_vmtmix_02022006.txt Statewide/road type CT SMOKE MOBILE6 file listing MANEVU_2002_mcref_02022006.txt County

SMOKE MOBILE6 file listing MANEVU_2002_mvref_02022006.txt County

For Connecticut, speed information is contained in both the MBINV SMOKE file as well as in the SMOKE speed profile (SPDPRO) and speed cro ss reference file (SPDREF) files. The speed information contained in the MBINV file is simply the default NEI speed data. The actual speed data to be used in the modeling inventory fo r Connecticut are contained in the SMOKE SPDPRO and SPDREF. The speed data from these tw o files should overwrite the default speed information contained in the MBINV file dur ing the SMOKE modeling. The data used to develop the speed profiles were provided by Connecticut in the fo rm of NMIM speed input files with the fraction of VMT occurr ing within each of 14 speed bins. These speed distributions differ by hour of day and by freeways versus arterial s and collectors. Separate speed distribution files were provided by Connecticut for each county. Pechan then converted these speed data into the speed profile format needed for SMOKE —hourly average speeds by county and the two specified road types.

Connecticut provided the followi ng data that were incorporat ed into the monthly MOBILE6 input files for the SMOKE modeling:

• Statewide registration distribution;

• Hourly VMT distributions;

• Statewide I/M program inputs and Anaer obic Thermal Processor (ATP); and

• RVP and fuel program data.

The data submitted by Connecticut indicated that Federal Northern reformulated gasoline is in place in the State, with an ozone season RVP of 6.8 pounds per square inch (psi). Based on the NMIM modeling that was performed for the an nual emission inventory, the reformulated gasoline program was modeled in the SMOKE MOBILE6 input file s using the combination of the FUEL PROGRAM: 4 command (indicating user-supplied gasoline sulfur inputs), RVP command, and the OXYGENATED FUELS comma nd. The monthly oxygenated fuel and gasoline sulfur inputs, and th e non-ozone season monthly RVP va lues were obtained from the99 NMIM national county database for Connecticut . During the ozone season months, the RVP value submitted by Connecticut of 6.8 psi was modeled. The fuel data obtained from NMIM are the same for all counties in Conn ecticut, except Fairfield, which s hows different fuel properties, but all represent reformulated gasoline. Thes e values for both Fairfield and the remaining counties differed by season (i.e., the ozone seas on from May through September, transition months of March, April, Octobe r, and November, and the winter months of December, January, and February). Statewide diesel sulfur values modeled from NMIM were 367 ppm sulfur in the summer months (June, July, and August), 340 ppm sulfur in the winter months (December, January, and February), and 353 ppm sulfur in the spring and fall months.

Data provided by Connecticut indicated that th e State follows the OTC low emission vehicle (LEV) program vehicle implementation schedul e. Therefore, the OTC-LEV program LEV implementation schedule was included in the MOBILE6 SMOKE input files, starting implementation in the 1999 model year followe d by a full implementation of the National LEV program in the 2001 model year.

b. What QA Issues were Identified and Addressed?

No QA issues were identified for Connecticut.

c. What Issues Need to be A ddressed in Future Versions?

None identified by the State.

2. Delaware

a. What Data Sources Were Used?

Table V-3 summarizes the onroad SMOKE input file s that were prepared containing information for the State of Delaware. This table notes the le vel of detail of the data included as well as the source of the original information used to create these data files.

Delaware provided VMT data in the form of th e NEI NIF PE table as well as in the NMIM BaseYearVMT table format. Additionally, Delaware provided monthly VMT fractions developed from VMT counts on a va riety of road types. These monthly VMT fractions were provided for each of the Delaware counties. Since the data in the NEI NIF PE table were at the level of detail needed for the SMOKE MBINV file, the format of the VMT data was simply converted from the NIF format to the SMOKE MBINV format. Similarly, the monthly VMT fractions were converted to the profile format needed in the SMOKE MTPRO file, with the appropriate cross references in the MTREF file . The average speeds provided by Delaware at the county/road type level were in cluded in the SMOKE MBINV file.100 Table V-3. Delaware Onroad Data in SMOKE Input Files

Final MANE-VU Version 3 SMOKE Input File Level of Detail Data Source VMT MANEVU_2002_mbinv_02022006.txt County/SCC DE Speeds MANEVU_2002_mbinv_02022006.txt County/road type DE VMT mix MANEVU_2002_vmtmix_02022006.txt County/road type Temporal profiles MANEVU_2002_mtpro_02022006.txt and MANEVU_2002_mtref_02022006.txt Monthly by county/road type DE

SMOKE MOBILE6 file listing MANEVU_2002_mcref_02022006.txt County

SMOKE MOBILE6 file listing MANEVU_2002_mvref_02022006.txt County

The fuel data submitted by Delaware was based on the NMIM defaults with the NMIM October data replaced by the NMIM November data. The reformulated gas fuel parameters were modeled in the SMOKE MOBILE6 input files by using the combination of the OXYGENATED FUELS, FUEL RVP, and FUEL PROGRAM (for gasoli ne sulfur contents) commands for each month. Statewide diesel sulfur values modeled from NMIM were 300 ppm sulfur in the summer months (June, July, and August), 280 ppm sulfur in the winter months (December, January, and February), and 290 ppm sulfur in the spring and fall months.

Data provided by Delaware indicated that th e State follows the OTC-LEV program vehicle implementation schedule. Therefore, the OT C-LEV program LEV implementation schedule was included in the MOBILE6 SMOKE input files, starting implementation in the 1999 model year followed by a full implementation of the National LEV program in the 2001 model year.

b. What QA Issues were Identified and Addressed?

No QA issues were identified for Delaware.

c. What Issues Need to be A ddressed in Future Versions?

None identified by the State.

3. District of Columbia

a. What Data Sources Were Used?

Table V-4 summarizes the onroad SMOKE input file s that were prepared containing information for the District of Columbia. This table notes th e level of detail of the data included as well as the source of the original information used to create these data files.101 Table V-4. District of Columbia Onroad Data in SMOKE Input Files

Final MANE-VU Version 3 SMOKE Input File Level of Detail Data Source VMT MANEVU_2002_mbinv_02022006.txt County/SCC DC Speeds MANEVU_2002_mbinv_02022006.txt Road type DC VMT mix MANEVU_2002_vmtmix_02022006.txt Road type DC SMOKE MOBILE6 file listing MANEVU_2002_mcref_02022006.txt County

SMOKE MOBILE6 file listing MANEVU_2002_mvref_02022006.txt County

The District of Columbia pr ovided 2002 VMT data in the form of the NMIM BaseYearVMT table. This table included VMT at the 28 vehicle type level for each of the six urban road types in the District of Columbia. VMT from these 28 vehicle types were then aggregated to the 12 vehicle types needed for the SMOKE MBINV input file. The VMT mix fractions by vehicle type for each county and road type were also calculated for inclusion in the SMOKE VMTMIX file. The District also provided a spreadshee t including the daily aver age weighted speed by roadway class. These speeds were incorporated in the SMOKE MBINV file. The District of Columbia provided the following data that were incorporated into the monthly MOBILE6 input files for the SMOKE modeling:

• District-wide regist ration distribution;

• I/M program and ATP inputs; and

• Weekday trip length distribution file.

The District of Columbia specifi ed that the NMIM fuel program default data for the District should be used for the MANE-VU modeling. This included reformulated ga soline district wide, modeled using the FUEL RVP, and FUEL PROGRA M (for gasoline sulfur contents) commands for each month. Statewide diesel sulfur values modeled from NMIM were 329 ppm sulfur in the summer months (June, July, and August), 324 ppm sulfur in the winter months (December, January, and February), and 326 ppm sulfur in the spring and fall months.

Data provided by the District of Columbia indi cated that the District follows the OTC-LEV program vehicle implementation schedule. Therefore, the OTC-LEV program LEV implementation schedule was included in the MOBILE6 SMOKE input files, starting implementation in the 1999 model year followe d by a full implementation of the National LEV program in the 2001 model year.

b. What QA Issues were Identified and Addressed?

No QA issues were identified for the District of Columbia.102 c. What Issues Need to be A ddressed in Future Versions?

The SMOKE MOBILE6 files for the District of Columbia should include the OXYGENATED FUELS command to fully model reformulated ga soline in the District of Columbia. This command was inadvertently left out of the SMOKE MOBILE6 files.

4. Maine

a. What Data Sources Were Used?

Table V-5 summarizes the onroad SMOKE input file s that were prepared containing information for the State of Maine. This table notes the leve l of detail of the data included as well as the source of the original information used to create these data files.

Table V-5. Maine Onroad Data in SMOKE Input Files

Final MANE-VU Version 3 SMOKE Input File Level of Detail Data Source VMT MANEVU_2002_mbinv_02022006.txt County/SCC ME Speeds MANEVU_2002_mbinv_02022006.txt County/road type ME VMT mix MANEVU_2002_vmtmix_02022006.txt Statewide/road type Default SMOKE MOBILE6 file listing MANEVU_2002_mcref_02022006.txt County

SMOKE MOBILE6 file listing MANEVU_2002_mvref_02022006.txt County

Maine provided 2002 average daily VMT by c ounty and 12 roadway types. Maine had no information available on the distribution of VM T among vehicle types. Therefore, Pechan developed the VMT by county, roadway type, and vehicle type by using the default MOBILE6 2002 VMT mix by vehicle type. These VMT da ta were converted to annual VMT by multiplying the average daily VMT by 365. Th e MOBILE6 VMT default mix fractions by vehicle type for 2002 were included for Maine in the SMOKE VMTMIX file. Maine also provided average speed data by c ounty and roadway type. These data were included in the SMOKE MBINV file.

Maine provided the following data that were incorporat ed into the monthly MOBILE6 input files for the SMOKE modeling:

• I/M program inputs and ATP inputs for Cumberland County only; and

• Monthly average RVP data.

Statewide diesel sulfur values were obtained from the NMIM defaults for Maine. A diesel sulfur value of 390 ppm sulfur was modeled in the summer months (June, July, and August), 338 ppm sulfur in the winter months (December, January, and February), and 364 ppm sulfur in the spring and fall months.103 Data provided by Maine indicated that the State follows the OTC-LEV program vehicle implementation schedule. Therefore, the OT C-LEV program LEV implementation schedule was included in the MOBILE6 SMOKE input files, starting implementation in the 1999 model year followed by a full implementation of the National LEV program in the 2001 model year.

b. What QA Issues were Identified and Addressed?

No QA issues were identified for Maine.

c. What Issues Need to be A ddressed in Future Versions?

None identified by the State.

5. Maryland

a. What Data Sources Were Used?

Table V-6 summarizes the onroad SMOKE input file s that were prepared containing information for the State of Maryland. This table notes the le vel of detail of the data included as well as the source of the original information used to create these data files.

Maryland submitted annual VMT data in the form of a NIF tblMobilePE table. This included VMT by county, 12 vehicle types, and 12 road types. These VMT data were then converted to the format needed for the SMOKE MBINV file. Pechan calculated VMT mix fractions from the VMT data supplied by Maryland to obtain the VMT mixes by county and road type contained in the SMOKE VMTMIX file. In addition, Maryla nd provided monthly VM T distribution data by road type. Pechan converted these data to the format needed for the SMOKE MTPRO and MTREF files. The same set of monthly tempor al profiles were applied to all counties in Maryland. Maryland also provide d a spreadsheet show ing the average speed Statewide for each of the 12 roadway types. These speed data were included in the SMOKE MBINV file.

Maryland provided the following data that were incorporated into the monthly MOBILE6 input files for the SMOKE modeling:

• County-specific regist ration distribution;

• County-specific dies el sales fractions;

• I/M program inputs and ATP inputs to be applied in the 14 I/M counties; and

• Statewide monthly diesel sulfur content data.

Maryland indicated that the NMIM default fuel parameters for Maryland should be used in the MANE-VU modeling. This fuel da ta includes reformulated ga soline in 14 of the Maryland counties. The reformulated gasoline program was modeled using the FUEL RVP, and FUEL PROGRAM (for gasoline sulfur contents) co mmands for each month. Maryland provided monthly Statewide diesel sulfur values. Thes e values ranged from 455 ppm sulfur to 500 ppm104 sulfur. These values were included in the corresponding monthly SMOKE MOBILE6 input files.

Table V-6. Maryland Onroad Data in SMOKE Input Files

Final MANE-VU Version 3 SMOKE Input File Level of Detail Data Source VMT MANEVU_2002_mbinv_02022006.txt County/SCC MD Speeds MANEVU_2002_mbinv_02022006.txt County/road type MD VMT mix MANEVU_2002_vmtmix_02022006.txt County/road type MD Temporal profiles MANEVU_2002_mtpro_02022006.txt and MANEVU_2002_mtref_02022006.txt Statewide monthly by road type MD

SMOKE MOBILE6 file listing MANEVU_2002_mcref_02022006.txt County

SMOKE MOBILE6 file listing MANEVU_2002_mvref_02022006.txt County

Data provided by Maryland indicated that the State follows the OTC-LEV program vehicle implementation schedule. Therefore, the OT C-LEV program LEV implementation schedule was included in the MOBILE6 SMOKE input files, starting implementation in the 1999 model year followed by a full implementation of the National LEV program in the 2001 model year.

b. What QA Issues were Identified and Addressed?

No QA issues were identified for Maryland affecting the modeling inventory files.

c. What Issues Need to be A ddressed in Future Versions?

The SMOKE MOBILE6 files for Maryland should include the OXYGENATED FUELS command to fully model reformulated gasoline in the Maryland counties that implement the reformulated gasoline program. This command was inadvertently left out of the Maryland SMOKE MOBILE6 files.105 6. Massachusetts

a. What Data Sources Were Used?

Table V-7 summarizes the onroad SMOKE input file s that were prepared containing information for the State of Massachusetts. Th is table notes the level of detail of the data included as well as the source of the original information used to create these data files.

Table V-7. Massachusetts Onroad Data in SMOKE Input Files

Final MANE-VU Version 3 SMOKE Input File Level of Detail Data Source VMT MANEVU_2002_mbinv_02022006.txt County/SCC MA Speeds MANEVU_2002_mbinv_02022006.txt County/road type MA VMT mix MANEVU_2002_vmtmix_02022006.txt County/road type Default Temporal profiles MANEVU_2002_mtpro_02022006.txt and MANEVU_2002_mtref_02022006.txt Monthly by county MA

SMOKE MOBILE6 file listing MANEVU_2002_mcref_02022006.txt County

SMOKE MOBILE6 file listing MANEVU_2002_mvref_02022006.txt County

The Version 3 MANE-VU onroad modeling for Massachusetts differed from the Version 2 modeling, based on updates provided by Massachusetts in December 2005. The primary changes for Massachusetts from Version 3 is the use of updated 2002 VMT data and vehicle speed date. Massachusetts provided a spreadsh eet containing revised VM T values and vehicle speeds for 2002 by county and SCC. Pechan prep ared the revised Massachusetts VMT data and the speed data in the format of the SMOKE MB INV file. Using the revised VMT data by SCC, Pechan calculated the updated VMT mixes by vehicl e type for each county and road type in Massachusetts and formatted the resulting data to be included in the SMOKE VMTMIX file.

The original VMT data submitted by Massachusetts included VMT for each of the four seasons. Pechan used these data to develop monthl y VMT temporal profiles. Seasonal VMT was assigned to the months in that season based on the ratio of the number of days in a specific month to the number of days in the season. Pechan then form atted the monthly temporal VMT allocation factors for inclusion in the SMOKE MTPRO and MTREF files.106 Massachusetts provided the following data that were incorporated into the monthly MOBILE6 input files for the SMOKE modeling:

• Statewide registration distribution;

• Statewide I/M program inputs and ATP inputs;

• RVP and fuel program data;

• Diesel sulfur content of 350 ppm su lfur year-round and statewide; and

• Massachusetts-specific LEV and Tier 2 implementation files.

Northern reformulated gasoline was modeled stat ewide throughout the Stat e, with a RVP value of 6.7 psi during the ozone season and 13.5 psi during the remaining months, based on inputs provided by Massachusetts. The section below on QA issues for Massachusetts discusses the fuel inputs modeled in the Version 3 SMOKE MOBILE6 input files in more detail. Massachusetts provided the necessary inputs to model the State’s LEV implementation schedule and Tier 2 data, which differ from the OTC-LEV program and from the default MOBILE6 Tier 2 data.

b. What QA Issues were Identified and Addressed?

In addition to the VMT updates, Pechan re vised the SMOKE MOBILE6 input files for Massachusetts for Version 3. This was done because Version 2 of the MANE-VU modeling inventory was prepared using the default setti ng of MOBILE6 to model reformulated gasoline (i.e., using the command line “FUEL PROGRAM : 2 N”). Since the time that the Version 2 inventory was created, EPA found a bug with the su lfur content values used when the default reformulated gasoline command is used. To el iminate this problem, Pechan created revised SMOKE MOBILE6 input files for Massachusetts that model reformulated gasoline by explicitly setting the RVP, gasoline sulfur contents, a nd gasoline oxygen contents. The gasoline sulfur contents and gasoline oxygen contents were set a ccording to the default parameters laid out in the MOBILE6 user’s guide. The summer (May through September) sulfur content is 129 ppm in 2002 and the winter sulfur c ontent is 279 ppm in 2002. The summer gasoline contains 2.1 percent oxygen, with MTBE as the oxygenate. The winter gasoline contains 1.5 percent oxygen in 70 percent of the fuel having MTBE as the oxygenate, and 3.5 percent oxygen in 30 percent of the fuel having ETOH as the oxygenate. The RVP values were not changed from those modeled in Version 2 (6.7 psi in the summer and 13.5 psi in the winter).

c. What Issues Need to be A ddressed in Future Versions?

None identified by the State.

7. New Hampshire

a. What Data Sources Were Used?

Table V-8 summarizes the onroad SMOKE input file s that were prepared containing information for the State of New Hampshire. This table notes the level of detail of the data included as well as the source of the original informa tion used to create these data files.107 Table V-8. New Hampshire Onroad Data in SMOKE Input Files

Final MANE-VU Version 3 SMOKE Input File Level of Detail Data Source VMT MANEVU_2002_mbinv_02022006.txt County/SCC NH Speeds MANEVU_2002_mbinv_02022006.txt County/road type NH VMT mix MANEVU_2002_vmtmix_02022006.txt Statewide NH SMOKE MOBILE6 file listing MANEVU_2002_mcref_02022006.txt County

SMOKE MOBILE6 file listing MANEVU_2002_mvref_02022006.txt County

The VMT inputs provided by New Hampshire were in the form of summer day VMT by county or nonattainment area and roadway type. In addition, New Hampshire provided a Statewide VMT mix distribution by 16 vehicl e types in the MOBILE6 files pr ovided by the State. Pechan then developed a simple MOBILE6 input file that used the New Hampshire Statewide registration distribution and the Statewide VMT mix by vehicle type. Pechan used the resulting MOBILE6 output file to extract the 28 vehicle type VMT mix to be applied Statewide to the county/roadway type VMT data. Summer day m iles were converted to annual miles by using national data from the Federal Highway Administ ration’s Travel Volume Trends which provides 2002 monthly VMT for groups of road categories. Additionally, the VMT data from the three New Hampshire nonattainment areas represented four counties. To allocate these VMT by county, Pechan first totaled the VMT data from th ese three nonattainment areas by roadway type. Then, using ratios developed from the prel iminary 2002 NEI VMT, Pechan allocated the grouped VMT by county and roadway type. W ith VMT for the entire State at the county/roadway type level of detail, Pechan then multiplied the VMT data by the 28 vehicle type VMT fractions to obtain a VMT file at the 28 ve hicle type level and 12 roadway type level by county for use in preparing the annual onroad emission inventory. VMT from these 28 vehicle types were then aggregated to the 12 vehicle types needed for the SMOKE MBINV input file. The VMT mix fractions by vehicle type for each c ounty and road type were also calculated for inclusion in the SMOKE VMTMIX file. New Ha mpshire also provided a spreadsheet including the average speed by roadway class for each c ounty or county group. These speeds were incorporated in the SMOKE MBINV file.

New Hampshire provided the following data that were incorporated into the monthly MOBILE6 input files for the SMOKE modeling:

• Statewide registrati on distribution; and

• Statewide ATP inputs.

New Hampshire specified that the NMIM fuel program default data for New Hampshire should be used for the MANE-VU modeling. This incl uded reformulated gasoline in four counties, modeled using the FUEL RVP, and FUEL PROGRA M (for gasoline sulfur contents) commands for each month. Statewide diesel sulfur values modeled from NMIM were 400 ppm sulfur in the108 summer months (June, July, and August), 340 ppm sulfur in the winter months (December, January, and February), and 370 ppm sulfur in the spring and fall months.

Data provided by New Hampshire indicated th at the State follows the OTC-LEV program vehicle implementation schedule. Therefor e, the OTC-LEV program LEV implementation schedule was included in the MOBILE6 SMOKE input files, starting implementation in the 1999 model year followed by a full implementation of the National LEV program in the 2001 model
year.
b. What QA Issues were Identified and Addressed?

Through the State QA report process, New Ha mpshire provided updated inputs for VMT and speeds that were incorporated in the modeling inventory inputs.

c. What Issues Need to be A ddressed in Future Versions?

The SMOKE MOBILE6 files for the four New Hamp shire that implement reformulated gasoline should include the OXYGENATED FUELS command to fully model the benefits reformulated gasoline. This command was inadvertently left out of the SM OKE MOBILE6 files.

8. New Jersey

a. What Data Sources Were Used?

Table V-9 summarizes the onroad SMOKE input file s that were prepared containing information for the State of New Jersey. This table notes the le vel of detail of the data included as well as the source of the original information used to create these data files.

Table V-9. New Jersey Onroad Data in SMOKE Input Files

Final MANE-VU Version 3 SMOKE Input File Level of Detail Data Source VMT MANEVU_2002_mbinv_02022006.txt County/SCC NJ Speeds MANEVU_2002_mbinv_02022006.txt Road type/3 vehicle groups Default NEI VMT mix MANEVU_2002_vmtmix_02022006.txt County/road type NJ Temporal profiles MANEVU_2002_mtpro_02022006.txt and MANEVU_2002_mtref_02022006.txt Monthly by 3 county groups and weekday/weekend NJ

SMOKE MOBILE6 file listing MANEVU_2002_mcref_02022006.txt County

SMOKE MOBILE6 file listing MANEVU_2002_mvref_02022006.txt County

Updates were made to the Version 2 MOBILE6 SMOKE inputs for New Jersey in December 2005 to create Version 3, based on revised data pr ovided by the State. New Jersey provided the following files:109 • a set of SMOKE MOBILE6 input files by county and month;

• NJ_2002_mbinv.txt file that contained revised VMT and speeds by county and SCC, generated by NJDEP in August 2005, in SMOKE format;

• amptref.m3.manevu.vistascem.032805_NJVMT.txt —a SMOKE-formatted file containing county/SCC-level temporal profile cross-references;

• amptro.m3.manevu.vistascem.032805_NJVMT.txt—a SMOKE-formatted file containing county-specific VMT temporal profiles prepared by NJDEP in August 2005; and

• zip files containing external files needed to run the SMOKE MOBILE6 files.

After an initial review of these files, Pech an did not note any diffe rences in the SMOKE MOBILE6 files from the Version 2 files. Pechan then confirmed with New Jersey that the only changes from the Version 2 date were in the VMT data. The VMT and speed data by county and SCC in the MBINV file provided by New Je rsey were copied to the MANE-VU SMOKE MBINV file, replacing the VMT and speed data from the Version 2 SMOKE MBINV file for New Jersey. The speed data included by New Jers ey are the default NEI speeds by road type and vehicle type. Using the new VMT data provided by New Jersey, P echan calculated a revised set of VMT mix fractions by vehicle type and in cluded these in the Ve rsion 3 SMOKE VMTMIX file. Pechan pasted the temporal profiles pr ovided for New Jersey into the SMOKE MTPRO file. This included monthly temporal profiles and diurnal temporal profiles. The diurnal temporal profiles were applied to both weekdays and weekends. Similarly the temporal cross reference data included in the file provided by New Jersey was pasted into the SMOKE MTREF file for MANE-VU Version 3.

The following New Jersey-provided were included in the monthly MOBILE6 input files for the SMOKE modeling:

• Statewide registration distribution;

• Statewide diesel sales fractions;

• Statewide I/M program and ATP inputs; and

• Diesel sulfur content da ta (340 ppm statewide).

Northern reformulated gasoline was modeled stat ewide throughout the State, using NMIM fuel program input defaults for New Jersey. The section below on QA issues for New Jersey discusses the fuel inputs modeled in the Version 3 SMOKE MOBILE6 input file s in more detail.

Data provided by New Jersey indicated that th e State follows the OTC-LEV program vehicle implementation schedule. Therefore, the OT C-LEV program LEV implementation schedule was included in the MOBILE6 SMOKE input files, starting implementation in the 1999 model year followed by a full implementation of the National LEV program in the 2001 model year.

b. What QA Issues were Identified and Addressed?

As discussed above for New Jersey, the Vers ion 2 New Jersey SMOKE MOBILE6 input files modeled reformulated gasoline using the command lin e “FUEL PROGRAM : 2 N”, which is the default method for modeling reformulated gaso line with MOBILE6. To eliminate the effects110 of the MOBILE6 reformulated gasoline bug from the SMOKE MOBILE6 inputs, Pechan explicitly modeled the reformul ated gasoline program in the Ne w Jersey MOBILE6 input files by explicitly modeling th e appropriate settings of the RV P, oxygenated fuel content commands, and gasoline sulfur commands. The values fo r oxygenated fuel settings and gasoline sulfur contents by month were extracted from the NMIM county-level database used in developing the annual emissions inventory for the MANE- VU Version 2 onroad emissions inventory.

c. What Issues Need to be A ddressed in Future Versions?

None identified by the State.

9. New York

a. What Data Sources Were Used?

Table V-10 summarizes the onroad SMOKE input files that were prepared containing information for the State of New York. This table notes the level of detail of the data included as well as the source of the original informa tion used to create these data files.

Table V-10. New York Onroad Data in SMOKE Input Files

Final MANE-VU Version 3 SMOKE Input File Level of Detail Data Source VMT MANEVU_2002_mbinv_02022006.txt County/SCC NY Speeds MANEVU_2002_mbinv_02022006.txt Road type/3 vehicle groups Default NEI Speed profiles MANEVU_2002_spdpro.txt and MANEVU_2002_spdref.txt County/hour/road type NY

VMT mix MANEVU_2002_vmtmix_02022006.txt County/road type NY Temporal profiles MANEVU_2002_mtpro_02022006.txt and MANEVU_2002_mtref_02022006.txt Monthly by 3 county groups NY

SMOKE MOBILE6 file listing MANEVU_2002_mcref_02022006.txt County

SMOKE MOBILE6 file listing MANEVU_2002_mvref_02022006.txt County

VMT for New York was provided in the form of a NIF PE table. These VMT data were extracted and included in the SMOKE MBINV file . VMT mix fractions by vehicle type were calculated from these VMT data and included in the SMOKE VMTMIX file.

New York provided a spreadsheet with average speeds in each of four daily time periods by county and road type. Pechan converted th ese speed data to th e SMOKE SPDPRO format, assigning the speed for a given time period to all hours included in that time period. Pechan also prepared the SMOKE SPDREF file to appropriately cross reference each county and road type to the corresponding hourly speed profile. Because these more detailed speed files were provided for New York, the average speed by road type an d county in the MBINV file was populated with default NEI speeds.111 New York also provided spreadsheets showi ng monthly VMT by county and roadtype. After processing these VMT values to develop monthly temporal factors, Pechan observed that there were only three unique mont hly profiles in this data set. These three profiles were then added to the SMOKE MTPRO file. Pechan then matched each county and road type in the State to the corresponding monthly VMT profile in the SMOKE MTREF file.

New York provided the following data that were incorporated into the monthly MOBILE6 input files for the SMOKE modeling:

• Registration distributions—one for the Ne w York metropolitan area and one for the rest of the State;

• Diesel sales fractions—one for the New Yo rk metropolitan area and one for the rest of the State;

• Statewide mileage accumulation rate input;

• Monthly RVP data—one set for the New York metropolitan area and one for the rest of the State;

• Reformulated gasoline program inputs for affected counties modeled with MOBILE6 defaults (i.e., “FUEL PROGRAM : 2 N”);

• I/M program inputs for affected counties;

• Statewide ATP inputs;

• Hourly VMT distributions by county group;

• Start distributions by county;

• Diesel sulfur content da ta (400 ppm statewide).

New York also provided the necessary input files to model the State’s LEV program implementation schedule, which differs from th e OTC LEV program. New York also provided MOBILE6 Tier 2 modeling files to be used al ong with the New York LEV program inputs. These inputs were included in the SMOKE MOBILE6 modeling.

b. What QA Issues were Identified and Addressed?

No QA issues were identified for New York affecting the modeling inventory files.

c. What Issues Need to be A ddressed in Future Versions?

None identified by the State.

10. Pennsylvania

a. What Data Sources Were Used?

Table V-11 summarizes the onroad SMOKE input files that were prepared containing information for the State of Pennsylvania. This ta ble notes the level of deta il of the data included as well as the source of the original info rmation used to create these data files.112 Table V-11. Pennsylvania Onroad Data in SMOKE Input Files

Final MANE-VU Version 3 SMOKE Input File Level of Detail Data Source VMT MANEVU_2002_mbinv_02022006.txt County/SCC PA Speeds MANEVU_2002_mbinv_02022006.txt County/road type PA VMT mix MANEVU_2002_vmtmix_02022006.txt County/road type PA Temporal profiles MANEVU_2002_mtpro_02022006.txt and MANEVU_2002_mtref_02022006.txt Monthly by county PA

SMOKE MOBILE6 file listing MANEVU_2002_mcref_02022006.txt County

SMOKE MOBILE6 file listing MANEVU_2002_mvref_02022006.txt County

Pennsylvania provided a database file (NEIANN02.dbf) that contai ned the VMT and speed data by county, roadway type, and vehicle type. This included the same VMT used in the calculation of the annual onroad inventory submitted by Penn sylvania for MANE-VU. Pechan converted the data from this database file into VMT a nd speed data in the format of the SMOKE MBINV file. From the VMT data, Pechan calculated VM T fractions by vehicle type by county and road type for inclusion in the SMOKE VMTMIX file. Pennsylvania also provided estimates of VMT by month for each county. Pechan converted thes e data to monthly allocation factors in the format needed by the SMOKE MTPRO and MTREF files. A separate monthly profile was developed for each county, but applied to all road types within that county.

Pennsylvania provided the following data that were incorporated into the monthly MOBILE6 input files for the SMOKE modeling:

• Registration distributions for each individual county;

• I/M program and ATP inputs for affected Philadelphia and Pittsburgh area counties (inputs differ for the two areas);

• Monthly RVP data for all counties in cluding 7.8 psi RVP program from May through September for Pittsburgh counties;

• Reformulated gasoline for the 5-county Philadelphia area modeled with MOBILE6 defaults (i.e., “FUEL PROGRAM : 2 N”); and

• Diesel sulfur content da ta (500 ppm statewide).

Data provided by Pennsylvania i ndicated that the State follow s the OTC-LEV program vehicle implementation schedule. Therefore, the OT C-LEV program LEV implementation schedule was included in the MOBILE6 SMOKE input files, starting implementation in the 1999 model year followed by a full implementation of the National LEV program in the 2001 model year.113 b. What QA Issues were Identified and Addressed?

No QA issues were identified for Pennsylvani a affecting the modeling inventory files.

c. What Issues Need to be A ddressed in Future Versions?

None identified by the State.

11. Rhode Island

a. What Data Sources Were Used?

Table V-12 summarizes the onroad SMOKE input files that were prepared containing information for the State of Rhode Island. This tabl e notes the level of deta il of the data included as well as the source of the original info rmation used to create these data files.

Table V-12. Rhode Island Onroad Data in SMOKE Input Files

Final MANE-VU Version 3 SMOKE Input File Level of Detail Data Source VMT MANEVU_2002_mbinv_02022006.txt County/SCC RI Speeds MANEVU_2002_mbinv_02022006.txt County group/road type RI

VMT mix MANEVU_2002_vmtmix_02022006.txt Statewide RI SMOKE MOBILE6 file listing MANEVU_2002_mcref_02022006.txt County

SMOKE MOBILE6 file listing MANEVU_2002_mvref_02022006.txt County

Rhode Island provided a spreadsheet with the 2002 VMT as well as Statewide 2002 VMT fractions by 16 vehicle types. Pechan prepared a simple MOBILE6 input file including this Rhode Island 2002 VMT mix by vehicle type and the 2002 Rhode Is land registration distribution. The VMT mix in the MOBILE6 output file at the 28 vehicl e type level was then used to distribute the VMT by vehicle category. The 2002 daily VMT was at the State level, broken down by the 12 roadway types. To allocate these VMT data to the county/road type level of detail, Pechan summed the VMT from the preliminary version of EPA’s 2002 NEI for Rhode Island first by State and roadway type and then by county and roadway type. Pechan calculated county/roadway type VMT fractions by dividing the VMT at the county/roadway type level by the State/roadway type VMT for the same roadway type. These fractions were then multiplied by the VMT supplied by Rhode Island at the Stat e/roadway type level of detail to obtain county/roadway type VMT data. These county/roadway type VMT data were then multiplied by the 28 vehicle type VMT fractions to obtain VMT at the level of detail needed to populate the NMIM BaseYearVMT table for calculating the a nnual inventory and were then summed to the 16-vehicle type level of detail for use in the SM OKE MBINV file. The data were also converted from daily VMT to annual by multiplying the average daily VMT by 365. VMT mix fractions114 from this final data set were then formatted in the SMOKE VMTMIX format at the State level of detail. Statewide speeds by road type, as provided by Rhode Island, were included in the SMOKE MBINV file.

Rhode Island provided the following data that were incorporated into the monthly MOBILE6 input files for the SMOKE modeling:

• Statewide registrati on distribution; and

• Statewide I/M program inputs.

Data for fuel parameters were obtained from the NMIM national county database for Rhode Island. This included reformul ated gasoline Statewide, mode led using the FUEL RVP, and FUEL PROGRAM (for gasoline su lfur contents) commands for each month. These values differed by season, but were consistent Statewide. Statewide diesel sulfur values modeled from NMIM were 400 ppm sulfur in the summer months (June, July, and August), 340 ppm sulfur in the winter months (December, January, and Februa ry), and 370 ppm sulfur in the spring and fall months.

The NMIM default LEV program for Rhode Isla nd was modeled, which includes the OTC-LEV program LEV implementation schedule.

b. What QA Issues were Identified and Addressed?

No QA issues were identified for Rhode Island.

c. What Issues Need to be A ddressed in Future Versions?

The Rhode Island SMOKE MOBILE6 input f iles did not include the OXYGENATED FUELS command. This should have been used to fully characterize the parameters of reformulated gasoline that is used Stat ewide in Rhode Island.

12. Vermont

a. What Data Sources Were Used?

Table V-13 summarizes the onroad SMOKE input files that were prepared containing information for the State of Vermont. This table not es the level of detail of the data included as well as the source of the original informa tion used to create these data files.115 Table V-13. Vermont Onroad Data in SMOKE Input Files

Final MANE-VU Version 3 SMOKE Input File Level of Detail Data Source VMT MANEVU_2002_mbinv_02022006.txt County/SCC VT Speeds MANEVU_2002_mbinv_02022006.txt Road type/vehicle group (light-duty vs. heavy-duty) VT

VMT mix MANEVU_2002_vmtmix_02022006.txt County/road type VT Temporal profiles MANEVU_2002_mtpro_02022006.txt and MANEVU_2002_mtref_02022006.txt Monthly statewide

SMOKE MOBILE6 file listing MANEVU_2002_mcref_02022006.txt County

SMOKE MOBILE6 file listing MANEVU_2002_mvref_02022006.txt County

Vermont submitted VMT data in the format of the NIF PE table. Vermont then provided updated VMT data for three road classifications (rural minor colle ctors, rural local roads, and urban local roads) in December 2004, after the time that these changes could be included in the MANE-VU annual onroad emission i nventory. However, the update d VMT were included in the MANE-VU Version 3 onroad SMOKE modeling f iles. This VMT change resulted in a Statewide decrease in VMT from about 9.5 billion miles to about 7.8 billion miles. As a result, the SMOKE modeling performed by MANE-VU will not match the MANE-VU emission inventory for Vermont. The VMT data were co nverted to the SMOKE MBINV file format. VMT mix fractions were calculated from the VMT data and included in the SMOKE VMTMIX file. Vermont also provided information on the te mporal allocation of VMT. From these data, Pechan prepared a monthly VMT profile for Vermont and included the data in the SMOKE MTPRO and MTREF files.

Vermont provided information on Statewide speeds by roadway type. These speeds differed for light-duty vehicles and heavy-duty vehicles. Pechan incorporated this speed information into the SMOKE MBINV file.

Vermont provided the following data that were incorporated into the monthly MOBILE6 input files for the SMOKE modeling:

• Statewide registration distribution;

• Statewide I/M program inputs; and

• RVP data.

The RVP data provided by Vermont were based on data from a local gasoline tank farm and resulted in an RVP value of 8.5 psi during th e ozone season months (May through September) and 9.47 psi for the remaining months. Data for fu el parameters other than RVP (e.g., diesel and gasoline fuel sulfur content) were obtained from the NMIM national county database for Vermont. These values differed by season, but were consistent Statewide. Statewide diesel116 sulfur values modeled from NMIM were 300 ppm su lfur in the summer months (June, July, and August), 290 ppm sulfur in the winter months (December, January, and February), and 295 ppm sulfur in the spring and fall months.

The NMIM default LEV program for Vermont wa s modeled, which includes Vermont’s Statespecific LEV implementation schedule.

b. What QA Issues were Identified and Addressed?

Through the State QA report process, Vermont pr ovided a missing registration data file, RVP data and revised VMT.

c. What Issues Need to be A ddressed in Future Versions?

None identified by the State.117 CHAPTER VI

– BIOGENIC SOURCES

A. General Methods for all States

1. What Data Sources Were Used?

Biogenic emissions for the time period from January 1, 2002 – December 31, 2002 were calculated by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) for all of the MANE-VU states using the Biogenic Em issions Inventory System (BEIS) version 3.12 integrated within SMOKE2.1. The inventory was pr epared at the state-level for CO, nitrous oxide (NO), and VOC.

General information about BEIS is availabl e at http://www.epa.gov/AMD/biogen.html while documentation about biogenic emissions pr ocessing within SMOKE2.1 is available at http://cf.unc.edu/cep/empd/products/s moke/version2.1/html/ch06s10.html and http://cf.unc.edu/cep/empd/pr oducts/smoke/version2.1/html/c h06s17.html. Note that the SMOKE documentation refers to BEIS3.09 and has not yet been updated for BEIS3.12. This affects the number of species modeled as well as the use of different speciation profiles. However, the general processing approach ha s not changed from BEIS3.09 to BEIS3.12. In short, this processing approach is as follows and was utilized by NYSDEC for its biogenic emission processing for MANE -VU and the OTC modeling:

• Normbeis3 reads gridded land use data and em issions factors and produces gridded normalized biogenic emissions for 34 speci es/compounds. The gridded land use file utilized by NYSDEC includes the fractional co verage of 230 different land use types for each of the 172 * 172 12-km grid cells in the MANE-VU/OTC modeling domain. In a separate BEIS3.12 input file, both summ er and winter emissions factors for each species/compound are provided for each of the 230 land use types. On output, Normbeis3 generates a file B3GRD which contains gridded summer and winter emission fluxes for the modeling domain that are normalized to 30 °C and a photosynthetic active radiat ion (PAR) of 1000 μmol/m 2 s. In addition, gridded summer and winter leaf area indi ces (LAI) are al so written to B3GRD

.

• Tmpbeis3 reads the gridded, normalized emissi ons file B3GRD and meteorological data from the MCIP-processed MM5 mete orological fields generated by the University of Maryland for MANE-VU/OT C modeling. Specifically, the following MM5/MCIP meteorological variables are used by Tmpbeis3 to compute hourspecific, gridded biogenic emissions from the normalized emission fluxed contained in B3GRD: layer-1 air temperature (“TA ”), layer-1 pressure (“PRES”), total incoming solar radiation at the surface (“RGRND”), and convective (“RC”) and nonconvective (“RN”) rainfall. Addi tionally, the emissions for the 34 species/compounds modeled by BEIS3.12 are co nverted to CO, NO, and the CB-IV VOC species utilized in CMAQ via th e use of the BEIS3.12-CB-IV speciation profile. Furthermore, an external file, BIOSEASON, was utilized to decide whether to use summer or winter emissions factor s for any given grid cell on any given day. This file was generated by the SMOKE2.1 utility Metscan based on MM5 layer-1 air118 temperatures to determine the date of the last spring frost and first fall frost at each grid cell. Summer emission factors are used by Tmpbeis3 for the time period between the day of the last spring frost and the day of the first fall frost at any given grid cell, and winter emission factors are used for the remaining time period. Documentation for the Metscan utility is available at http://cf.unc.edu/cep/empd/ products/smoke/version2.1/html/ch05s07.html. An animated GIF file showing the BIOSEASON file used by NYSDEC can be found at ftp://ftp.dec.state.ny.us/dar/ air_research/chogrefe/biog_reports/b3season_movie.gif.

• For reporting purposes, the hourly, speciated, gridded emissions were aggregated to the county level for each day. For any give n grid cell, emissions were distributed among the counties intersecting th is grid cell in proportion to the area of each of these counties within the grid cell. The ar ea gridding surrogates needed for this aggregation are based on a file obtai ned from EPA via http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ chief/emch/spatial/new/bgpro.2km_041604.us.gz, followed by windowing for the MANE-VU/OTC modeling domain.

2. Version 3 Emissions Summary

Table VI-1 presents a State-leve l summary of the annual biogenic source emissions in Version 3 of the 2002 MANE-VU inventory. The annual emissions are based on the sum of the daily emissions prepared using the modeling approach previously discussed.

Table VI-1. Version 3 2002 MANE-VU Biogenic Source Emissions by State (Tons/Year)

State CO NO VOC* Connecticut 6,889 560 64,017 Delaware 4,274 990 46,343 District of Columbia 150 30 1,726 Maine 64,936 2,018 600,205 Maryland 18,351 2,934 210,104 Massachusetts 11,594 1,257 113,958 New Hampshire 14,306 482 141,894 New Jersey 14,058 1,813 181,617 New York 63,436 8,313 492,487 Pennsylvania 59,946 8,646 585,272 Rhode Island 1,764 211 19,233 Vermont 14,745 1,142 118,377 MANE-VU 274,451 28,396 2,575,232 * VOC emissions were calculated by adding the emissions for the following pollutants: ALD2, ETH, FORM, ISOP, NR, OLE, PAR, TERB, TOL, XYL.

B. State-Specific Methods

No state-specific methods were used in Vers ion 3 of the MANE-VU inventory for biogenic emissions.119 CHAPTER VII. TEMPORAL, SPECIA TION, AND SPATIAL ALLOCATION PROFILES AND PREPARATION OF SMOKE (IDA) AND RPO DATA EXCHANGE PROTOCOL (NIF 3.0) FORMATS

Table VII-1 provides a su mmary of the file names and documentation used for modeling inputs for Version 3 of MANE-VU’s 2002 inventory for point, area, nonroad, and onroad sources. The final input files used for tempor al allocation, speciation, and spatia l allocation of emissions were developed for Version 1 of the 2002 inventory and delivered to MARAMA during January 2005 (MANE-VU, 2005). These files were developed starting with the late st model input files available from EPA and then re vised to include updates needed for the MANE-VU region or to add SCCs and profile assignments not included in the initial EPA data sets. The files were revised between September 2004 and January 20 05 to incorporate comments provided by MANE-VU. Files in Table VII-1 with a date that is later than January 2005 were prepared to support modeling for Version 3. The notes column in the table identifies the modifications made to the files if the files were changed after this date. Otherwise, files with a date later than January 2005 were either provided by a state ag ency or were obtained from EPA and used for modeling Version 3.

The remainder of this chapter provides a brief su mmary of the revisions made to the EPA data sets prepared for Version 1 of the 2002 MANE- VU inventory and subsequently carried for the modeling for Version 3. Sections A, B, and C of this chapter disc uss how the temporal allocation, speciation, and spatial a llocation profiles, respectively, were developed. Section D of this chapter describes how the emissions inventor y data were prepared in the SMOKE (IDA) and RPO Data Exchange Protocol (NIF 3.0) Formats.

A. Temporal Profiles

1. Point and Area Sources

The most recent SMOKE temporal cross-referen ce files available from EPA during the summer of 2004 were used as the starting point for develo ping the cross-reference f iles for point and area sources. The following 3 classes of modifications were completed to improve the temporal allocation input files:

• Update temporal cross-reference to assign an existing profile in the default SMOKE

profiles for SCCs in the MANE-VU inventory

• Create a new temporal cross-reference to an existing profile in the default SMOKE

profiles for SCCs in the MANE-VU inventory; the cross-reference did not previously exist in the default SMOKE files but the profile did exist.

• Create new temporal profiles and cross -references for SCCs in the MANE-VU

inventory; neither the cross-referenc e nor profiles for the MANE-VU SCCs previously existed in the default SMOKE files.120 a. Point Sources

A total of 30 point SCCs existed in the MANE-V U point source inventory that were not in the point source cross-reference file; therefore, the SCCs were added to the cross-reference file and assigned to existing profiles based on the assignment of similar SCCs already assigned to the profiles. Table II-2 lists the SCCs along with the state and count y FIPS where they occurred in the MANE-VU inventory. Temporal profiles could not be identified for the SCCs listed in Table VII-3 due to either the SCC being shorter than 8-digits or the lack of information about the source categories for identifying an appropriate profile assignment. These SCCs were assigned the default profile by SMOKE.

b. Area Sources

For area sources, the improvements to the EPA cro ss-reference file includ ed updates to existing profiles in the file based on MANE-VU-specific da ta (see Table VII-4), addition of SCCs that were assigned to existing profiles based on the assignment of similar SCCs already assigned to the profiles (see Table VII-5), and addition of new SCCs and profiles based on MANE-VU- or RPO-specific data (see Table VII-6).

Additional cross-referencing information used to revise the temporal cross-reference file included MANE-VU county-leve l information for resident ial wood combustion, monthly temporal profiles developed for NH 3 source categories using the Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) model, and a Delaware-specific cross-re ference file associated with the Delaware inventory. The additions of ne w SCCs and new profiles shown in Table VII-6 mostly apply to the state of Delaware (State FIPS=10). For the FIPS column, the “-9” designation means the cross-reference is applied for a ll counties that do not have a c ounty or state-specific SCC crossreference record. These changes to the temporal cross-reference file allowed for the assignment of a non-flat temporal profile (262= uniform monthly, 7=uniform weekly and 24=uniform diurnal) to 95% of the SCCs in the area inventory.

2. Nonroad Sources

Nonroad sources used the same temporal profil e and cross-reference files as area sources.

3. Onroad Sources

For onroad sources, the following States provided their own data to update the default temporal profile files and the temporal cross referen ce files: Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Vermont. Each of these States provided VMT information that could be used to develop monthly temporal profiles. The data were provided in a variety of formats, ra nging from monthly or s easonal VMT to SMOKEformatted monthly VMT temporal profiles. Where necessary, the monthly or seasonal VMT data were converted into the SMOKE monthly tem poral profile format. In addition, New Jersey provided information for diurnal te mporal profiles. However, the level of detail or variability provided in these monthly profiles varied by State. Connecticut’s and Delaware’s profiles each varied by county and road type. Maryland’s profile s applied Statewide, with variability in the121 profiles by road type. Massachusetts’ profiles va ried by county, road t ype, and vehicle type. Both New Jersey and New York provided informa tion for three monthly temporal profiles, each used throughout one of the three county groups in each State. The Pennsylvania profiles varied by county, but not by road type. Vermont provide d information for a single monthly temporal profile to be used throughout the State.

B. Speciation Profiles

1. Point and Area Sources

The most recent SMOKE speciation cross-referen ce files available from EPA during the summer of 2004 were used as the starting point for develo ping the cross-reference f iles for point and area sources. These files were revised to comple te SCC assignments for the Carbon Bond IV (CBIV) with PM mechanism for point and area sour ces. In addition, sulfur tagging species were added to the REMSAD7 CB-IV with PM mechanism (see Table VII-1).

a. Point Sources

Thirty-one SCCs in the MANE-VU point source inventory did not have chemical speciationprofile assignments for the CB-IV with PM mechanism in the default SMOKE chemical crossreference file. For 10 of the SCCs, assignments for VOC and PM 2.5 were added to the speciation cross-reference file based on the speciation profil e codes assigned to similar SCCs. Table VII-7 shows the SCCs where an SCC speciation cross-reference record was added, the VOC and PM 2.5 speciation profile code assigned, and the method used to assign the profiles. Assignments were not completed for the remaining 21 point source SCCs because of a lack of information on the emission sources needed to complete the assignment s (see Table VII-8 for the list of the SCCs).

b. Area Sources

Speciation profile assignments were completed for many area source SCCs for the CB-IV with PM mechanism and were documented in separa te spreadsheet files provided to MARAMA during September 2004. Assignments for VOC and PM 2.5 were added to the speciation crossreference file based on the speciation profile code s assigned to similar SCCs. Note that the transport fractions for fugitive dust were applied as a part of the modeling effort to adjust the mass emissions in Version 3 of the inventory.

2. Nonroad Sources

No updates to the speciation profiles or speci ation assignments for nonroad sources were provided by the MANE-VU States.

3. Onroad Sources

No updates to the speciation prof iles or speciation assignments fo r onroad sources were provided by the MANE-VU States.122 C. Spatial Allocation Profiles

The most recent spatial profile data files available from EPA during the summer of 2004 were used as the starting point for developing the spatia l profile file for point and area sources. A detailed description of this surrogate data set was provided in a file named “surrogate_ documentation_workbook052804.xls” from EPA’s we bsite at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ chief/emch/spatial/newsurrogate.html. Many SCCs in the MANE-VU inve ntory did not have surrogate assignments in the default SMOKE gridding cross-reference file. About 200 SCC assignments were added to the gridding cross-re ference file. The assignments were based on matching surrogate descriptions from the EPA99 surrogate data with th e SCC descriptions.

No updates to the spatial allocation files for nonroad and onroad sources were provided by the MANE-VU States.

D. Preparation of SMOKE (IDA) and RP O Data Exchange Protocol (NIF 3.0) Formats

Table VII-9 identifies the mass emissions a nd SMOKE input files for Version 3 of the MANE-VU point, area, nonroad, an d onroad inventories.

The SMOKE input file format contains one field for storing daily emissions for each pollutant. The area source inventory contains summer day, winter day, and average day emissions depending on the state and source category. Thus, two sets of SMOKE input files were prepared for the area source inventory. One file contains annual, summer day, and average day emissions and the other file contains annual, winter day, and average day emissions. If summer day and average day emissions were provided for the sa me process and pollutant in the inventory, the summer day value was included in the SMOKE i nput file. If winter day and average day emissions were provided for the same process and pollutant in the inventory, the winter day value was included in the SMOKE input file.

The point source inventory cont ains summer day and winter day emissions. Two sets of SMOKE input files were prepared for point so urces as well (one file containing annual and summer day emissions and the other containi ng annual and winter day emissions).

Table VII-10 provides the unique li st of the start date, end date, and emission type combinations for daily emissions in the point and area source inventories that were used to define summer, winter, and average day emissions. This table also shows the names of the SMOKE input files in which the emissions are included.

For onroad sources, daily emissions were cal culated by SMOKE using the monthly MOBILE6 input files included in th e SMOKE input files.

The nonroad IDA file only has annual total emissi ons. The values in the “typical day” column are zero. Annual total emissions were allocate d for each hour using the monthly, weekly, and diurnal profiles described in S ection A.2 of this chapter.C-123Table VII-1. Profiles, Cross-references,and Documentation for Model Inputsfor Version 3 of 2002 MANE-VU InventoryDescription File Name FormatDate ofFile usedforVersion 3Size(Bytes)NotesSCC descriptions filescc_desc_manevu.083104.txtSMOKE 8/31/2004 1,335,524Temporal Allocation ProfilesTechnical memo onprofile/cross-referencereview for area sourcesMANE-VU_AreaEI_review_draft_090304.doc MSWord9/3/2004 760,320Technical memo onprofile/cross-referencereview for point sourcesMANE-VU_PointEI_review_draft_090304.doc MSWord9/3/2004 262,144Temporal profile crossreference file for pointsourcesamptref.m3.manevu.vistascem.032805.txt SMOKE 3/28/2005 704,998 Based on "amptref.m3.manevu.012405.txt" prepared forVersion 1, but added VISTAS BaseD cross-references tothe state-specific 2002 continuous emissions monitoring(CEM)-derived point sourcetemporal profiles generatedby VISTAS for their BaseD modeling.Temporal profiles file forpoint sourcesamptpro.m3.us+can.manevu.vistascem.032805.txt SMOKE 3/28/2005 178,427 Based on "amptpro.m3.us+can.manevu.030205.txt"prepared for Version 1, butadded state-specific 2002CEM-derived point source temporal profiles generated byVISTAS for their BaseD modeling.Temporal profile crossreference file for areasourcesamptref.m3.manevu.012405.txt SMOKE 1/24/2005 687,196Temporal profiles file forarea sourcesamptpro.m3.us+can.manevu.030205.txt SMOKE 3/2/2005 136,131Temporal crossreference file containingstate-specific onroadmobile source data forConnecticut, Delaware,Maryland,Massachusetts, NewJersey, New York,Pennsylvania, andVermontMANEVU_2002_mtref_02022006_addCT.txt SMOKE2/22/2006 2,522,013 Data for Connecticut were added to the file after the filewas prepared for the other states. Hence the reason“_addCT” is included at the end of the file name.Table VII-1 (continued)124Description File Name FormatDate ofFile usedforVersion 3Size(Bytes)NotesTemporal profiles filecontaining state-specificonroad mobile sourcedata for Connecticut,Delaware, Maryland,Massachusetts, NewJersey, New York,Pennsylvania, andVermontMANEVU_2002_mtpro_02022006_addCT.txt SMOKE2/22/2006 23,122 Data for Connecticut wereadded to the file after the filewas prepared for the other states. Hence the reason“_addCT” is included at the end of the file name.Spatial/GriddingSpreadsheet summarygenerated for areasource gridding reviewMANE-VU_agref_review.xls 8/31/2004 1,607,680Spatial profile crossreference fileamgref.m3.us+can+mex.manevu.082404.txt SMOKE 8/31/2004 89,860Gridding surrogatecross-reference fileamgref_us_051704_manevu_added SMOKE 5/17/2004 35,825 Based on the surrogate cross-reference file downloadedfrom the EPA/CHIEF site thatcorresponds to the griddingsurrogates file. However, several MANE-VU-specificadditions included in"amgref.m3.us+can+mex.manevu.082404.txt" for Version1 were added to the gridding-cross reference filedownloaded from EPA. Theseare cross-references forSCCs 2806010000, 2806015000, 2870000011,2870000015, 2870000021, and 2870000022.Modeling grid (12-km) amgpro.12km_041604.otc12.us.txt SMOKE 4/16/2004 150,689,358 Based on downloaded 12-km EPA gridding surrogateswindowed for the OTC domainSpeciation ProfilesSpreadsheet summarygenerated for areasource speciation reviewMANE-VU_asref_review.xlsExcel 8/31/2004 5,626,880Speciation profiles filefor CB-IVgspro.cmaq.cb4p25.txt SMOKE 142,255Speciation crossreference file for CB-IVgsref.cmaq.cb4p25.manevu.083104.txt SMOKE 8/31/2004 786,998Table VII-1 (continued)125Description File Name FormatDate ofFile usedforVersion 3Size(Bytes)NotesSpeciation profile crossreference assignmentfilegsref.cmaq.cb4p25.txt SMOKE 2/1/2005 754,302 This file is based on the file"gsref.cmaq.cb4p25.manevu.083104.txt" prepared forversion 1 of the MANE-VU inventory. The only revisionwas to change the PM2_5 speciation profile # from itsdefault 99999 to 35501 for some mobile sourcecategories. This update had been done by eitherCENRAP or VISTAS in the speciation profiles theyprovided and the update had amore recent creation datethan the MANE-VU files created for Version 1, so thisappeared to be a refinement.Speciation profiles forREMSAD7gspro.remsad7.cb4mpm.txt_tag SMOKE 5/1/2005 532,990 Based on "gspro.remsad7.cb4mpm.txt" in the SMOKE,but added tagged species for REMSAD state-level sulfurtagging.Speciation crossreference for REMSAD7gsref.remsad7.cb4mpm.txt_tag SMOKE 5/1/2005 2,614,360 Based on "gsref.remsad7.cb4mpm.txt" in the SMOKE,but added tagged species for REMSAD state-levelsulfur tagging.Transport fractions forfugitive dustgcntl.xportfrac.txt SMOKE 2/1/2004124,495 File obtained from input file EPA used to adjust for PMtransport for modeling of Clean Air Interstate Rule(CAIR).C-126Table VII-2. Point Source Temporal Cross-reference AdditionsRecommended profilesState FIPS SCCMonthlyWeeklyDiurnalMethod of assignmentSCC Description (Complete description not alwaysavailable)VT 50005 10200908 262 7 24 Use SCC=102009XX profilesExternal Combustion Boilers;Industrial;Wood/BarkWaste;Wood-fired Boiler - Dry Wood (<20% moisture)VT 50019 10200908 262 7 24 Use SCC=102009XX profilesExternal Combustion Boilers;Industrial;Wood/BarkWaste;Wood-fired Boiler - Dry Wood (<20% moisture)VT 50021 10200908 262 7 24 Use SCC=102009XX profilesExternal Combustion Boilers;Industrial;Wood/BarkWaste;Wood-fired Boiler - Dry Wood (<20% moisture)VT 50017 10300908 262 7 24 Use SCC=103009XX profiles External CombustionBoilers;Commercial/Institutional;Wood/Bark Waste;Woodfired Boiler - Dry Wood (<20% moisture)PA 42009 20200299 262 7 24 Use SCC=202002XX profilesInternal Combustion Engines;Industrial;NaturalGas;UnknownPA 42029 20200299 262 7 24 Use SCC=202002XX profilesInternal Combustion Engines;Industrial;NaturalGas;UnknownPA 42045 20200299 262 7 24 Use SCC=202002XX profilesInternal Combustion Engines;Industrial;NaturalGas;UnknownPA 42061 20200299 262 7 24 Use SCC=202002XX profilesInternal Combustion Engines;Industrial;NaturalGas;UnknownPA 42067 20200299 262 7 24 Use SCC=202002XX profilesInternal Combustion Engines;Industrial;NaturalGas;UnknownPA 42015 20300299 262 7 24 Use SCC=203002XX profiles Internal CombustionEngines;Commercial/Institutional;Natural Gas;UnknownPA 42029 20300299 262 7 24 Use SCC=203002XX profiles Internal CombustionEngines;Commercial/Institutional;Natural Gas;UnknownPA 42037 20300299 262 7 24 Use SCC=203002XX profiles Internal CombustionEngines;Commercial/Institutional;Natural Gas;UnknownPA 42071 20300299 262 7 24 Use SCC=203002XX profiles Internal CombustionEngines;Commercial/Institutional;Natural Gas;UnknownPA 42011 28888899 262 7 24 Use SCC=288888XX profiles Internal Combustion Engines;Fugitive Emissions;Other NotClassified;Specify in CommentsPA 42123 28888899 262 7 24 Use SCC=288888XX profiles Internal Combustion Engines;Fugitive Emissions;Other NotClassified;Specify in CommentsPA 42123 28888899 262 7 24 Use SCC=288888XX profiles Internal Combustion Engines;Fugitive Emissions;Other NotClassified;Specify in CommentsPA 42129 28888899 262 7 24 Use SCC=288888XX profiles Internal Combustion Engines;Fugitive Emissions;Other NotClassified;Specify in CommentsMD 24031 30500261 262 7 24 Use SCC=30500260 profileIndustrial Processes;Mineral Products;AsphaltConcrete;Drum MixPlant: Rotary Drum Dryer/Mixer,Waste/Drain/#6 Oil-FiredTable VII-2 (continued)127Recommended profilesState FIPS SCCMonthlyWeeklyDiurnalMethod of assignmentSCC Description (Complete description not alwaysavailable)NY 36055 31603001 262 7 24 Use SIC=3861 and SIC=2796 asguidance and evaluate specificsourcesIndustrial Processes;Photographic FilmManufacturing;Product Manufacturing - SubstratePreparation;Extrusion OperationsNY 36055 31603002 262 7 24 Use SIC=3861 and SIC=2796 asguidance and evaluate specificsourcesIndustrial Processes;Photographic FilmManufacturing;Product Manufacturing - SubstratePreparation;Film Support OperationsNY 36055 31604001 262 7 24 Use SIC=3861 and SIC=2796 asguidance and evaluate specificsourcesIndustrial Processes;Photographic FilmManufacturing;Product Manufacturing - ChemicalPreparation;Chemical ManufacturingNY 36055 31604002 262 7 24 Use SIC=3861 and SIC=2796 asguidance and evaluate specificsourcesIndustrial Processes;Photographic FilmManufacturing;Product Manufacturing - ChemicalPreparation;Emulsion Making OperationsNY 36055 31604003 262 7 24 Use SIC=3861 and SIC=2796 asguidance and evaluate specificsourcesIndustrial Processes;Photographic FilmManufacturing;Product Manufacturing - ChemicalPreparation;Chemical Mixing OperationsNY 36055 31605001 262 7 24 Use SIC=3861 and SIC=2796 asguidance and evaluate specificsourcesIndustrial Processes;Photographic FilmManufacturing;Product Manufacturing - SurfaceTreatments;Surface Coating OperationsNY 36055 31605002 262 7 24 Use SIC=3861 and SIC=2796 asguidance and evaluate specificsourcesIndustrial Processes;Photographic FilmManufacturing;Product Manufacturing - SurfaceTreatments;Grid IonizersNY 36055 31605003 262 7 24 Use SIC=3861 and SIC=2796 asguidance and evaluate specificsourcesIndustrial Processes;Photographic FilmManufacturing;Product Manufacturing - SurfaceTreatments;Corona Discharge TreatmentNY 36055 31606001 262 7 24 Use SIC=3861 and SIC=2796 asguidance and evaluate specificsourcesIndustrial Processes;Photographic FilmManufacturing;Product Manufacturing - FinishingOperations;General Film ManufacturingNY 36055 31606002 262 7 24 Use SIC=3861 and SIC=2796 asguidance and evaluate specificsourcesIndustrial Processes;Photographic FilmManufacturing;Product Manufacturing - FinishingOperations;Cutting/Slitting OperationsPA 42101 31606002 262 7 24 Use SIC=3861 and SIC=2796 asguidance and evaluate specificsourcesIndustrial Processes;Photographic FilmManufacturing;Product Manufacturing - FinishingOperations;Cutting/Slitting OperationsNY 36055 31612001 262 7 24 Use SIC=3861 and SIC=2796 asguidance and evaluate specificsourcesIndustrial Processes;Photographic FilmManufacturing;Support Activities - Cleaning Operations;TankCleaning OperationsNY 36055 31612002 262 7 24 Use SIC=3861 and SIC=2796 asguidance and evaluate specificsourcesIndustrial Processes;Photographic FilmManufacturing;Support Activities - CleaningOperations;GeneralCleaning OperationsNY 36055 31613002 262 7 24 Use SIC=3861 and SIC=2796 asguidance and evaluate specificsourcesIndustrial Processes;Photographic FilmManufacturing;Support Activities - StorageOperations;General Storage OperationsTable VII-2 (continued)128Recommended profilesState FIPS SCCMonthlyWeeklyDiurnalMethod of assignmentSCC Description (Complete description not alwaysavailable)NY 36055 31614001 262 7 24 Use SIC=3861 and SIC=2796 asguidance and evaluate specificsourcesIndustrial Processes;Photographic FilmManufacturing;Support Activities - Material TransferOperations;Filling Operations (non petroleum)NY 36055 31614002 262 7 24 Use SIC=3861 and SIC=2796 asguidance and evaluate specificsourcesIndustrial Processes;Photographic FilmManufacturing;Support Activities - Material TransferOperations;Transfer of ChemicalsNY 36055 31615001 262 7 24 Use SIC=3861 and SIC=2796 asguidance and evaluate specificsourcesIndustrial Processes;Photographic FilmManufacturing;Support Activities - SeparationProcesses;Recovery OperationsNY 36055 31615003 262 7 24 Use SIC=3861 and SIC=2796 asguidance and evaluate specificsourcesIndustrial Processes;Photographic FilmManufacturing;Support Activities - SeparationProcesses;Distillation OperationsNY 36055 31616002 262 7 24 Use SIC=3861 and SIC=2796 asguidance and evaluate specificsourcesIndustrial Processes;Photographic FilmManufacturing;Support Activities - Other Operations;GeneralProcess Tank OperationsNY 36055 31616003 262 7 24 Use SIC=3861 and SIC=2796 asguidance and evaluate specificsourcesIndustrial Processes;Photographic FilmManufacturing;Support Activities - OtherOperations;MiscellaneousManufacturing OperationsNY 36055 31616004 262 7 24 Use SIC=3861 and SIC=2796 asguidance and evaluate specificsourcesIndustrial Processes;Photographic FilmManufacturing;Support Activities- Other Operations;PaintSpraying OperationsNY 36055 31616006 262 7 24 Use SIC=3861 and SIC=2796 asguidance and evaluate specificsourcesIndustrial Processes;Photographic FilmManufacturing;Support Activities - OtherOperations;Chemical Weighing OperationsPA Numerouscounties39000698 262 7 24 Use SCC=39000699 profile Industrial Processes;In-process Fuel Use;NaturalGas;UnknownNJ Numerouscounties39999901 262 7 24 Use SCC=399999XX profiles Industrial Processes;Miscellaneous ManufacturingIndustries;Miscellaneous Industrial Processes;UnknownPA 42015 40202598 266 7 16 Use SCC=40202599 profile Petroleum and Solvent Evaporation;Surface CoatingOperations;Miscellaneous Metal Parts;UnknownPA 42017 40202598 266 7 16 Use SCC=40202599 profile Petroleum and Solvent Evaporation;Surface CoatingOperations;Miscellaneous Metal Parts;UnknownPA 42091 40202598 266 7 16 Use SCC=40202599 profile Petroleum and Solvent Evaporation;Surface CoatingOperations;Miscellaneous Metal Parts;UnknownPA 42095 40202598 266 7 16 Use SCC=40202599 profile Petroleum and Solvent Evaporation;Surface CoatingOperations;Miscellaneous Metal Parts;UnknownPA 42097 40202598 266 7 16 Use SCC=40202599 profile Petroleum and Solvent Evaporation;Surface CoatingOperations;Miscellaneous Metal Parts;UnknownPA 42013 40400299 262 7 24 Use SCC=404002XX profiles Petroleum and Solvent Evaporation;Petroleum LiquidsStorage (non-Refinery);Bulk Plants;UnknownPA 42041 40400299 262 7 24 Use SCC=404002XX profiles Petroleum and Solvent Evaporation;Petroleum LiquidsStorage (non-Refinery);Bulk Plants;UnknownTable VII-2 (continued)129Recommended profilesState FIPS SCCMonthlyWeeklyDiurnalMethod of assignmentSCC Description (Complete description not alwaysavailable)PA 42045 40400299 262 7 24 Use SCC=404002XX profiles Petroleum and Solvent Evaporation;Petroleum LiquidsStorage (non-Refinery);Bulk Plants;UnknownPA 42071 40400299 262 7 24 Use SCC=404002XX profiles Petroleum and Solvent Evaporation;Petroleum LiquidsStorage (non-Refinery);Bulk Plants;UnknownC-130 Table VII-3. Unknown SCCs in th e MANE-VU Point Source Inventory

State FIPS SCC Description

PA 42101 24950002 Need more info: Unknown SCC PA 42061 40500299 Need more info:Printing/Publishing; General PA 42091 40500299 Need more info:Printing/Publishing; General PA 42133 40500299 Need more info:Printing/Publishing; GeneralC-131Table VII-4. Area Source Temporal Cross-Reference UpdatesSMOKE Default profile New MANE-VU profileSCC SCC descriptionMonthly Weekly Diurnal Monthly Weekly Diurnal30502713 Industrial Processes;Mineral Products;Industrial Sandand Gravel;Screening: Size Classification262 7 24 262 5 1230502760 Industrial Processes;Mineral Products;Industrial Sandand Gravel;Sand Handling, Transfer, and Storage262 7 24 262 5 122302000000 Industrial Processes;Food and Kindred Products: SIC20;All Processes;Total262 7 26 262 7 2502302050000 Industrial Processes;Food and Kindred Products: SIC20;Bakery Products;Total262 7 26 262 5 262305000000 Industrial Processes;Mineral Processes: SIC 32;AllProcesses;Total262 7 26 262 5 102309100010 Industrial Processes;Fabricated Metals: SIC 34;Coating,Engraving, and Allied Services;Electroplating262 7 26 262 5 102311010000 Industrial Processes;Construction: SIC 15 - 17;GeneralBuilding Construction;Total262 7 26 262 5 122311020000 Industrial Processes;Construction: SIC 15 - 17;HeavyConstruction;Total262 7 26 262 5 122311030000 Industrial Processes;Construction: SIC 15 - 17;RoadConstruction;Total262 7 26 262 5 122325000000 Industrial Processes;Mining and Quarrying: SIC 14;AllProcesses;Total262 7 26 262 5 102399000000 Industrial Processes;Industrial Processes: NEC;IndustrialProcesses: NEC;Total262 7 26 262 5 102399010000 Industrial Processes; IndustrialRefrigeration; Refrigerant Losses; AllProcesses262 7 26 262 5 102401015000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;Factory FinishedWood: SIC 2426 thru 242;Total: All Solvent Types173 7 26 173 5 262401020000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;Wood Furniture: SIC25;Total: All Solvent Types287 7 26 287 5 262401025000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;Metal Furniture: SIC25;Total: All Solvent Types287 7 26 287 5 262401030000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;Paper: SIC 26;Total:All Solvent Types257 7 26 257 5 262401040000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;Metal Cans: SIC341;Total: All Solvent Types253 7 26 253 5 262401045000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;Metal Coils: SIC3498;Total: All Solvent Types253 7 26 253 5 262401050000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;MiscellaneousFinished Metals: SIC 34 - (341 + 3498);Total: All SolventTypes253 7 26 253 5 26Table VII-4 (continued)132SMOKE Default profile New MANE-VU profileSCC SCC descriptionMonthly Weekly Diurnal Monthly Weekly Diurnal2401055000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;Machinery andEquipment: SIC 35;Total: All Solvent Types253 7 26 253 5 262401060000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;Large Appliances:SIC 363;Total: All Solvent Types262 7 26 262 5 262401065000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;Electronic and OtherElectrical: SIC 36 - 363;Total: All Solvent Types253 7 26 253 5 262401070000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;Motor Vehicles: SIC371;Total: All Solvent Types140 7 26 140 5 262401075000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;Aircraft: SIC372;Total: All Solvent Types169 7 26 169 5 262401080000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;Marine: SIC373;Total: All Solvent Types266 7 26 266 5 262401085000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;Railroad: SIC374;Total: All Solvent Types169 7 26 169 5 262401090000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;MiscellaneousManufacturing;Total: All Solvent Types260 7 26 260 5 262401090999 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;MiscellaneousManufacturing;Solvents: NEC260 7 26 260 5 262401200000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;Other SpecialPurpose Coatings;Total: All Solvent Types260 7 26 260 5 262401990000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;All Surface CoatingCategories;Total: All Solvent Types260 7 26 260 5 262401990999 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;All Surface CoatingCategories;Solvents: NEC260 7 26 260 5 262415000000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;All Processes/AllIndustries;Total: All Solvent Types253 7 26 253 5 262415020000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Fabricated Metal Products(SIC 34): All Processes;Total: All Solvent Types253 7 26 253 5 122415025000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Industrial Machinery andEquipment (SIC 35): All Processes;Total: All SolventTypes253 7 26 253 5 122415030000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Electronic and Other Elec.(SIC 36): All Processes;Total: All Solvent Types253 7 26 253 5 122415035000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Transportation Equipment(SIC 37): All Processes;Total: All Solvent Types253 7 26 253 5 122415045000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;MiscellaneousManufacturing (SIC 39): All Processes;Total: All SolventTypes253 7 26 253 5 122415055000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Automotive Dealers (SIC55): All Processes;Total: All Solvent Types253 7 26 253 5 122415060000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Miscellaneous RepairServices (SIC 76): All Processes;Total: All Solvent Types253 7 26 253 5 12Table VII-4 (continued)133SMOKE Default profile New MANE-VU profileSCC SCC descriptionMonthly Weekly Diurnal Monthly Weekly Diurnal2415065000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Auto Repair Services (SIC75): All Processes;Total: All Solvent Types253 7 26 253 6 122415100000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;All Industries: Open TopDegreasing;Total: All Solvent Types253 7 26 253 5 122415105000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Furniture and Fixtures(SIC 25): Open Top Degreasing;Total: All Solvent Types253 7 26 253 5 122415110000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Primary Metal Industries(SIC 33): Open Top Degreasing;Total: All Solvent Types253 7 26 253 5 122415120000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Fabricated Metal Products(SIC 34): Open Top Degreasing;Total: All Solvent Types253 7 26 253 5 122415125000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Industrial Machinery andEquipment (SIC 35): Open Top Degreasing;Total: AllSolvent Types253 7 26 253 5 122415130000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Electronic and Other Elec.(SIC 36): Open Top Degreasing;Total: All Solvent Types253 7 26 253 5 122415135000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Transportation Equipment(SIC 37): Open Top Degreasing;Total: All Solvent Types253 7 26 253 5 122415140000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Instruments and RelatedProducts (SIC 38): Open Top Degreasing;Total: AllSolvent Types253 7 26 253 5 122415145000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;MiscellaneousManufacturing (SIC 39): OpenTop Degreasing;Total: AllSolvent Types253 7 26 253 5 122415200000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;All Industries:Conveyerized Degreasing;Total: All Solvent Types253 7 26 253 5 122415230000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Electronic and Other Elec.(SIC 36): Conveyerized Degreasing;Total: All SolventTypes253 7 26 253 5 122415300000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;All Industries: ColdCleaning;Total: All Solvent Types253 7 26 253 5 122415305000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Furniture and Fixtures(SIC 25): Cold Cleaning;Total: All Solvent Types253 7 26 253 5 122415310000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Primary Metal Industries(SIC 33): Cold Cleaning;Total: All Solvent Types253 7 26 253 5 122415320000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Fabricated Metal Products(SIC 34): Cold Cleaning;Total: All Solvent Types253 7 26 253 5 122415325000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Industrial Machinery andEquipment (SIC 35): Cold Cleaning;Total: All SolventTypes253 7 26 253 5 122415330000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Electronic and Other Elec.(SIC 36): Cold Cleaning;Total: All Solvent Types253 7 26 253 5 12Table VII-4 (continued)134SMOKE Default profile New MANE-VU profileSCC SCC descriptionMonthly Weekly Diurnal Monthly Weekly Diurnal2415335000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Transportation Equipment(SIC 37): Cold Cleaning;Total: All Solvent Types253 7 26 253 5 122415340000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Instruments and RelatedProducts (SIC 38): Cold Cleaning;Total: All SolventTypes253 7 26 253 5 122415345000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;MiscellaneousManufacturing (SIC 39): Cold Cleaning;Total: All SolventTypes253 7 26 253 5 122415355000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Automotive Dealers (SIC55): Cold Cleaning;Total: All Solvent Types253 7 26 253 5 122415360000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Auto Repair Services (SIC75): Cold Cleaning;Total: All Solvent Types253 7 26 253 6 122415365000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Miscellaneous RepairServices (SIC 76): Cold Cleaning;Total: All SolventTypes253 7 26 253 5 122425000000 Solvent Utilization;Graphic Arts;All Processes;Total: AllSolvent Types257 7 26 257 5 262425010000 Solvent Utilization;Graphic Arts;Lithography;Total: AllSolvent Types257 7 26 257 5 262425020000 Solvent Utilization;Graphic Arts;Letterpress;Total: AllSolvent Types257 7 26 257 5 262425030000 Solvent Utilization;Graphic Arts;Rotogravure;Total: AllSolvent Types262 7 26 262 5 262425040000 Solvent Utilization;Graphic Arts;Flexography;Total: AllSolvent Types257 7 26 257 5 262430000000 Solvent Utilization;Rubber/Plastics;All Processes;Total:All Solvent Types200 7 26 200 5 262601010000 Waste Disposal, Treatment, and Recovery;On-siteIncineration;Industrial;Total262 7 26 262 5 122601020000 Waste Disposal, Treatment, and Recovery;On-siteIncineration;Commercial/Institutional;Total262 7 26 262 5 122610010000 Waste Disposal, Treatment, and Recovery;OpenBurning;Industrial;Total262 7 26 262 5 122610020000 Waste Disposal, Treatment, and Recovery;OpenBurning;Commercial/Institutional;Total262 7 26 262 5 122805020000 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production -Livestock;Cattle and Calves Waste Emissions;Total489 7 26 1500 7 262805025000 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production -Livestock;Hogs and Pigs Waste Emissions;Total489 7 26 1500 7 262805030000 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production -Livestock;Poultry Waste Emissions;Total489 7 26 1500 7 26Table VII-4 (continued)135SMOKE Default profile New MANE-VU profileSCC SCC descriptionMonthly Weekly Diurnal Monthly Weekly Diurnal2805035000 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production -Livestock;Horses and Ponies Waste Emissions;Total262 7 26 1500 7 262805040000 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production -Livestock;Sheep and Lambs Waste Emissions;Total489 7 26 1500 7 262805045001 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production -Livestock;Goats Waste Emissions;Total489 7 26 262 7 242810015000 Miscellaneous Area Sources;OtherCombustion;Prescribed Burning for ForestManagement;Total14 7 24 3 11 13C-136 Table VII-5. Area Source Tempor al Cross-Reference Additions

SCC Description Month Week Diurnal

2104008002 Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Residential;Wood;Fireplaces: Insert; non-EPA certified 485 7 26

2104008003 Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Residential;Wood;Fireplaces: Insert; EPA certified; non-catalytic 485 7 26

2104008004 Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Residential;Wood;Fireplaces: Insert; EPA certified; catalytic 485 7 26

2302002100 Industrial Processes;Food and Kindred Products: SIC 20;Commercial Charbroiling;Conveyorized Charbroiling 262 7 26

2302002200 Industrial Processes;Food and Kindred Products: SIC 20;Commercial Charbroiling;Under-fired Charbroiling 262 7 26

2302003000 Industrial Processes;Food and Kindred Products: SIC 20;Commercial Deep Fat Frying;Total 262 7 26

2302003100 Industrial Processes;Food and Kindred Products: SIC 20;Commercial Deep Fat Frying;Flat Griddle Frying 262 7 26

2302003200 Industrial Processes;Food and Kindred Products: SIC 20;Commercial Deep Fat Frying;Clamshell Griddle Frying 262 7 26

2302080002 Industrial Processes;Food and Kindred Products: SIC 20;Miscellaneous Food and Kindred Products;Refrigeration 262 7 26

2401002000 Solvent Utilization;Surfac e Coating;Architectural Coatings - Solvent-based;Total: All Solvent Types 467 7 26

2401003000 Solvent Utilization;Surfac e Coating;Architectural Coatings - Water-based;Total: All Solvent Types 467 7 26

2401102000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;Industrial Maintenance Coatings-Solvent-based;Total: All Solvent Types 500 5 26

2401103000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;Industrial Maintenance Coatings-Water-based;Total: All Solvent Types 500 5 26

2415270000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;All Manufacturing (except SIC 36): Vapor and In-Line Cleaning;Total: All Solvent Types 253 5 12

2415280000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Electronic and Other Elec. (SIC 36): Vapor and In-Line Cleaning;Total: All Solvent Types 253 5 12

2415370000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Transportation Equipment Repair Services: Cold Cleaning;Total: All Solvent Types 253 5 12

2415380000 Solvent Utilization;Degrea sing;All Manufacturing: Cold Cleaning;Total: All Solvent Types 253 5 12

2610000400 Waste Disposal, Treatment, and Recovery;Open Burning;All Categories;Yard Waste - Brush Species Unspecified 262 7 26

2610000500 Waste Disposal, Treatment, and Recovery;Open Burning;All Categories;Land Clearing Debris (use 28- 10-005-000 for Logging Debris Burning) 262 7 26

2610040400 Waste Disposal, Treatment, and Recovery;Open Burning;Municipal (collected from residences, parks,other for central burn);Yard Waste - Total 262 7 26

2630020010 Waste Disposal, Treatment, and Recovery;Wastewater Treatment;Public Owned;Wastewater Treatment Processes Total 262 7 24Table VII-5 (continued)

137 SCC Description Month Week Diurnal

2630020020 Waste Disposal, Treatment, and Recovery;Wastewater Treatment;Public Owned;Biosolids Processes Total 262 7 24

2630020030 Waste Disposal, Treatment, and Recovery;Wastewater Treatment;Public Owned;Land Application - Digested Sludge 262 7 24

2630050000 Waste Disposal, Treatment, and Recovery;Wastewater Treatment;Public Owned;Land Application - Digested Sludge 262 7 24

2680001000 Waste Disposal, Treatment, and Recovery;Composting;100% Bi osolids (e.g., sewage sludge, manure, mixtures of these matls);All Processes 262 7 26

2680002000 Waste Disposal, Treatment, and Recovery;Composting;Mixed Waste (e.g., a 50:50 mixture of biosolids and gr een wastes);All Processes 262 7 26

2801700011 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Crops;Fertilizer Applicat ion;Calcium Ammonium Nitrate 998 7 26

2801700012 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Crops;Fertilizer Applicat ion;Potassium Nitrate 998 7 26

2801700013 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Crops;Fertilizer Applicat ion;Diammonium Phosphate 998 7 26

2801700014 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Crops;Fertilizer Applic ation;Monoammonium Phosphate 998 7 26

2801700015 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Crops;Fertilizer Application;Liquid Ammonium Polyphosphate 998 7 26

2801700099 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Crops;Fertilizer Applicati on;Miscellaneous Fertilizers 998 7 26

2805001100 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Beef cattle - finishing operations on feedlots (drylots);Confinement 1500 7 26

2805001200 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Beef cattle - finishing operations on feedlots (drylots);Manur e handling and storage 1500 7 26

2805001300 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Beef cattle - finishing operations on feedlots (drylots);Land application of manure 1500 7 26

2805002000 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Beef Cattle Composite; Not Elsewhere Classified 1500 7 26

2805003100 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Beef cattle - finishing operations on pasture/range;Confinement 1500 7 26

2805007100 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Poultry production - layers with dry manure management systems;Confinement 1500 7 26

2805007200 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - Livestock;Poultry Production - layers with dry manure management systems;Management 1500 7 26

2805007300 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Poultry production - layers with dry manure management systems;Land application of manure 262 7 24

2805007330 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - Livestock;Poultry Production - layers with dry manure management systems; Land application 1500 7 26

2805007340 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - Livestock;Poultry Production - layers with dry manure management systems; Land application 1500 7 26Table VII-5 (continued)

138 SCC Description Month Week Diurnal

2805008100 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Poultry production - layers with wet manure management systems;Confinement 1500 7 26

2805008200 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Poultry production - layers with wet manure management systems;Manure handling and storage 1500 7 26

2805008300 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Poultry production - layers with wet manure management systems;Land application of manure 1500 7 26

2805009100 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Poultry production - broilers;Confinement 1500 7 26

2805009300 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Poultry production - broilers;Land application of manure 1500 7 26

2805010100 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Poultry production - turkeys;Confinement 262 7 24

2805010200 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Poultry production - turkeys;Manure handling and storage 262 7 24

2805010300 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Poultry production - turkeys;Land application of manure 1500 7 26

2805018000 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Dairy cattle composite; Not Elsewhere Classified 1501 7 26

2805019100 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Dairy cattle - flush dairy;Confinement 1500 7 26

2805019200 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Dairy cattle - flush dairy;Manure handling and storage 1500 7 26

2805019300 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Dairy cattle - flush dairy;Land application of

manure 1500 7 26

2805020001 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Cattle and Calves Waste Emissions;Milk Cows 1500 7 26

2805020002 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Cattle and Calves Waste Emissions;Beef Cows 1500 7 26

2805020003 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Cattle and Calves Waste Emissions;Heifers and Heifer Calves 1500 7 26

2805021300 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Dairy cattle - scrape dairy;Land application of manure 1500 7 26

2805022100 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Dairy cattle - deep pit dairy;Confinement 1500 7 26

2805022200 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Dairy cattle - deep pit dairy;Manure handling and storage 1500 7 26

2805022300 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Dairy cattle - deep pit dairy;Land application of manure 1500 7 26

2805023300 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Dairy cattle - drylot/pasture dairy;Land application of manure 1500 7 26

2805030001 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Poultry Waste Emissions;Pullet Chicks and Pullets less than 13 weeks old 1500 7 26Table VII-5 (continued)

139 SCC Description Month Week Diurnal

2805030002 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Poultry Waste Emissions;Pullets 13 weeks old and older but less than 20 weeks 1500 7 26

2805030003 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Poultry Waste Emissions;Layers 1500 7 26

2805030004 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Poultry Waste Emissions;Broilers 1500 7 26

2805030008 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Poultry Waste Emissions;Geese 1500 7 26

2805039100 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Swine production - operations with lagoons;Confinement 1500 7 26

2805039200 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Swine production - operations with lagoons;Manure handling and storage 1500 7 26

2805039300 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Swine production - operations with lagoons;Land application of manure 1500 7 26

2805045000 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Goats Waste Emissions;Not Elsewhere Classified 1500 7 26

2805045002 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Goats Waste Emissions;Angora Goats 1500 7 26

2805045003 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Goats Waste Emissions;Milk Goats 1500 7 26

2805047100 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Swine production - deep-pit house operations;Confinement 1500 7 26

2805047300 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Swine production - deep-pit house operations;Land application of manure 1500 7 26

2805053100 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Swine production - outdoor operations; Confinement 1500 7 26

2805054000 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - Livestock;"Mules; Donkeys; and Burros Waste Emissions";Not Elsewhere Classified 262 7 24

2806010000 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Domestic Animals Waste Emissions;Cats;Total 262 7 24

2806015000 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Domestic Animals Waste Emissions;Dogs;Total 262 7 24

2807020001 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Wild Animals Waste Emissions;Bears;Black Bears 262 7 26

2807020002 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Wild Animals Waste Emissions;Bears;Grizzly Bears 262 7 26

2807025000 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Wild Animals Waste Emissions;Elk;Total 262 7 26

2807030000 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Wild Animals Waste Emissions;Deer;Total 262 7 26

2807040000 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Wild Animals Waste Emissions;Birds;Total 262 7 26

2810060100 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Other Combustion;Cremation;Humans 262 7 24

2870000001 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Humans;Respiration and Perspiration;Total 262 7 24

2870000002 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Humans;Infant Diapered Waste;Total 262 7 24

2870000011 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Domestic Activity;Household Products;Total 262 7 24Table VII-5 (continued)

140 SCC Description Month Week Diurnal

2870000015 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Domestic Activity;Nonagricultural Fertilizers;Total 3 7 24

2870000021 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Domestic Animals;Dogs;Total 262 7 24

2870000022 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Domestic Animals;Cats;Total 262 7 24 2870000031 Miscellaneous Area Sources; Wild Animals;Deer;Total 262 7 24C-141 Table VII-6. Area Source Temporal Cr oss-Reference and Profile Additions for the MANE-VU Inventory

SCC Description Month Week Diurnal FIPS

2102002000 Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Industrial;Bituminous/Subbituminous Coal;Total: All Boiler Types 1726 8 26 10000

2102006000 Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Industrial;Natural Gas;Total: Boilers and IC Engines 1727 8 26 10000

2102007000 Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Industrial;Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG);Total: All Boiler Types 1727 8 26 10000

2103001000 Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Commercial/Institutional;Anthracite Coal;Total: All Boiler Types 1720 8 26 10000

2103004000 Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Commercial/Institut ional;Distillate Oil;Total: Boilers and IC Engines 1721 8 26 10000

2103006000 Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Commercial/Institut ional;Natural Gas;Total: Boilers and IC Engines 1722 8 26 10000

2103007000 Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Commercial/Institutional;Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG);Total: All Combustor Types 1723 8 26 10000

2104002000 Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Residential;Bituminous/Subbituminous Coal;Total: All Combustor Types 1732 7 26 10000

2104004000 Stationary Source Fuel Comb ustion;Residential;Distillate Oil;Total: All Combustor Types 1733 7 26 10000

2104006000 Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Residential;Natural Gas;Total: All Combustor Types 1734 7 26 10000

2104007000 Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Residential;Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG);Tota l: All Combustor Types 1735 7 26 10000

2104008000 Stationary Source Fuel Combus tion;Residential;Wood;Total: Woodstoves and Fireplaces 1740 2007 2014 10001

2104008000 Stationary Source Fuel Combus tion;Residential;Wood;Total: Woodstoves and Fireplaces 1741 2008 2015 10003

2104008000 Stationary Source Fuel Combus tion;Residential;Wood;Total: Woodstoves and Fireplaces 1742 2009 2016 10005

2104008000 Stationary Source Fuel Combus tion;Residential;Wood;Total: Woodstoves and Fireplaces 1742 2009 2016 10005

2104008070 Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Residential;Wood;Outdoor Wood Burning Equipment; 1743 2010 2017 10001

2104008070 Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Residential;Wood;Outdoor Wood Burning Equipment; 1744 2011 2017 10003

2104008070 Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Residential;Wood;Outdoor Wood Burning Equipment; 1745 2012 2017 10005

2104011000 Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Residential;Keros ene;Total: All Heater Types 1736 7 26 10000

2294000000 Mobile Sources;Paved Roads;All Paved Roads;Total: Fugitives 1729 7 26 10000

2302002100 Industrial Processes;Food and Kindred Products: SIC 20;Commercial Charbroiling;Conveyorized Charbroiling 262 7 26 10000

2302002100 Industrial Processes;Food and Kindred Products: SIC 20;Commercial Charbroiling;Conveyorized Charbroiling 262 7 26 10000

2302002200 Industrial Processes;Food and Kindred Products: SIC 20;Commercial Charbroiling;Under-fired Charbroiling 262 7 26 10000Table VII-6 (continued)

142 SCC Description Month Week Diurnal FIPS

2302002200 Industrial Processes;Food and Kindred Products: SIC 20;Commercial Charbroiling;Under-fired Charbroiling 262 7 26 10000

2302003000 Industrial Processes;Food and Kindred Products: SIC 20;Commercial Deep Fat Frying;Total 262 7 26 10000

2302003000 Industrial Processes;Food and Kindred Products: SIC 20;Commercial Deep Fat Frying;Total 262 7 26 10000

2302003100 Industrial Processes;Food and Kindred Products: SIC 20;Commercial Deep Fat Frying;Flat Griddle Frying 262 7 26 10000

2302003100 Industrial Processes;Food and Kindred Products: SIC 20;Commercial Deep Fat Frying;Flat Griddle Frying 262 7 26 10000

2302003200 Industrial Processes;Food and Kindred Products: SIC 20;Commercial Deep Fat Frying;Clamshell Griddle Frying 262 7 26 10000

2302003200 Industrial Processes;Food and Kindred Products: SIC 20;Commercial Deep Fat Frying;Clamshell Griddle Frying 262 7 26 10000

2311030000 Industrial Processes;Cons truction: SIC 15 - 17;Road Construction;Total 262 7 9 10000

2401002000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coat ing;Architectural Coatings - Solvent-based;Total: All Solvent Types 467 7 26 -9

2401002000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coat ing;Architectural Coatings - Solvent-based;Total: All Solvent Types 500 20 27 10000

2401003000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coat ing;Architectural Coatings - Water-based;Total: All Solvent Types 467 7 26 -9

2401003000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coat ing;Architectural Coatings - Water-based;Total: All Solvent Types 500 20 27 10000

2401005000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coat ing;Auto Refinishing: SIC 7532;Total: All Solvent Types 1702 5 27 10000

2401005500 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coat ing;Auto Refinishing: SIC 7532;Surface Preparation Solvents 1702 5 27 10000

2401005600 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coat ing;Auto Refinishing: SIC 7532;Primers 1702 5 27 10000

2401005700 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coat ing;Auto Refinishing: SIC 7532;Top Coats 1702 5 27 10000

2401005800 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coat ing;Auto Refinishing: SIC 7532;Clean-up Solvents 1702 5 27 10000

2401005800 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coat ing;Auto Refinishing: SIC 7532;Clean-up Solvents 1702 5 27 10001

2401008000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coati ng;Traffic Markings;Total: All Solvent Types 1700 7 26 -9

2401008000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coati ng;Traffic Markings;Total: All Solvent Types 1700 5 26 10000

2401008999 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coati ng;Traffic Markings;Solvents: NEC 1700 7 26 -9

2401102000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;Industrial Maintenance Coatings-Solvent-based;Total: All Solvent Types 500 5 26 10000

2401103000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;Industrial Maintenance Coatings-Water-based;Total: All Solvent Types 500 5 26 10000

2415100000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasi ng;All Industries: Open Top Degreasing;Total: All Solvent Types 262 6 5 10000

2415130000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Electronic and Other Elec. (SIC 36): Open Top Degreasing;Total: All Solvent Types 262 6 5 10000

2415300000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasi ng;All Industries: Cold Cleaning;Total: All Solvent Types 262 6 5 10000

2415360000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Auto Repair Services (SIC 75): Cold Cleaning;Total: All Solvent Types 262 5 5 10000

2461021000 Solvent Utilization;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Commercial;Cutback Asphalt;Total: All Solvent Types 1712 7 26 10001

2461021000 Solvent Utilization;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Commercial;Cutback Asphalt;Total: All Solvent Types 1714 7 26 10001

2461021000 Solvent Utilization;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Commercial;Cutback Asphalt;Total: All Solvent Types 1713 7 26 10003Table VII-6 (continued)

143 SCC Description Month Week Diurnal FIPS

2461021000 Solvent Utilization;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Commercial;Cutback Asphalt;Total: All Solvent Types 1712 7 26 10003

2461021000 Solvent Utilization;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Commercial;Cutback Asphalt;Total: All Solvent Types 1714 7 26 10005

2461021000 Solvent Utilization;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Commercial;Cutback Asphalt;Total: All Solvent Types 1713 7 26 10005

2461022000 Solvent Utilization;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Commercial;Emulsified Asphalt;Total: All Solvent Types 1709 7 26 10001

2461022000 Solvent Utilization;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Commercial;Emulsified Asphalt;Total: All Solvent Types 1711 7 26 10001

2461022000 Solvent Utilization;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Commercial;Emulsified Asphalt;Total: All Solvent Types 1710 7 26 10003

2461022000 Solvent Utilization;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Commercial;Emulsified Asphalt;Total: All Solvent Types 1709 7 26 10003

2461022000 Solvent Utilization;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Commercial;Emulsified Asphalt;Total: All Solvent Types 1711 7 26 10005

2461022000 Solvent Utilization;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Commercial;Emulsified Asphalt;Total: All Solvent Types 1710 7 26 10005

2461850001 Solvent Utilization;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Commercial;Pesticide Applicati on: Agricultural;Herbicides, Corn 536 7 26 10000

2461850005 Solvent Utilization;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Commercial;Pesticide Applicati on: Agricultural;Herbicides, Soy Beans 536 7 26 10000

2461850006 Solvent Utilization;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Commercial;Pesticide Applicati on: Agricultural;Herbicides, Hay & Grains 536 7 26 10000

2461850051 Solvent Utilization;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Commercial;Pesticide Applic ation: Agricultural;Other Pesticides, Corn 536 7 26 10000

2461850055 Solvent Utilization;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Commercial;Pesticide Applic ation: Agricultural;Other Pesticides, Soy Beans 536 7 26 10000

2461850056 Solvent Utilization;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Commercial;Pesticide Applic ation: Agricultural;Other Pesticides, Hay & Grains 536 7 26 10000

2501011010 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage;Portable Containers: Residential;Vapor Losses 1701 7 26 10000

2501011010 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage;Portable Containers: Residential;Vapor Losses 1701 7 26 10000

2501011011 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage;Portable Containers : Residential;Permeation 1701 7 26 10000

2501011011 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage;Portable Containers : Residential;Permeation 1701 7 26 10000

2501011012 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage;Portable Containers: Residential;Diurnal 1701 7 26 10000

2501011012 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage;Portable Containers: Residential;Diurnal 1701 7 26 10000

2501011015 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage;Portable Containers: Residential;Spillage 1701 7 26 10000

2501011015 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage;Portable Containers: Residential;Spillage 1701 7 26 10000

2501011016 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage;Portable Containers: Residential;Transport 1701 7 26 10000

2501011016 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage;Portable Containers: Residential;Transport 1701 7 26 10000

2501012010 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage;Portable Containers: Commercial;Vapor Losses 1701 7 26 10000

2501012010 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage;Portable Containers: Commercial;Vapor Losses 1701 7 26 10000Table VII-6 (continued)

144 SCC Description Month Week Diurnal FIPS

2501012011 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage;Portable Containers: Commercial;Permeation 1701 7 26 10000

2501012011 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage;Portable Containers: Commercial;Permeation 1701 7 26 10000

2501012012 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage;Portable Containers: Commercial;Diurnal 1701 7 26 10000

2501012012 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage;Portable Containers: Commercial;Diurnal 1701 7 26 10000

2501012015 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage;Portable Containers: Commercial;Spillage 1701 7 26 10000

2501012015 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage;Portable Containers: Commercial;Spillage 1701 7 26 10000

2501012016 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage;Portable Containers: Commercial;Transport 1701 7 26 10000

2501012016 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage;Portable Containers: Commercial;Transport 1701 7 26 10000

2501060000 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage;Gasoline Service Stati ons;Total: All Gasoline/All Processes 1701 7 26 -9

2501060050 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage;Gasoline Service Stations;Stage 1: Total 1701 7 26 -9

2501060051 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage;Gasoline Service Stat ions;Stage 1: Submerged Filling 1701 7 26 -9

2501060052 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage;Gasoline Service Stati ons;Stage 1: Splash Filling 1701 7 26 -9

2501060053 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage;Gasoline Service Stations;Stage 1: Balanced Submerged Filling 1701 7 26 -9

2501060100 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage;Gasoline Service Stations;Stage 2: Total 1701 7 26 -9

2501060100 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage;Gasoline Service Stations;Stage 2: Total 1724 7 26 10000

2501060101 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage;Gasoline Service Stati ons;Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Uncontrolled 1701 7 26 -9

2501060102 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage;Gasoline Service Stati ons;Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Controlled 1701 7 26 -9

2501060103 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage;Gasoline Service Stations;Stage 2: Spillage 1701 7 26 -9

2501060201 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage;Gasoline Service Stations;Underground Tank: Breathing and Emptying 1701 7 26 -9

2501060204 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage;Gasoline Service Stat ions;Stage 2: Off-Highway Equipment Displacement Loss/Controlled 1701 7 26 10000

2501060205 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage;Gasoline Serv ice Stations;Stage 2: Off-Highway Equipment Spillage 1701 7 26 10000

2501080050 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage;Airports : Aviation Gasoline;Stage 1: Total 1701 7 26 10000

2501080102 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage;Airports: Aviation Gaso line;Stage 2: Displacement Loss 1701 7 26 10000

2501080103 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage;Airports: Aviation Ga soline;Stage 2: Spillage 1701 7 26 10000

2501080201 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage;Airports: Aviation Gasoline;Underground Tank: Breathing and Emptying 1701 7 26 10000Table VII-6 (continued)

145 SCC Description Month Week Diurnal FIPS

2501090050 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage;Airports: Jet A or JP-8;Stage 1: Total 1701 7 26 10000

2501090060 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage;Airports: Jet A or JP-8;Stage 2: Total 1701 7 26 10000

2501090070 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage;Airports: Jet Naphtha or JP-4;Stage 1: Total 1701 7 26 10000

2501090080 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage;Airports: Jet Naphtha or JP-4;Stage 2: Total 1701 7 26 10000

2501090101 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage;Airports: Jet A or JP-8;Stage 2: Total 1701 7 26 10000

2501090102 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage;Marinas: Gasoline; Stage 2: Displacement Loss 1701 7 26 10000

2501090103 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage;Marinas: Gasolin e;Stage 2: Spillage 1701 7 26 10000

2501090201 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage;Marinas: Gasoline;U nderground Tank: Emptying and Breathing 1701 7 26 10000

2505000000 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Transport;All Transport Types;Total: All Products 1701 7 26 -9

2610010000 Waste Disposal, Treatment, and Recovery;Open Burning;Industrial;Total 262 9 2013 10000

2630020000 Waste Disposal, Treatment, and Recovery;Wastewater Treatment;Public Owned;Total Processed 262 7 24 10000

2630020010 Waste Disposal, Treatment, and Recovery;Wastewater Treatment;Public Owned;Wastewater Treatment Processes Total 262 7 24 10000

2630020020 Waste Disposal, Treatment, and Recovery;Wastewater Treatment;Public Owned;Biosolids Processes Total 262 7 24 10000

2630020030 Waste Disposal, Treatment, and Recovery;Wastewater Treatment;Public Owned;Land Application - Digested Sludge 262 7 24 10000

2630050000 Waste Disposal, Treatment, and Recovery;Wastewater Treatment;Public Owned;Land Application - Digested Sludge 262 7 24 10000

2680001000 Waste Disposal, Treatment, and Recovery;Composting;100% Biosolids (e.g., sewage sludge, manure, mixtures of t hese matls);All Processes 262 7 26 10000

2730100000 Natural Sources;Geogenic;Wind Erosion;Total 1704 7 26 10000

2801001001 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Crops;Corn;Land prepar ation and cultivation 1703 20 132 10000

2801001005 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Crops;Wheat;Land prepar ation and cultivation 1703 20 132 10000

2801001009 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Crops;Barley;Land prepar ation and cultivation 1703 20 132 10000

2801001013 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Crops;Soybeans;Land prepar ation and cultivation 1703 20 132 10000

2801001017 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Crops;Hay/Alfalfa;Land pre paration and cultivation 1703 20 132 10000

2801001021 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Crops;Vegetables;Land preparation and cultivation 1703 20 132 10000

2801002001 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Crops;Corn;Harvesting 1703 20 132 10000

2801002002 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Crops;Wheat;Harvesting 1703 20 132 10000

2801002003 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Crops;Barley;Harvesting 1703 20 132 10000

2801002004 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Crops;Soybeans;Harvesting 1703 20 132 10000

2801002005 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Crops;Hay/Alfalfa;Harvesting 1703 20 132 10000

2801002006 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Crops;Vegetables;Harvesting 1703 20 132 10000Table VII-6 (continued)

146 SCC Description Month Week Diurnal FIPS

2801700020 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - Crops;Fertilizer Application;Corn 1705 7 26 10000

2801700021 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - Crops;Fertilizer A pplication;Sorghum 1705 7 26 10000

2801700022 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - Crops;Fertilizer A pplication;Wheat 1705 7 26 10000

2801700023 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - Crops;Fertilizer Application;Barley 1705 7 26 10000

2801700024 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - Crops;Fertilizer App lication;Soybeans 1705 7 26 10000

2801700025 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - Crops;Fertilizer App lication;Hay/Alfalfa 1705 7 26 10000

2801700026 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - Crops;Fertilizer App lication;Vegetables 1705 7 26 10000

2805001100 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Beef cattle - finishing operations on feedlots (drylots);Confinement 1706 7 24 10000

2805001200 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Beef cattle - finishing operations on feedlots (drylots);Manure handling 1706 7 24 10000

2805001300 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Beef cattle - finishing operations on feedlots (drylots);Land application of 1706 7 24 10000

2805001310 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - Livestock;Beef Cattle - finishing operations on feedlots (drylots);Land Appl 1706 7 24 10000

2805001320 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - Livestock;Beef Cattle - finishing operations on feedlots (drylots);Land Appl 1706 7 24 10000

2805001330 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - Livestock;Beef Cattle - finishing operations on feedlots (drylots);Land Appl 1706 7 24 10000

2805001340 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - Livestock;Beef Cattle - finishing operations on feedlots (drylots);Land Appl 1706 7 24 10000

2805002000 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Beef Cattle Composite; Total 1706 7 24 10000

2805007100 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Poultry production - layers with dry manure management systems;Confinement 262 7 24 10000

2805007200 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - Livestock;Poultry Production - layers with dry manure management systems;Man 262 7 24 10000

2805007300 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Poultry production - layers with dry manure management systems;Land applicati 262 7 24 10000

2805007340 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - Livestock;Poultry Production - layers with dry manure management systems;Lan 262 7 24 10000

2805008100 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Poultry production - layers with wet manure management systems;Confinement 262 7 24 10000

2805008200 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Poultry production - layers with wet manure management systems;Manure handlin 262 7 24 10000

2805008310 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - Livestock;Poultry Production - layers with wet manure management systems;Lan 1708 7 24 10000

2805008320 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - Livestock;Poultry Production - layers with wet manure management systems;Lan 1708 7 24 10000Table VII-6 (continued)

147 SCC Description Month Week Diurnal FIPS

2805009100 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Poultry production - broilers;Confinement 262 7 24 10000

2805009200 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Poultry production - broilers;Manure handling and storage 262 7 24 10000

2805009330 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - Livestock;Poultry Production - broilers;Land Application of solid manure wit 1708 7 24 10000

2805009340 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - Livestock;Poultry Production - broilers;Land Application of solid manure wit 1708 7 24 10000

2805010100 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Poultry production - turkeys;Confinement 262 7 24 10000

2805010200 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Poultry production - turkeys;Manure handling and storage 262 7 24 10000

2805010330 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - Livestock;Poultry Production - turkeys;Land Application of solid manure with 1708 7 24 10000

2805010340 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - Livestock;Poultry Production - turkeys;Land Application of solid manure with 1708 7 24 10000

2805019100 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Dairy cattle - flush dairy;Confinement 1706 7 24 10000

2805019200 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Dairy cattle - flush dairy;Manure handling and storage 1706 7 24 10000

2805019300 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Dairy cattle - flush dairy;Land application of

manure 1706 7 24 10000

2805019310 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - Livestock;Dairy Cattle - flush dairy;Land Application of liquid manure with 1706 7 24 10000

2805019320 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - Livestock;Dairy Cattle - flush dairy;Land Application of liquid manure witho 1706 7 24 10000

2805019330 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - Livestock;Dairy Cattle - flush dairy;Land Application of solid manure with i 1706 7 24 10000

2805019340 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - Livestock;Dairy Cattle - flush dairy;Land Application of solid manure withou 1706 7 24 10000

2805021100 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Dairy cattle - scrape dairy;Confinement 1706 7 24 10000

2805021200 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Dairy cattle - scrape dairy;Manure handling and storage 1706 7 24 10000

2805021310 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - Livestock;Dairy Cattle - scrape dairy;Land Application of liquid manure with 1706 7 24 10000

2805021320 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - Livestock;Dairy Cattle - scrape dairy;Land Application of liquid manure with 1706 7 24 10000

2805021330 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - Livestock;Dairy Cattle - scrape dairy;Land Application of solid manure with 1706 7 24 10000

2805021340 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - Livestock;Dairy Cattle - scrape dairy;Land Application of solid manure witho 1706 7 24 10000

2805023100 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Dairy cattle - drylo t/pasture dairy;Confinement 1706 7 24 10000Table VII-6 (continued)

148 SCC Description Month Week Diurnal FIPS

2805023200 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Dairy cattle - drylot/pasture dairy;Manure handling and storage 1706 7 24 10000

2805023310 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - Livestock;Dairy Cattle - drylot/pasture dairy;Land Application of liquid man 1706 7 24 10000

2805023320 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - Livestock;Dairy Cattle - drylot/pasture dairy;Land Application of liquid man 1706 7 24 10000

2805023330 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - Livestock;Dairy Cattle - drylot/pasture dairy;Land Application of solid manu 1706 7 24 10000

2805023340 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - Livestock;Dairy Cattle - drylot/pasture dairy;Land Application of solid manu 1706 7 24 10000

2805035000 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Horses and Ponies Waste Emissions;Total 262 7 24 10000

2805038100 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Swine production - operations with lagoons (unspecified animal age);Confineme 1707 7 24 10000

2805038200 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Swine production - operations with lagoons (unspecified animal age);Manure ha 1707 7 24 10000

2805038300 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Swine production - operations with lagoons (unspecified animal age);Land appl 1707 7 24 10000

2805039100 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Swine production - operations with lagoons;Confinement 1707 7 24 10000

2805039200 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Swine production - operations with lagoons;Manure handling and storage 1707 7 24 10000

2805039310 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - Livestock;Swine Production - operations with lagoon (unspecified animal age) 1707 7 24 10000

2805039320 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - Livestock;Swine Production - operations with lagoon (unspecified animal age) 1707 7 24 10000

2805039330 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - Livestock;Swine Production - operations with lagoon (unspecified animal age) 1707 7 24 10000

2805039340 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - Livestock;Swine Production - operations with lagoon (unspecified animal age) 1707 7 24 10000

2805040000 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Sheep and Lambs Waste Emissions;Total 262 7 24 10000

2805045001 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Goats Waste Emissions;Total 262 7 24 10000

2805046100 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Swine production - deep-pit house operations (unspecified animal age);Confine 1707 7 24 10000

2805046300 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Swine production - deep-pit house operations (unspecified animal age);Land ap 1707 7 24 10000

2805047100 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Swine production - deep-pit house operations;Confinement 1707 7 24 10000

2805047200 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - Livestock;Swine Production - deep pit house operations (unspecified animal a 1707 7 24 10000Table VII-6 (continued)

149 SCC Description Month Week Diurnal FIPS

2805047310 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - Livestock;Swine Production - deep pit house operations (unspecified animal a 1707 7 24 10000

2805047320 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - Livestock;Swine Production - deep pit house operations (unspecified animal a 1707 7 24 10000

2805047330 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - Livestock;Swine Production - deep pit house operations (unspecified animal a 1707 7 24 10000

2805047340 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - Livestock;Swine Production - deep pit house operations (unspecified animal a 1707 7 24 10000

2805052100 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Swine production - out door operations (unspecified animal age);Confinement 1707 7 24 10000

2805053100 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - Livestock;Swine production - outdoor operations; Confinement 1707 7 24 10000

2805053200 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - Livestock;Swine Production - outdo or operations (unspecified animal age);Man 1707 7 24 10000

2805053310 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - Livestock;Swine Production - outdo or operations (unspecified animal age);Lan 1707 7 24 10000

2805053320 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - Livestock;Swine Production - outdo or operations (unspecified animal age);Lan 1707 7 24 10000

2805053330 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - Livestock;Swine Production - outdo or operations (unspecified animal age);Lan 1707 7 24 10000

2805053340 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - Livestock;Swine Production - outdo or operations (unspecified animal age);Lan 1707 7 24 10000

2805054000 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - Livestock;"Mules; Donkeys; and Burros Waste Emissions";Not Elsewhere Classif 262 7 24 10000

2806010000 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Domestic Animals Waste Emissions;Cats;Total 262 7 24 10000

2806015000 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Domestic Animals Waste Emissions;Dogs;Total 262 7 24 10000

2807030000 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Wild Animals Waste Emissions;Deer;Total 262 7 24 10000

2807040000 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Wild Animals Waste Emissions;Birds;Total 262 7 24 10000

2810010000 Miscellaneous Area Sources ;Other Combustion;Human Perspiration and Respiration;Total 1739 2006 24 10000

2810015000 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Ot her Combustion;Prescribed Burning for Forest Management;Total 1731 7 24 10000

2810030000 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Ot her Combustion;Structure Fires;Total 1715 7 24 10000

2810035000 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Ot her Combustion;Firefighting Training;Total 1716 2004 24 10000

2870000001 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Humans;Respiration and Perspiration;Total 262 7 24 10000

2870000002 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Humans;Infant Diapered Waste;Total 262 7 24 10000

2870000011 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Domestic Activity;Household Products;Total 262 7 24 10000

2870000015 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Domestic Activity;Nonagricultural Fertilizers;Total 3 7 24 10000Table VII-6 (continued)

150 SCC Description Month Week Diurnal FIPS 2870000021 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Dome stic Animals;Dogs;Total 262 7 24 10000 2870000022 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Dome stic Animals;Cats;Total 262 7 24 10000 2870000031 Miscellaneous Area Sources;W ild Animals;Deer;Total 262 7 24 10000 2870000032 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Wild Animals;Birds;Total 1728 7 24 10000C-151 Table VII-7. Point Source Speciati on Profiles Added to Speciation Crossreference File for CB-IV with PM Mechanism

Recommended Profiles State FIPS SCC VOC PM 2.5 Method of Assignment SCC Description (Complete description not always available) VT 50005 10200908 1084 NWWAS Use SCC=102009XX profiles External Combustion Boilers;Industrial;Wood/Bark Waste;Wood-fired Boiler - Dry Wood (<20% moisture) VT 50019 10200908 1084 NWWAS Use SCC=102009XX profiles External Combustion Boilers;Industrial;Wood/Bark Waste;Wood-fired Boiler - Dry Wood (<20% moisture) VT 50021 10200908 1084 NWWAS Use SCC=102009XX profiles External Combustion Boilers;Industrial;Wood/Bark Waste;Wood-fired Boiler - Dry Wood (<20% moisture) VT 50017 10300908 1084 NWWAS Use SCC=103009XX profiles External Combustion Boilers;Commercial/Instituti onal;Wood/Bark Waste;Wood-fired Boiler - Dry Wood (<20% moisture) PA 42009 20200299 0007 22004 Use SCC=202002XX profiles Internal Combustion Engines;I ndustrial;Natural Gas;Unknown

PA 42029 20200299 0007 22004 Use SCC=202002XX profiles Internal Combustion Engines;I ndustrial;Natural Gas;Unknown

PA 42045 20200299 0007 22004 Use SCC=202002XX profiles Internal Combustion Engines;I ndustrial;Natural Gas;Unknown

PA 42061 20200299 0007 22004 Use SCC=202002XX profiles Internal Combustion Engines;I ndustrial;Natural Gas;Unknown

PA 42067 20200299 0007 22004 Use SCC=202002XX profiles Internal Combustion Engines;I ndustrial;Natural Gas;Unknown

PA 42015 20300299 0007 22004 Use SCC=203002XX profiles Internal Combustion Engines;Co mmercial/Institutional;Natural Gas;Unknown PA 42029 20300299 0007 22004 Use SCC=203002XX profiles Internal Combustion Engines;Co mmercial/Institutional;Natural Gas;Unknown PA 42037 20300299 0007 22004 Use SCC=203002XX profiles Internal Combustion Engines;Co mmercial/Institutional;Natural Gas;Unknown PA 42071 20300299 0007 22004 Use SCC=203002XX profiles Internal Combustion Engines;Co mmercial/Institutional;Natural Gas;Unknown PA 42011 28888899 9002 35602 Use SCC=288888XX profiles Internal Combustion Engines;F ugitive Emissions;Other Not Classified;Specify in Comments PA 42123 28888899 9002 35602 Use SCC=288888XX profiles Internal Combustion Engines;F ugitive Emissions;Other Not Classified;Specify in Comments PA 42123 28888899 9002 35602 Use SCC=288888XX profiles Internal Combustion Engines;F ugitive Emissions;Other Not Classified;Specify in Comments PA 42129 28888899 9002 35602 Use SCC=288888XX profiles Internal Combustion Engines;F ugitive Emissions;Other Not Classified;Specify in Comments MD 24031 30500261 0025 22035 Use SCC=30500260 profile Industrial Processes;Mineral Products;Asphalt Concrete;Drum Mix Plant: Rotary Drum Dryer/Mixer, Waste/Drain/#6 Oil-Fired PA Numerous counties 39000698 0000 22004 Use SCC=39000699 profile Industrial Processes;In-process Fuel Use;Natural Gas;Unknown NJ Numerous counties 39999901 9003 22054 Use SCC=399999XX profiles Industrial Processes;Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries;Miscellaneous Indus trial Processes;Unknown PA 42015 40202598 1003 99999 Use SCC=40202599 profile Petroleum and Solvent Evaporation;Surface Coating Operations;Miscellaneous Metal Parts;Unknown PA 42017 40202598 1003 99999 Use SCC=40202599 profile Petroleum and Solvent Evaporation;Surface Coating Operations;Miscellaneous Metal Parts;Unknown PA 42091 40202598 1003 99999 Use SCC=40202599 profile Petroleum and Solvent Evaporation;Surface Coating Operations;Miscellaneous Metal Parts;Unknown PA 42095 40202598 1003 99999 Use SCC=40202599 profile Petroleum and Solvent Evaporation;Surface Coating Operations;Miscellaneous Metal Parts;Unknown PA 42097 40202598 1003 99999 Use SCC=40202599 profile Petroleum and Solvent Evaporation;Surface Coating Operations;Miscellaneous Metal Parts;Unknown PA 42013 40400299 1014 22042 Use SCC=404002XX profiles Petroleum and Solvent Evaporation;Petroleum Liquids Storage (non-Refinery);Bulk Plants;Unknown PA 42041 40400299 1014 22042 Use SCC=404002XX profiles Petroleum and Solvent Evaporation;Petroleum Liquids Storage (non-Refinery);Bulk Plants;Unknown PA 42045 40400299 1014 22042 Use SCC=404002XX profiles Petroleum and Solvent Evaporation;Petroleum Liquids Storage (non-Refinery);Bulk Plants;Unknown PA 42071 40400299 1014 22042 Use SCC=404002XX profiles Petroleum and Solvent Evaporation;Petroleum Liquids Storage (non-Refinery);Bulk Plants;UnknownC-152 Table VII-8. Point Source SCCs Lacking Speciation Profile Assignments for CB-IV with PM Mechanism

State FIPS SCC Description

NY 36055 31603001 Industrial Processes; Photographic Film Manufacturing; Product Manufacturing - Substrate Preparation;Extrus ion Operations NY 36055 31603002 Industrial Processes; Photographic Film Manufacturing; Product Manufacturing - Substrate Preparation;Film Support Operations NY 36055 31604001 Industrial Processes; Photographic Film Manufacturing; Product Manufacturing - Chemical Preparation;Chemical Manufacturing NY 36055 31604002 Industrial Processes; Photographic Film Manufacturing; Product Manufacturing - Chemical Preparation;Emulsion Making Operations NY 36055 31604003 Industrial Processes; Photographic Film Manufacturing; Product Manufacturing - Chemical Preparation;Chemical Mixing Operations NY 36055 31605001 Industrial Processes; Photographic Film Manufacturin g;Product Manufacturing - Surface Treatments;Surface C oating Operations NY 36055 31605002 Industrial Processes; Photographic Film Manufacturin g;Product Manufacturing - Surface Treatments;Grid Ionizers NY 36055 31605003 Industrial Processes; Photographic Film Manufacturin g;Product Manufacturing - Surface Treatments;Corona Di scharge Treatment NY 36055 31606001 Industrial Processes; Photographic Film Manufacturing; Product Manufacturing - Finishing Operations;General Film Manufacturing NY 36055 31606002 Industrial Processes; Photographic Film Manufacturing; Product Manufacturing - Finishing Operations;Cutting/S litting Operations PA 42101 31606002 Industrial Processes;Photographic Film Manufacturing;Product Manufacturing - Finishing Operations;Cutting/S litting Operations NY 36055 31612001 Industrial Processes; Photographic Film Manufacturing;Support Activities - Cleaning Operations;Tank Cleaning Operations NY 36055 31612002 Industrial Processes; Photographic Film Manufacturing;Support Activities - Cleaning Operations;General Cleaning Operations NY 36055 31613002 Industrial Processe s;Photographic Film Manufactur ing;Support Activities - Storage Operations;General St orage Operations NY 36055 31614001 Industrial Processes; Photographic Film Manufacturing;Support Activities - Material Transfer Operations;Filling Operations (non petroleum) NY 36055 31614002 Industrial Processes; Photographic Film Manufacturing;Support Activities - Material Transfer Operations;Transfer of Chemicals NY 36055 31615001 Industrial Processes; Photographic Film Manufacturing; Support Activities - Separation Processes;Recovery Operations NY 36055 31615003 Industrial Processes; Photographic Film Manufacturing; Support Activities - Separation Processes;Distillation Operations NY 36055 31616002 Industrial Processe s;Photographic Film Manufacturing;Support Activities - Other Operations;General Proc ess Tank Operations NY 36055 31616003 Industrial Processe s;Photographic Film Manufacturing;Support Activities - Other Operations;Miscellaneous Manufacturing Operations NY 36055 31616004 Industrial Processe s;Photographic Film Manufacturing;Support Activities - Other Operations;Paint Spraying Operations NY 36055 31616006 Industrial Processe s;Photographic Film Manufacturing;Support Activities - Other Operations;Chemical Weighing Operations153 Table VII-9. Summary of Version 3 Mass Emissions and SMOKE Input Files

S/L Agencies Included in Files NIF 3.0 File Name Containing Mass Emissions Inventory (Access 2000 Database Files) Temporal Period of Mass Emissions Inventory SMOKE Input File Name Temporal Period of Emissions in SMOKE/IDA File Point Source Inventory CT, DC, DE, MA, MD, ME, NH, NJ, NY, PA (state and Philadelphia, and Allegheny Counties), RI, VT MANEVU_2002_Pt_Versi on 3_040706.mdb Annual, Summer Day, and Winter Day MANEVU_Point_SMOKE_IN PUT_ANNUAL_SUMMERD AY_042706.txt Annual and Summer Day

“ “ “ MANEVU_Point_SMOKE_IN PUT_ANNUAL_WINTERDA Y_042706.txt Annual and Winter Day

Area Source Inventory CT, DC, DE, MA, MD, ME, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VT MANEVU_2002_Area_04 0606.mdb Annual, Summer Day, Winter Day, and

Average Day MANEVU_AREA_SMOKE_I NPUT_ANNUAL_SUMMER DAY_040606.txt Annual, Summer Day, and Average Day

“ “ “ MANEVU_AREA_SMOKE_I NPUT_ANNUAL_WINTERD AY_040606.txt Annual, Winter Day, and Average Day

Nonroad Source Inventory CT, DC, DE, MA, MD, ME, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VT MANEVU_NRD2002_NIF _030306.mdb Annual MANEVU_NRD2002_SMOK E_030306.ida Annual

Onroad Source Inventory CT CT2002MANEVUORCAP _122004.mdb Annual

DE DE2002MANEVUORCAP _072004.mdb Annual

DC DC2002MANEVUORCAP _072004.mdb Annual

ME ME2002MANEVUORCAP _072004.mdb Annual

MD MD2002MANEVUORCA P_072004.mdb Annual

MA MA2002MANEVUORCAP _022006_Access2000.md b MA2002MANEVUORCAP _022006_Access97.mdb Annual

NH NH2002MANEVUORCAP _072004.mdb Annual

NJ NJ2002MANEVUORCAP _022006_Access2000.md b NJ2002MANEVUORCAP _022006_Access97.mdb Annual

NY NY2002MANEVUORCAP _072004.mdb Annual

PA PA2002MANEVUORCAP _072004.mdb Annual

RI DRI2002MANEVUORCA P_072004.mdb Annual

VT VT2002MANEVUORCAP _122004.mdb Annual

CT, DC, DE, MA, MD, ME, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VT MANEVU_2002_mbinv_020 22006.txt

CT, DC, DE, MA, MD, ME, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VT MANEVU_2002_mcref_0202 2006.txt154 S/L Agencies Included in Files NIF 3.0 File Name Containing Mass Emissions Inventory (Access 2000 Database Files) Temporal Period of Mass Emissions Inventory SMOKE Input File Name Temporal Period of Emissions in SMOKE/IDA File DE, MA, MD, NJ, NY, PA, VT MANEVU_2002_mtpro_0202 2006.txt DE, MA, MD, NJ, NY, PA, VT MANEVU_2002_mtref_0202 2006.txt CT, DC, DE, MA, MD, ME, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VT MANEVU_2002_mvref_0202 2006.txt

CT, DC, DE, MA, MD, ME, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VT MANEVU_2002_vmtmix_02 022006.txt

MANEVU_2002_mcodes.txt CT, NY MANEVU_2002_spdpro.txt CT, NY MANEVU_2002_spdref.txt CT, DC, DE, MA, MD, ME, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VT SMOKE MOBILE6 input files—too numerous to list individually

Table VII-10. Unique List of St art Date, End Date, and Emission Type Combinations for Daily Emissions in the MANE-VU 2002 Point and Area Source Inventories, Version 3

Start Date End Date Emission Type Emission Type Period Season Designation SMOKE File Point Source Inventory 20011201 20020228 27 NONANNUAL Winter MANEVU_Point _SMOKE_INPUT_ANNUAL_WINTERDAY_042706.txt 20011201 20020228 29 NONANNUAL Winter MANEVU_Point _SMOKE_INPUT_ANNUAL_WINTERDAY_042706.txt 20020101 20020331 27 NONANNUAL Winter MANEVU_Point _SMOKE_INPUT_ANNUAL_WINTERDAY_042706.txt 20020101 20021231 29 NONANNUAL MD-Winter MANEVU_Point _SMOKE_INPUT_ANNUAL_WINTERDAY_042706.txt VT-Summer MANEVU_Point_SMOKE_INPUT_ANNUAL_SUMMERDAY_042706.txt 20020501 20020930 29 NONANNUAL Summer MANEVU_Point_SMOKE_INPUT_ANNUAL_SUMMERDAY_042706.txt 20020601 20020831 27 NONANNUAL Summer MANEVU_Point_SMOKE_INPUT_ANNUAL_SUMMERDAY_042706.txt 20020601 20020831 29 NONANNUAL Summer MANEVU_Point_SMOKE_INPUT_ANNUAL_SUMMERDAY_042706.txt 20020601 20020831 30 NONANNUAL Summer MANEVU_Point_SMOKE_INPUT_ANNUAL_SUMMERDAY_042706.txt Area Source Inventory

20020101 20020831 27 Daily Average Day MANEVU_AREA_SMOKE_INPUT_ANNUAL_SUMMERDAY_040606.txt and MANEVU_AREA_SMOKE_INPUT_ANNUAL_WINTERDAY_040606.txt

20020101 20021231 29 Daily Average Day MANEVU_AREA_SMOKE_INPUT_ANNUAL_SUMMERDAY_040606.txt and MANEVU_AREA_SMOKE_INPUT_ANNUAL_WINTERDAY_040606.txt

20020401 20020930 29 Daily Summer Day MANEVU_AREA_SMOKE_INPUT_ANNUAL_SUMMERDAY_040606.txt 20020401 20021031 29 Daily Summer Day MANEVU_AREA_SMOKE_INPUT_ANNUAL_SUMMERDAY_040606.txt 20020512 20020512 27 Daily Summer Day MANEVU_AREA_SMOKE_INPUT_ANNUAL_SUMMERDAY_040606.txt 20020601 20020831 27 Daily Summer Day MANEVU_AREA_SMOKE_INPUT_ANNUAL_SUMMERDAY_040606.txt 20020601 20020831 29 Daily Summer Day MANEVU_AREA_SMOKE_INPUT_ANNUAL_SUMMERDAY_040606.txt 20020601 20020929 29 Daily Summer Day MANEVU_AREA_SMOKE_INPUT_ANNUAL_SUMMERDAY_040606.txt 20020629 20020629 27 Daily Summer Day MANEVU_AREA_SMOKE_INPUT_ANNUAL_SUMMERDAY_040606.txt

20011201 20020228 27 Daily Winter Day MANEVU_AREA_SMOKE_INPUT_ANNUAL_WINTERDAY_040606.txt 20011201 20020228 29 Daily Winter Day MANEVU_AREA_SMOKE_INPUT_ANNUAL_WINTERDAY_040606.txt 20021029 20021029 27 Daily Winter Day MANEVU_AREA_SMOKE_INPUT_ANNUAL_WINTERDAY_040606.txt 20021104 20021104 27 Daily Winter Day MANEVU_AREA_SMOKE_INPUT_ANNUAL_WINTERDAY_040606.txt 20021205 20021205 27 Daily Winter Day MANEVU_AREA_SMOKE_INPUT_ANNUAL_WINTERDAY_040606.txt155 CHAPTER VIII. METHODS FOR AREAS OUTSIDE OF THE MANE-VU REGION

Figure VIII-1 shows the geographic area for which the 12-kilomete r (km) CMAQ modeling domain was used to support air quality modeli ng for the MANE-VU region. The 36-km domain definition was used for geographical areas outs ide of the area show n in Figure VIII-1. Table VIII-1 identifies the ge ographic region as well as the t ypes of emissions inventory and ancillary data used to in modeling for the MANE-VU region. The geographic areas for which data were obtained include the Visibility Impr ovement State and Tribal Association of the Southeast (VISTAS), Central Regional Air Planning Organization (CENRAP), and WRAP RPOs, the Midwest RPO, Canada, and Mexico.

Figure VIII-1. MANE-VU 12-Kilometer CMAQ Modeling Domain156Table VIII-1. Description of Non-MANE-VU RegionInventory Data Used for MANE-VU BaseB Modeling* Only utilized for 2002 BaseA 36-km modeling to generate boundary conditions for BaseA/BaseA1/BaseB current and future year 12-km modeling.GeographicalRegion/RPO Raw DataTime Periodand VersionNumberRaw DataFormat Source of Data Source of Ancillary DataDate Data and SummariesObtained by MANE-VU ModelersVISTAS Point, area,nonroad, andmobile2002 BaseG SMOKE IDA Gregory Stella, AlpineGeophysicsGregory Stella, AlpineGeophysicsJune/July 2006MRPO Point, area,nonroad, andmobile2002 BaseK SMOKE IDA NIF files provided by MarkJanssen, MRPO, andconverted to IDA format byGregory Stella, AlpineGeophysicsPart of VISTAS 2002 BaseDprovided by Gregory Stella,Alpine GeophysicsMay 2006CENRAP Point, area,nonroad, andmobile2002 BaseB SMOKE IDA CENRAP ftp siteLee Warden, Oklahoma DEQCENRAP ftp siteLee Warden, OklahomaDEQMarch 2006WRAP * Point, area,nonroad, andmobilePart ofVISTAS2002 BaseDSMOKE IDA Part of VISTAS 2002 BaseDprovided by Gregory Stella,Alpine GeophysicsPart of VISTAS 2002 BaseDprovided by Gregory Stella,Alpine GeophysicsJanuary 2005Area, nonroadand mobile2000 SMOKE IDA ftp://ftp.epa.gov/EmisInventory/canada_2000inventorySMOKE 2.1 defaults February 2005CanadaPoint 2002 SMOKE IDAcreated byNYSDEC fromCanadian NPRIdatabasehttp://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/npri/npri_home_e.cfmSMOKE 2.1 defaults May 2005Mexico * Point, area,nonroad andmobile1999 SMOKE IDA EPA CAIR NODA SMOKE 2.1 defaults February 2005157 CHAPTER IX. REFERENCES

CAMD, 2004: 2002 Continuous Emissions Mon itoring Data Files downloaded on July 8, 2004 from the EPA’s Clean Air Markets Division’s website (www.epa.gov/ airm arkets). [Note: The files can be found by clicking on Data and Ma ps on the left panel of the screen, then on Data Sets and Published Reports, and then on the first item on the list, Emissions Data Prepackaged Datasets (http://cfpub.epa.gov/gdm/index.cfm?fuseaction= prepackaged.select). Year 2002 data for the quarterly time pe riod was selected and then “Display List” that provides 48 data sets (comma delimited text format) that were downloaded one by one and combined into a single dataset.]

EPA, 2002: Final Summary of the Development and Results of a Methodology for Calculating Area Source Emissions from Re sidential Fuel Combustion, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Emission Factor and Inventory Group, Emissions Monitoring and Analysis Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and St andards. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. September 2002. (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eiip/t echreport/volume03/index.html).

EPA, 2003a: Enhanced Particulate Matter Controll ed Emissions Calculator , User’s Manual, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Emissi on Factor and Inventory Group, Emissions Monitoring and Analysis Divi sion, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. September 2003.

EPA, 2003b: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Documentation for Aircraft, Commerc ial Marine, Locomotive, and Other Nonroad Components of the Na tional Emissions Inventory, prepared by Eastern Research Group, Morrisville, NC, for the U.S. Envi ronmental Protection Agency, September 2003.

EPA, 2004a: Basic Format & Content Checker 3.0 (Formerly known as the Quality Assurance / Quality Control Software 3.0) - March 2004; Extended Quality Control Tool - Updated May 18, 2004. Available at the following EPA website: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/nif/index.html#nei.

EPA, 2004b: NEI Quality Assurance and Da ta Augmentation for Point Sources, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Emissions Monitoring and Analysis Division, Emission Factor and Inventory Group, May 26, 2004.

EPA, 2004c: Factor Information and REtrieval (FIRE) Data System, Version 6.24, located on the Technology Transfer Network Clearinghouse for Inventories & Emission Factors Web Site at http://www.epa.gov /ttn/chief/softwar e/fire/index.html. March 2004.

EPA, 2005a. U.S. Environmental Protect ion Agency, Final NONROAD2005 [computer software], Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Ann Arbor, MI. Available December 2005 at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/nonroadmdl.htm.158 EPA, 2005b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Mobile Inventory Model, NMIM2005 [computer software], Office of Tr ansportation and Air Quality, Ann Arbor, MI. Available December 2005 at: h ttp://www.epa.gov/otaq/nmim.htm.

ERG, 2004: Environmental Research Group, Documentation for Aircraft, Commercial Marine, Locomotive, and Other Nonroad Components of the National Emissions Inventory, technical memorandum prepared by Eastern Re search Group, Morrisville, NC, for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, September 2004.

MANE-VU, 2003: Quality Assurance Plan for Development of a 2002 Mobile Source Emissions Inventory for the MANE-VU States , Final. Prepared by E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc. for the Mid-Atlantic/North east Visibility Uni on (MANE-VU). January 31, 2003.

MANE-VU, 2004a: Quality Assurance Projec t Plan (QAPP) for Area and Point Source Emissions Modeling Inventory Project, Fi nal. Prepared by E.H. Pechan &Associates, Inc. and Carolina Environmental Program for the MidAtlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU). August 3, 2004.

MANE-VU, 2004b: Summary of Approaches Available for Fugitive Dust Sources, Final. Prepared by E.H. Pechan & Associ ates, Inc. for the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU). July 15, 2004.

MANE-VU, 2004c: Summary of Approaches Available for Wildfires, Prescribed Burning, Slash Burning, and Agricultural Fi eld Burning, Draft. Prepared by E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc. for the Mi d-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU). July 24, 2004.

MANE-VU, 2005: Area and Point Source Emissi ons Modeling Inventory Project, Prepared by E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc. for the Mid- Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANEVU). January 31, 2005.

Thompson, 2002: Thompson, Rhonda L., “A Dem onstration of the Quality Assurance (QA) software specifically developed for the Nati onal Emission Inventory (NEI),” presented at the International Emission Inventory Confer ence “Emission Inventories - Partnering for the Future,” Atlanta, GA, April 15-18, 2002, (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/conference/ ei11/qa/thompson.pdf).

WRAP, 2005: Western Governors’ Association, Western Regional Air Partnership, “Analysis of the Fine Fraction of Particulate Matter in Fugitive Dust,” Final Report, October 12, 2005 (http://www.wrapair.org/f orums/dejf/index.html).A-1 APPENDIX A

POINT SOURCE INVENTOR Y, VERSION 3: DATA SOURCES BY SCC, EMISSION TYPE PERIOD, AND POLLUTANT

[ NOTE: The Appendix A table for ea ch State is provided in a separ ate MS Word file because of the large size of each table. The Word files ar e provided in the zip file named “Appendix A.zip”;

this zip file also includes an Excel Workbook file that contains the spreadsheet from which the Word file was created for each State.]B-1 APPENDIX B

AREA SOURCE INVENTOR Y, VERSION 3: DATA SOURCES BY SCC, EMISSION TYPE PERIOD, AND POLLUTANT

[ NOTE: The Appendix B table for ea ch State is provided in a separ ate MS Word file because of the large size of each table. The Word files ar e provided in the zip file named “Appendix B.zip”;

this zip file also includes an Excel Workbook file that contains the spreadsheet from which the Word file was created for each State.]C-1 APPENDIX C

NONROAD SOURCE INVENT ORY, VERSION 3: FINAL COUNTY, MONTHLY NATIONAL MOBILE INVENTORY MOD EL (NMIM) INPUTS

CONTENTS

CONNECTICUT .................................................................................................................... .... C-2 DELAWARE ....................................................................................................................... ....... C-2 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ...................................................................................................... C-3 MAINE .......................................................................................................................... ............. C-3 MARYLAND ....................................................................................................................... ...... C-4 MASSACHUSETTS.................................................................................................................. . C-6 NEW HAMPSHIRE .................................................................................................................. . C-7 NEW JERSEY ..................................................................................................................... ....... C-7 NEW YORK ....................................................................................................................... ........ C-9 PENNSYLVANIA................................................................................................................... . C-13 RHODE ISLAND ................................................................................................................... .. C-17 VERMONT........................................................................................................................ ....... C-18C-2Table C-1. MANE-VU County,Monthly NMIM/NONROAD InputsFIPS_State State FIPS_County County JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC09CONNECTICUTRVP, psi001 Fairfield County 12.5 12.5 10.1 10.1 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 10.1 10.1 12.5003 Hartford County 12.3 12.3 10.0 10.0 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 10.0 10.0 12.3005 Litchfield County 12.3 12.3 10.0 10.0 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 10.0 10.0 12.3007 Middlesex County 12.3 12.3 10.0 10.0 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 10.0 10.0 12.3009 New Haven County 12.3 12.3 10.0 10.0 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 10.0 10.0 12.3011 New London County 12.3 12.3 10.0 10.0 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 10.0 10.0 12.3013 Tolland County 12.3 12.3 10.0 10.0 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 10.0 10.0 12.3015 Windham County 12.3 12.3 10.0 10.0 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 10.0 10.0 12.3Oxygen Weight Percent001 Fairfield County 1.7172 1.7172 1.7660 1.7660 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.7660 1.7660 1.7172003 Hartford County 1.5667 1.5667 1.6068 1.6068 1.6596 1.6596 1.6596 1.6596 1.6596 1.6068 1.6068 1.5667005 Litchfield County 1.5667 1.5667 1.6068 1.6068 1.6596 1.6596 1.6596 1.6596 1.6596 1.6068 1.6068 1.5667007 Middlesex County 1.5667 1.5667 1.6068 1.6068 1.6596 1.6596 1.6596 1.6596 1.6596 1.6068 1.6068 1.5667009 New Haven County 1.5667 1.5667 1.6068 1.6068 1.6596 1.6596 1.6596 1.6596 1.6596 1.6068 1.6068 1.5667011 New London County 1.5667 1.5667 1.6068 1.6068 1.6596 1.6596 1.6596 1.6596 1.6596 1.6068 1.6068 1.5667013 Tolland County 1.5667 1.5667 1.6068 1.6068 1.6596 1.6596 1.6596 1.6596 1.6596 1.6068 1.6068 1.5667015 Windham County 1.5667 1.5667 1.6068 1.6068 1.6596 1.6596 1.6596 1.6596 1.6596 1.6068 1.6068 1.5667Gasoline Sulfur, ppm001 Fairfield County 135.0 135.0 135.0 135.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 135.0 135.0 135.0003 Hartford County 135.0 135.0 135.0 135.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 135.0 135.0 135.0005 Litchfield County 135.0 135.0 135.0 135.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 135.0 135.0 135.0007 Middlesex County 135.0 135.0 135.0 135.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 135.0 135.0 135.0009 New Haven County 135.0 135.0 135.0 135.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 135.0 135.0 135.0011 New London County 135.0 135.0 135.0 135.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 135.0 135.0 135.0013 Tolland County 135.0 135.0 135.0 135.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 135.0 135.0 135.0015 Windham County 135.0 135.0 135.0 135.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 135.0 135.0 135.010DELAWARERVP, psi001 Kent County 13.4 13.4 10.6 10.6 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 10.6 10.6 13.4003 New Castle County 13.4 13.4 10.6 10.6 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 10.6 10.6 13.4005 Sussex County 13.4 13.4 10.4 10.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 10.4 10.4 13.4Oxygen Weight Percent001 Kent County 1.8442 1.8442 1.9457 1.9457 2.0896 2.0896 2.0896 2.0896 2.0896 1.9457 1.9457 1.8442003 New Castle County 1.8442 1.8442 1.9457 1.9457 2.0896 2.0896 2.0896 2.0896 2.0896 1.9457 1.9457 1.8442005 Sussex County 1.4645 1.4645 1.5538 1.5538 1.6431 1.6431 1.6431 1.6431 1.6431 1.5538 1.5538 1.4645Gasoline Sulfur, ppm001 Kent County 174.0 174.0 155.1 155.1 130.0 130.0 130.0 130.0 130.0 155.1 155.1 174.0003 New Castle County 174.0 174.0 155.1 155.1 130.0 130.0 130.0 130.0 130.0 155.1 155.1 174.0005 Sussex County 225.0 225.0 186.0 186.0 134.0 134.0 134.0 134.0 134.0 186.0 186.0 225.0Table C-1 (continued)C-3FIPS_State State FIPS_County County JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC11DISTRICT OF COLUMBIARVP, psi001 District of Columbia 13.1 13.1 10.4 10.4 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 10.4 13.1Oxygen Weight Percent001 District of Columbia 1.7681 1.7681 1.8217 1.8217 1.8932 1.8932 1.8932 1.8932 1.8932 1.8932 1.8217 1.7681Gasoline Sulfur, ppm001 District of Columbia 230.0 230.0 199.6 199.6 159.0 159.0 159.0 159.0 159.0 159.0 199.6 230.023MAINERVP, psi001 Androscoggin County 12.3 11.1 11.2 8.4 7.5 7.5 7.7 7.3 9.7 10.7 10.3 11.6003 Aroostook County 12.3 11.1 11.2 8.4 8.6 8.6 8.4 8.4 9.7 10.7 10.3 11.6005 Cumberland County 12.3 11.1 11.2 8.4 7.5 7.5 7.7 7.3 9.7 10.7 10.3 11.6007 Franklin County 12.3 11.1 11.2 8.4 8.6 8.6 8.4 8.4 9.7 10.7 10.3 11.6009 Hancock County 12.3 11.1 11.2 8.4 8.6 8.6 8.4 8.4 9.7 10.7 10.3 11.6011 Kennebec County 12.3 11.1 11.2 8.4 7.5 7.5 7.7 7.3 9.7 10.7 10.3 11.6013 Knox County 12.3 11.1 11.2 8.4 7.5 7.5 7.7 7.3 9.7 10.7 10.3 11.6015 Lincoln County 12.3 11.1 11.2 8.4 7.5 7.5 7.7 7.3 9.7 10.7 10.3 11.6017 Oxford County 12.3 11.1 11.2 8.4 8.6 8.6 8.4 8.4 9.7 10.7 10.3 11.6019 Penobscot County 12.3 11.1 11.2 8.4 8.6 8.6 8.4 8.4 9.7 10.7 10.3 11.6021 Piscataquis County 12.3 11.1 11.2 8.4 8.6 8.6 8.4 8.4 9.7 10.7 10.3 11.6023 Sagadahoc County 12.3 11.1 11.2 8.4 7.5 7.5 7.7 7.3 9.7 10.7 10.3 11.6025 Somerset County 12.3 11.1 11.2 8.4 8.6 8.6 8.4 8.4 9.7 10.7 10.3 11.6027 Waldo County 12.3 11.1 11.2 8.4 8.6 8.6 8.4 8.4 9.7 10.7 10.3 11.6029 Washington County 12.3 11.1 11.2 8.4 8.6 8.6 8.4 8.4 9.7 10.7 10.3 11.6031 York County 12.3 11.1 11.2 8.4 7.5 7.5 7.7 7.3 9.7 10.7 10.3 11.6Oxygen Weight Percent001 Androscoggin County 0.4334 0.6510 0.5390 0.3235 0.2420 0.1753 0.7061 0.6868 0.5895 0.6930 0.3560 0.2080003 Aroostook County 0.4334 0.6510 0.5390 0.3235 0.3786 0.5845 0.8545 0.5448 0.5895 0.6930 0.3560 0.2080005 Cumberland County 0.4334 0.6510 0.5390 0.3235 0.2420 0.1753 0.7061 0.6868 0.5895 0.6930 0.3560 0.2080007 Franklin County 0.4334 0.6510 0.5390 0.3235 0.3786 0.5845 0.8545 0.5448 0.5895 0.6930 0.3560 0.2080009 Hancock County 0.4334 0.6510 0.5390 0.3235 0.3786 0.5845 0.8545 0.5448 0.5895 0.6930 0.3560 0.2080011 Kennebec County 0.4334 0.6510 0.5390 0.3235 0.2420 0.1753 0.7061 0.6868 0.5895 0.6930 0.3560 0.2080013 Knox County 0.4334 0.6510 0.5390 0.3235 0.2420 0.1753 0.7061 0.6868 0.5895 0.6930 0.3560 0.2080015 Lincoln County 0.4334 0.6510 0.5390 0.3235 0.2420 0.1753 0.7061 0.6868 0.5895 0.6930 0.3560 0.2080017 Oxford County 0.4334 0.6510 0.5390 0.3235 0.3786 0.5845 0.8545 0.5448 0.5895 0.6930 0.3560 0.2080019 Penobscot County 0.4334 0.6510 0.5390 0.3235 0.3786 0.5845 0.8545 0.5448 0.5895 0.6930 0.3560 0.2080021 Piscataquis County 0.4334 0.6510 0.5390 0.3235 0.3786 0.5845 0.8545 0.5448 0.5895 0.6930 0.3560 0.2080023 Sagadahoc County 0.4334 0.6510 0.5390 0.3235 0.2420 0.1753 0.7061 0.6868 0.5895 0.6930 0.3560 0.2080025 Somerset County 0.4334 0.6510 0.5390 0.3235 0.3786 0.5845 0.8545 0.5448 0.5895 0.6930 0.3560 0.2080027 Waldo County 0.4334 0.6510 0.5390 0.3235 0.3786 0.5845 0.8545 0.5448 0.5895 0.6930 0.3560 0.2080029 Washington County 0.4334 0.6510 0.5390 0.3235 0.3786 0.5845 0.8545 0.5448 0.5895 0.6930 0.3560 0.2080031 York County 0.4334 0.6510 0.5390 0.3235 0.2420 0.1753 0.7061 0.6868 0.5895 0.6930 0.3560 0.2080Gasoline Sulfur, ppm001 Androscoggin County 151.5 236.1 221.1 145.4 319.7 268.1 101.1 83.4 159.9 279.8 190.9 171.0003 Aroostook County 151.5 236.1 221.1 145.4 170.1 290.9 128.6 299.4 159.9 279.8 190.9 171.0005 Cumberland County 151.5 236.1 221.1 145.4 319.7 268.1 101.1 83.4 159.9 279.8 190.9 171.0007 Franklin County 151.5 236.1 221.1 145.4 170.1 290.9 128.6 299.4 159.9 279.8 190.9 171.0Table C-1 (continued)C-4FIPS_State State FIPS_County County JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC009 Hancock County 151.5 236.1 221.1 145.4 170.1 290.9 128.6 299.4 159.9 279.8 190.9 171.023 MAINE (cont’d)011 Kennebec County 151.5 236.1 221.1 145.4 319.7 268.1 101.1 83.4 159.9 279.8 190.9 171.0013 Knox County 151.5 236.1 221.1 145.4 319.7 268.1 101.1 83.4 159.9 279.8 190.9 171.0015 Lincoln County 151.5 236.1 221.1 145.4 319.7 268.1 101.1 83.4 159.9 279.8 190.9 171.0017 Oxford County 151.5 236.1 221.1 145.4 170.1 290.9 128.6 299.4 159.9 279.8 190.9 171.0019 Penobscot County 151.5 236.1 221.1 145.4 170.1 290.9 128.6 299.4 159.9 279.8 190.9 171.0021 Piscataquis County 151.5 236.1 221.1 145.4 170.1 290.9 128.6 299.4 159.9 279.8 190.9 171.0023 Sagadahoc County 151.5 236.1 221.1 145.4 319.7 268.1 101.1 83.4 159.9 279.8 190.9 171.0025 Somerset County 151.5 236.1 221.1 145.4 170.1 290.9 128.6 299.4 159.9 279.8 190.9 171.0027 Waldo County 151.5 236.1 221.1 145.4 170.1 290.9 128.6 299.4 159.9 279.8 190.9 171.0029 Washington County 151.5 236.1 221.1 145.4 170.1 290.9 128.6 299.4 159.9 279.8 190.9 171.0031 York County 151.5 236.1 221.1 145.4 319.7 268.1 101.1 83.4 159.9 279.8 190.9 171.024MARYLANDRVP, psi003 Anne Arundel County 12.6 12.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 9.3 9.3 9.3 12.6005 Baltimore County 12.6 12.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 9.3 9.3 9.3 12.6009 Calvert County 12.6 12.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 9.3 9.3 9.3 12.6011 Caroline County 12.6 12.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 8.2 8.2 8.2 9.3 9.3 9.3 12.6013 Carroll County 12.6 12.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 9.3 9.3 9.3 12.6015 Cecil County 12.6 12.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 9.3 9.3 9.3 12.6017 Charles County 12.6 12.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 9.3 9.3 9.3 12.6019 Dorchester County 12.6 12.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 8.2 8.2 8.2 9.3 9.3 9.3 12.6021 Frederick County 12.6 12.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 9.3 9.3 9.3 12.6023 Garrett County 12.6 12.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 8.2 8.2 8.2 9.3 9.3 9.3 12.6025 Harford County 12.6 12.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 9.3 9.3 9.3 12.6027 Howard County 12.6 12.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 9.3 9.3 9.3 12.6029 Kent County 12.6 12.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 9.3 9.3 9.3 12.6031 Montgomery County 12.6 12.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 9.3 9.3 9.3 12.6033 Prince George's County 12.6 12.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 9.3 9.3 9.3 12.6035 Queen Anne's County 12.6 12.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 9.3 9.3 9.3 12.6037 St. Mary's County 12.6 12.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 8.2 8.2 8.2 9.3 9.3 9.3 12.6039 Somerset County 12.6 12.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 8.2 8.2 8.2 9.3 9.3 9.3 12.6041 Talbot County 12.6 12.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 8.2 8.2 8.2 9.3 9.3 9.3 12.6043 Washington County 12.6 12.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 8.2 8.2 8.2 9.3 9.3 9.3 12.6045 Wicomico County 12.6 12.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 8.2 8.2 8.2 9.3 9.3 9.3 12.6047 Worcester County 12.6 12.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 8.2 8.2 8.2 9.3 9.3 9.3 12.6510 Baltimore city 12.6 12.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 9.3 9.3 9.3 12.6Oxygen Weight Percent001 Allegany County 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075003 Anne Arundel County 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075005 Baltimore County 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075009 Calvert County 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075011 Caroline County 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075013 Carroll County 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075015 Cecil County 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075017 Charles County 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075019 Dorchester County 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075021 Frederick County 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075Table C-1 (continued)C-5FIPS_State State FIPS_County County JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC023 Garrett County 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.107524 MARYLAND (cont’d)025 Harford County 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075027 Howard County 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075029 Kent County 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075031 Montgomery County 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075033 Prince George's County 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075035 Queen Anne's County 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075037 St. Mary's County 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075039 Somerset County 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075041 Talbot County 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075043 Washington County 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075045 Wicomico County 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075047 Worcester County 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075510 Baltimore city 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075Gasoline Sulfur, ppm001 Allegany County 207.9 207.9 191.9 191.9 170.5 170.5 170.5 170.5 170.5 170.5 191.9 207.9003 Anne Arundel County 211.0 211.0 184.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 148.0 184.0 211.0005 Baltimore County 211.0 211.0 184.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 148.0 184.0 211.0009 Calvert County 230.0 230.0 199.6 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 159.0 199.6 230.0011 Caroline County 207.9 207.9 191.9 191.9 170.5 170.5 170.5 170.5 170.5 170.5 191.9 207.9013 Carroll County 211.0 211.0 184.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 148.0 184.0 211.0015 Cecil County 174.0 174.0 155.1 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 130.0 155.1 174.0017 Charles County 230.0 230.0 199.6 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 159.0 199.6 230.0019 Dorchester County 207.9 207.9 191.9 191.9 170.5 170.5 170.5 170.5 170.5 170.5 191.9 207.9021 Frederick County 230.0 230.0 199.6 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 159.0 199.6 230.0023 Garrett County 207.9 207.9 191.9 191.9 170.5 170.5 170.5 170.5 170.5 170.5 191.9 207.9025 Harford County 211.0 211.0 184.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 148.0 184.0 211.0027 Howard County 211.0 211.0 184.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 148.0 184.0 211.0029 Kent County 174.0 174.0 155.1 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 130.0 155.1 174.0031 Montgomery County 230.0 230.0 199.6 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 159.0 199.6 230.0033 Prince George's County 230.0 230.0 199.6 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 159.0 199.6 230.0035 Queen Anne's County 174.0 174.0 155.1 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 130.0 155.1 174.0037 St. Mary's County 207.9 207.9 191.9 191.9 170.5 170.5 170.5 170.5 170.5 170.5 191.9 207.9039 Somerset County 207.9 207.9 191.9 191.9 170.5 170.5 170.5 170.5 170.5 170.5 191.9 207.9041 Talbot County 207.9 207.9 191.9 191.9 170.5 170.5 170.5 170.5 170.5 170.5 191.9 207.9043 Washington County 207.9 207.9 191.9 191.9 170.5 170.5 170.5 170.5 170.5 170.5 191.9 207.9045 Wicomico County 207.9 207.9 191.9 191.9 170.5 170.5 170.5 170.5 170.5 170.5 191.9 207.9047 Worcester County 207.9 207.9 191.9 191.9 170.5 170.5 170.5 170.5 170.5 170.5 191.9 207.9510 Baltimore city 211.0 211.0 184.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 148.0 184.0 211.0Table C-1 (continued)C-6FIPS_State State FIPS_County County JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC25MASSACHUSETTSRVP, psi001 Barnstable County 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 13.5 13.5 13.5003 Berkshire County 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 13.5 13.5 13.5005 Bristol County 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 13.5 13.5 13.5007 Dukes County 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 13.5 13.5 13.5009 Essex County 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 13.5 13.5 13.5011 Franklin County 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 13.5 13.5 13.5013 Hampden County 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 13.5 13.5 13.5015 Hampshire County 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 13.5 13.5 13.5017 Middlesex County 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 13.5 13.5 13.5019 Nantucket County 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 13.5 13.5 13.5021 Norfolk County 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 13.5 13.5 13.5023 Plymouth County 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 13.5 13.5 13.5025 Suffolk County 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 13.5 13.5 13.5027 Worcester County 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 13.5 13.5 13.5Oxygen Weight Percent001 Barnstable County 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002003 Berkshire County 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002005 Bristol County 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002007 Dukes County 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002009 Essex County 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002011 Franklin County 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002013 Hampden County 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002015 Hampshire County 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002017 Middlesex County 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002019 Nantucket County 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002021 Norfolk County 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002023 Plymouth County 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002025 Suffolk County 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002027 Worcester County 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002Gasoline Sulfur, ppm001 Barnstable County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 279.0 279.0 279.0003 Berkshire County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 279.0 279.0 279.0005 Bristol County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 279.0 279.0 279.0007 Dukes County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 279.0 279.0 279.0009 Essex County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 279.0 279.0 279.0011 Franklin County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 279.0 279.0 279.0013 Hampden County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 279.0 279.0 279.0015 Hampshire County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 279.0 279.0 279.0017 Middlesex County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 279.0 279.0 279.0019 Nantucket County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 279.0 279.0 279.0021 Norfolk County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 279.0 279.0 279.0023 Plymouth County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 279.0 279.0 279.0025 Suffolk County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 279.0 279.0 279.0027 Worcester County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 279.0 279.0 279.0Table C-1 (continued)C-7FIPS_State State FIPS_County County JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC33NEW HAMPSHIRERVP, psi001 Belknap County 13.6 13.6 11.2 11.2 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 11.2 11.2 13.6003 Carroll County 13.6 13.6 11.2 11.2 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 11.2 11.2 13.6005 Cheshire County 13.6 13.6 11.2 11.2 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 11.2 11.2 13.6007 Coos County 13.6 13.6 11.2 11.2 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 11.2 11.2 13.6009 Grafton County 13.6 13.6 11.2 11.2 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 11.2 11.2 13.6011 Hillsborough County 12.9 12.9 10.2 10.2 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.76.7 10.2 10.2 12.9013 Merrimack County 12.9 12.9 10.2 10.2 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 10.2 10.2 12.9015 Rockingham County 12.9 12.9 10.2 10.2 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 10.2 10.2 12.9017 Strafford County 12.9 12.9 10.2 10.2 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 10.2 10.2 12.9019 Sullivan County 13.613.6 11.2 11.2 7.97.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 11.2 11.2 13.6Oxygen Weight Percent001 Belknap County 0.1786 0.1786 0.2322 0.2322 0.2858 0.2858 0.2858 0.2858 0.2858 0.2322 0.2322 0.1786003 Carroll County 0.1786 0.1786 0.2322 0.2322 0.2858 0.2858 0.2858 0.2858 0.2858 0.2322 0.2322 0.1786005 Cheshire County 0.1786 0.1786 0.2322 0.2322 0.2858 0.2858 0.2858 0.2858 0.2858 0.2322 0.2322 0.1786007 Coos County 0.1786 0.1786 0.2322 0.2322 0.2858 0.2858 0.2858 0.2858 0.2858 0.2322 0.2322 0.1786009 Grafton County 0.1786 0.1786 0.2322 0.2322 0.2858 0.2858 0.2858 0.2858 0.2858 0.2322 0.2322 0.1786011 Hillsborough County 1.8217 1.8217 1.9110 1.9110 2.0182 2.0182 2.0182 2.01822.0182 1.9110 1.9110 1.8217013 Merrimack County 1.8217 1.8217 1.9110 1.9110 2.0182 2.0182 2.0182 2.0182 2.0182 1.9110 1.9110 1.8217015 Rockingham County 1.9825 1.9825 2.0539 2.0539 2.1432 2.1432 2.1432 2.1432 2.1432 2.0539 2.0539 1.9825017 Strafford County 1.9825 1.9825 2.0539 2.0539 2.1432 2.1432 2.1432 2.1432 2.1432 2.0539 2.0539 1.9825019 Sullivan County 0.17860.1786 0.2322 0.2322 0.28580.2858 0.2858 0.2858 0.2858 0.2322 0.2322 0.1786Gasoline Sulfur, ppm001 Belknap County 228.1 228.1 208.6 208.6 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 208.6 208.6 228.1003 Carroll County 228.1 228.1 208.6 208.6 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 208.6 208.6 228.1005 Cheshire County 228.1 228.1 208.6 208.6 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 208.6 208.6 228.1007 Coos County 228.1 228.1 208.6 208.6 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 208.6 208.6 228.1009 Grafton County 228.1 228.1 208.6 208.6 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 208.6 208.6 228.1011 Hillsborough County 121.0 121.0 101.3 101.3 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.075.0 101.3 101.3 121.0013 Merrimack County 121.0 121.0 101.3 101.3 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 101.3 101.3 121.0015 Rockingham County 148.0 148.0 121.0 121.0 85.0 85.0 85.0 85.0 85.0 121.0 121.0 148.0017 Strafford County 148.0 148.0 121.0 121.0 85.0 85.0 85.0 85.0 85.0 121.0 121.0 148.0019 Sullivan County 228.1228.1 208.6 208.6 182.5182.5 182.5 182.5 182.5 208.6 208.6 228.134NEW JERSEYRVP, psi001 Atlantic County 13.4 13.4 10.6 10.6 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 10.6 10.6 13.4003 Bergen County 12.5 12.5 10.1 10.1 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 10.1 10.1 12.5005 Burlington County 13.4 13.4 10.6 10.6 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 10.6 10.6 13.4007 Camden County 13.4 13.4 10.6 10.6 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 10.6 10.6 13.4009 Cape May County 13.4 13.4 10.6 10.6 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 10.6 10.6 13.4011 Cumberland County 13.4 13.4 10.6 10.6 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 10.6 10.6 13.4013 Essex County 12.5 12.5 10.1 10.1 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 10.1 10.1 12.5015 Gloucester County 13.4 13.4 10.6 10.6 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 10.6 10.6 13.4017 Hudson County 12.5 12.5 10.1 10.1 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 10.1 10.1 12.5019 Hunterdon County 12.5 12.5 10.1 10.1 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 10.1 10.1 12.5021 Mercer County 13.4 13.4 10.6 10.6 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 10.6 10.6 13.4023 Middlesex County 12.5 12.5 10.1 10.1 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 10.1 10.1 12.5Table C-1 (continued)C-8FIPS_State State FIPS_County County JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC34 NEW JERSEY025 Monmouth County 12.5 12.5 10.1 10.1 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 10.1 10.1 12.5(cont’d)027 Morris County 12.5 12.5 10.1 10.1 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 10.1 10.1 12.5029 Ocean County 12.5 12.5 10.1 10.1 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 10.1 10.1 12.5031 Passaic County 12.5 12.5 10.1 10.1 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 10.1 10.1 12.5033 Salem County 13.4 13.4 10.6 10.6 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 10.6 10.6 13.4035 Somerset County 12.5 12.5 10.1 10.1 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 10.1 10.1 12.5037 Sussex County 12.5 12.5 10.1 10.1 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 10.1 10.1 12.5039 Union County 12.5 12.5 10.1 10.1 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 10.1 10.1 12.5041 Warren County 13.4 13.4 10.6 10.6 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 10.6 10.6 13.4Oxygen Weight Percent001 Atlantic County 1.6922 1.6922 1.8499 1.8499 2.0718 2.0718 2.0718 2.0718 2.0718 1.8499 1.8499 1.6922003 Bergen County 1.7172 1.7172 1.7660 1.7660 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.7660 1.7660 1.7172005 Burlington County 1.8442 1.8442 1.9457 1.9457 2.0896 2.0896 2.0896 2.0896 2.0896 1.9457 1.9457 1.8442007 Camden County 1.8442 1.8442 1.9457 1.9457 2.0896 2.0896 2.0896 2.0896 2.0896 1.9457 1.9457 1.8442009 Cape May County 1.6922 1.6922 1.8499 1.8499 2.0718 2.0718 2.0718 2.0718 2.0718 1.8499 1.8499 1.6922011 Cumberland County 1.8442 1.8442 1.9457 1.9457 2.0896 2.0896 2.0896 2.0896 2.0896 1.9457 1.9457 1.8442013 Essex County 1.7172 1.7172 1.7660 1.7660 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.7660 1.7660 1.7172015 Gloucester County 1.8442 1.8442 1.9457 1.9457 2.0896 2.0896 2.0896 2.0896 2.0896 1.9457 1.9457 1.8442017 Hudson County 1.7172 1.7172 1.7660 1.7660 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.7660 1.7660 1.7172019 Hunterdon County 1.7172 1.7172 1.7660 1.7660 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.7660 1.7660 1.7172021 Mercer County 1.8442 1.8442 1.9457 1.9457 2.0896 2.0896 2.0896 2.0896 2.0896 1.9457 1.9457 1.8442023 Middlesex County 1.7172 1.7172 1.7660 1.7660 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.7660 1.7660 1.7172025 Monmouth County 1.7172 1.7172 1.7660 1.7660 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.7660 1.7660 1.7172027 Morris County 1.7172 1.7172 1.7660 1.7660 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.7660 1.7660 1.7172029 Ocean County 1.7172 1.7172 1.7660 1.7660 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.7660 1.7660 1.7172031 Passaic County 1.7172 1.7172 1.7660 1.7660 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.7660 1.7660 1.7172033 Salem County 1.8442 1.8442 1.9457 1.9457 2.0896 2.0896 2.0896 2.0896 2.0896 1.9457 1.9457 1.8442035 Somerset County 1.7172 1.7172 1.7660 1.7660 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.7660 1.7660 1.7172037 Sussex County 1.7172 1.7172 1.7660 1.7660 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.7660 1.7660 1.7172039 Union County 1.7172 1.7172 1.7660 1.7660 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.7660 1.7660 1.7172041 Warren County 1.8753 1.8753 1.9110 1.9110 1.9825 1.9825 1.9825 1.9825 1.9825 1.9110 1.9110 1.8753Gasoline Sulfur, ppm001 Atlantic County 207.0 207.0 174.0 174.0 130.0 130.0 130.0 130.0 130.0 174.0 174.0 207.0003 Bergen County 141.0 141.0 129.4 129.4 114.0 114.0 114.0 114.0 114.0 129.4 129.4 141.0005 Burlington County 174.0 174.0 155.1 155.1 130.0 130.0 130.0 130.0 130.0 155.1 155.1 174.0007 Camden County 174.0 174.0 155.1 155.1 130.0 130.0 130.0 130.0 130.0 155.1 155.1 174.0009 Cape May County 207.0 207.0 174.0 174.0 130.0 130.0 130.0 130.0 130.0 174.0 174.0 207.0011 Cumberland County 174.0 174.0 155.1 155.1 130.0 130.0 130.0 130.0 130.0 155.1 155.1 174.0013 Essex County 141.0 141.0 129.4 129.4 114.0 114.0 114.0 114.0 114.0 129.4 129.4 141.0015 Gloucester County 174.0 174.0 155.1 155.1 130.0 130.0 130.0 130.0 130.0 155.1 155.1 174.0017 Hudson County 141.0 141.0 129.4 129.4 114.0 114.0 114.0 114.0 114.0 129.4 129.4 141.0019 Hunterdon County 141.0 141.0 129.4 129.4 114.0 114.0 114.0 114.0 114.0 129.4 129.4 141.0021 Mercer County 174.0 174.0 155.1 155.1 130.0 130.0 130.0 130.0 130.0 155.1 155.1 174.0023 Middlesex County 141.0 141.0 129.4 129.4 114.0 114.0 114.0 114.0 114.0 129.4 129.4 141.0025 Monmouth County 141.0 141.0 129.4 129.4 114.0 114.0 114.0 114.0 114.0 129.4 129.4 141.0027 Morris County 141.0 141.0 129.4 129.4 114.0 114.0 114.0 114.0 114.0 129.4 129.4 141.0029 Ocean County 141.0 141.0 129.4 129.4 114.0 114.0 114.0 114.0 114.0 129.4 129.4 141.0031 Passaic County 141.0 141.0 129.4 129.4 114.0 114.0 114.0 114.0 114.0 129.4 129.4 141.0Table C-1 (continued)C-9FIPS_State State FIPS_County County JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC34 NEW JERSEY033 Salem County 174.0 174.0 155.1 155.1 130.0 130.0 130.0 130.0 130.0 155.1 155.1 174.0(cont’d)035 Somerset County 141.0 141.0 129.4 129.4 114.0 114.0 114.0 114.0 114.0 129.4 129.4 141.0037 Sussex County 141.0 141.0 129.4 129.4 114.0 114.0 114.0 114.0 114.0 129.4 129.4 141.0039 Union County 141.0 141.0 129.4 129.4 114.0 114.0 114.0 114.0 114.0 129.4 129.4 141.0041 Warren County 125.0 125.0 123.7 123.7 122.0 122.0 122.0 122.0 122.0 123.7 123.7 125.036NEW YORKRVP, psi001 Albany County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4003 Allegany County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4005 Bronx County 12.8 12.6 12.1 9.0 6.8 6.7 6.6 6.7 6.9 10.3 11.7 12.5007 Broome County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4009 Cattaraugus County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4011 Cayuga County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4013 Chautauqua County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4015 Chemung County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4017 Chenango County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4019 Clinton County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4021 Columbia County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4023 Cortland County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4025 Delaware County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4027 Dutchess County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4029 Erie County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4031 Essex County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4033 Franklin County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4035 Fulton County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4037 Genesee County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4039 Greene County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4041 Hamilton County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4043 Herkimer County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4045 Jefferson County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4047 Kings County 12.8 12.6 12.1 9.0 6.8 6.7 6.6 6.7 6.9 10.3 11.7 12.5049 Lewis County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4051 Livingston County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4053 Madison County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4055 Monroe County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4057 Montgomery County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4059 Nassau County 12.8 12.6 12.1 9.0 6.8 6.7 6.6 6.7 6.9 10.3 11.7 12.5061 New York County 12.8 12.6 12.1 9.0 6.8 6.7 6.6 6.7 6.9 10.3 11.7 12.5063 Niagara County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4065 Oneida County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4067 Onondaga County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4069 Ontario County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4071 Orange County 12.8 12.6 12.1 9.0 6.8 6.7 6.6 6.7 6.9 10.3 11.7 12.5073 Orleans County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4075 Oswego County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4077 Otsego County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4079 Putnam County 12.8 12.6 12.1 9.0 6.8 6.7 6.6 6.7 6.9 10.3 11.7 12.5081 Queens County 12.8 12.6 12.1 9.0 6.8 6.7 6.6 6.7 6.9 10.3 11.7 12.5Table C-1 (continued)C-10FIPS_State State FIPS_County County JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC36 NEW YORK083 Rensselaer County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4(cont’d)085 Richmond County 12.8 12.6 12.1 9.0 6.8 6.7 6.6 6.7 6.9 10.3 11.7 12.5087 Rockland County 12.8 12.6 12.1 9.0 6.8 6.7 6.6 6.7 6.9 10.3 11.7 12.5089 St. Lawrence County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4091 Saratoga County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4093 Schenectady County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4095 Schoharie County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4097 Schuyler County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4099 Seneca County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4101 Steuben County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4103 Suffolk County 12.8 12.6 12.1 9.0 6.8 6.7 6.6 6.7 6.9 10.3 11.7 12.5105 Sullivan County 12.712.7 12.6 10.9 8.68.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4107 Tioga County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4109 Tompkins County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4111 Ulster County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4113 Warren County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4115 Washington County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4117 Wayne County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4119 Westchester County 12.8 12.6 12.1 9.0 6.8 6.7 6.6 6.7 6.9 10.3 11.7 12.5121 Wyoming County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4123 Yates County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 9.6 10.7 11.4Oxygen Weight Percent001 Albany County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930003 Allegany County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930005 Bronx County 1.8932 1.9467 1.8932 1.8753 1.9646 1.9467 1.9646 1.8217 1.9646 1.8217 1.8574 1.6431007 Broome County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930009 Cattaraugus County 0.8965 1.0344 0.8275 0.6551 0.8965 0.5862 0.8275 0.9654 0.6551 0.6896 0.9310 0.8965011 Cayuga County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930013 Chautauqua County 0.8965 1.0344 0.8275 0.6551 0.8965 0.5862 0.8275 0.9654 0.6551 0.6896 0.9310 0.8965015 Chemung County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930017 Chenango County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930019 Clinton County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930021 Columbia County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930023 Cortland County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930025 Delaware County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930027 Dutchess County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930029 Erie County 0.8965 1.0344 0.8275 0.6551 0.8965 0.5862 0.8275 0.9654 0.6551 0.6896 0.9310 0.8965031 Essex County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930033 Franklin County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930035 Fulton County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930037 Genesee County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930039 Greene County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930041 Hamilton County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930043 Herkimer County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930045 Jefferson County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930047 Kings County 1.8932 1.9467 1.8932 1.8753 1.9646 1.9467 1.9646 1.8217 1.9646 1.8217 1.8574 1.6431049 Lewis County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930051 Livingston County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930053 Madison County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930Table C-1 (continued)C-11FIPS_State State FIPS_County County JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC36 NEW YORK055 Monroe County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930(cont’d)057 Montgomery County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930059 Nassau County 1.8932 1.9467 1.8932 1.8753 1.9646 1.9467 1.9646 1.8217 1.9646 1.8217 1.8574 1.6431061 New York County 1.8932 1.9467 1.8932 1.8753 1.9646 1.9467 1.9646 1.8217 1.9646 1.8217 1.8574 1.6431063 Niagara County 0.8965 1.0344 0.8275 0.6551 0.8965 0.5862 0.8275 0.9654 0.6551 0.6896 0.9310 0.8965065 Oneida County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930067 Onondaga County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930069 Ontario County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930071 Orange County 1.8932 1.9467 1.8932 1.8753 1.9646 1.9467 1.9646 1.8217 1.9646 1.8217 1.8574 1.6431073 Orleans County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930075 Oswego County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930077 Otsego County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930079 Putnam County 1.8932 1.9467 1.8932 1.8753 1.9646 1.9467 1.9646 1.8217 1.9646 1.8217 1.8574 1.6431081 Queens County 1.8932 1.9467 1.8932 1.8753 1.9646 1.9467 1.9646 1.8217 1.9646 1.8217 1.8574 1.6431083 Rensselaer County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930085 Richmond County 1.8932 1.9467 1.8932 1.8753 1.9646 1.9467 1.9646 1.8217 1.9646 1.8217 1.8574 1.6431087 Rockland County 1.8932 1.9467 1.8932 1.8753 1.9646 1.9467 1.9646 1.8217 1.9646 1.8217 1.8574 1.6431089 St. Lawrence County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930091 Saratoga County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930093 Schenectady County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930095 Schoharie County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930097 Schuyler County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930099 Seneca County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930101 Steuben County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930103 Suffolk County 1.8932 1.9467 1.8932 1.8753 1.9646 1.9467 1.9646 1.8217 1.9646 1.8217 1.8574 1.6431105 Sullivan County 0.87511.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.89300.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930107 Tioga County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930109 Tompkins County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930111 Ulster County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930113 Warren County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930115 Washington County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930117 Wayne County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930119 Westchester County 1.8932 1.9467 1.8932 1.8753 1.9646 1.9467 1.9646 1.8217 1.9646 1.8217 1.8574 1.6431121 Wyoming County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930123 Yates County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9466 0.6787 0.6965 0.9466 0.8930Gasoline Sulfur, ppm001 Albany County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0003 Allegany County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0005 Bronx County 210.0 220.0 180.0 200.0 220.0 210.0 220.0 190.0 190.0 220.0 200.0 240.0007 Broome County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0009 Cattaraugus County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0011 Cayuga County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0013 Chautauqua County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0015 Chemung County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0017 Chenango County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0019 Clinton County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0021 Columbia County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0023 Cortland County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0025 Delaware County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0Table C-1 (continued)C-12FIPS_State State FIPS_County County JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC36 NEW YORK027 Dutchess County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0(cont’d)029 Erie County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0031 Essex County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0033 Franklin County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0035 Fulton County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0037 Genesee County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0039 Greene County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0041 Hamilton County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0043 Herkimer County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0045 Jefferson County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0047 Kings County 210.0 220.0 180.0 200.0 220.0 210.0 220.0 190.0 190.0 220.0 200.0 240.0049 Lewis County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0051 Livingston County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0053 Madison County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0055 Monroe County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0057 Montgomery County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0059 Nassau County 210.0 220.0 180.0 200.0 220.0 210.0 220.0 190.0 190.0 220.0 200.0 240.0061 New York County 210.0 220.0 180.0 200.0 220.0 210.0 220.0 190.0 190.0 220.0 200.0 240.0063 Niagara County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0065 Oneida County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0067 Onondaga County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0069 Ontario County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0071 Orange County 210.0 220.0 180.0 200.0 220.0 210.0 220.0 190.0 190.0 220.0 200.0 240.0073 Orleans County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0075 Oswego County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0077 Otsego County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0079 Putnam County 210.0 220.0 180.0 200.0 220.0 210.0 220.0 190.0 190.0 220.0 200.0 240.0081 Queens County 210.0 220.0 180.0 200.0 220.0 210.0 220.0 190.0 190.0 220.0 200.0 240.0083 Rensselaer County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0085 Richmond County 210.0 220.0 180.0 200.0 220.0 210.0 220.0 190.0 190.0 220.0 200.0 240.0087 Rockland County 210.0 220.0 180.0 200.0 220.0 210.0 220.0 190.0 190.0 220.0 200.0 240.0089 St. Lawrence County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0091 Saratoga County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0093 Schenectady County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0095 Schoharie County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0097 Schuyler County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0099 Seneca County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0101 Steuben County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0103 Suffolk County 210.0 220.0 180.0 200.0 220.0 210.0 220.0 190.0 190.0 220.0 200.0 240.0105 Sullivan County 260.0250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0107 Tioga County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0109 Tompkins County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0111 Ulster County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0113 Warren County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0115 Washington County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0117 Wayne County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0119 Westchester County 210.0 220.0 180.0 200.0 220.0 210.0 220.0 190.0 190.0 220.0 200.0 240.0121 Wyoming County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0123 Yates County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 290.0 270.0 250.0 250.0 210.0Table C-1 (continued)C-13FIPS_State State FIPS_County County JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC42PENNSYLVANIARVP, psi001 Adams County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5003 Allegheny County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 11.0 11.0 13.5005 Armstrong County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 11.0 11.0 13.5007 Beaver County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 11.0 11.0 13.5009 Bedford County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5011 Berks County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5013 Blair County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5015 Bradford County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5017 Bucks County 13.5 13.5 10.6 10.6 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 10.6 10.6 13.5019 Butler County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 11.0 11.0 13.5021 Cambria County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5023 Cameron County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5025 Carbon County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5027 Centre County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5029 Chester County 13.5 13.5 10.6 10.6 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 10.6 10.6 13.5031 Clarion County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5033 Clearfield County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5035 Clinton County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5037 Columbia County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5039 Crawford County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5041 Cumberland County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5043 Dauphin County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5045 Delaware County 13.5 13.5 10.6 10.6 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 10.6 10.6 13.5047 Elk County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5049 Erie County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5051 Fayette County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 11.0 11.0 13.5053 Forest County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5055 Franklin County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5057 Fulton County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5059 Greene County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5061 Huntingdon County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5063 Indiana County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5065 Jefferson County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5067 Juniata County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5069 Lackawanna County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5071 Lancaster County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5073 Lawrence County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5075 Lebanon County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5077 Lehigh County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5079 Luzerne County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5081 Lycoming County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5083 McKean County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5085 Mercer County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5087 Mifflin County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5089 Monroe County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5091 Montgomery County 13.5 13.5 10.6 10.6 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 10.6 10.6 13.5093 Montour County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5Table C-1 (continued)C-14FIPS_State State FIPS_County County JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC42 PENNSYLVANIA095 Northampton County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5(cont’d)097 Northumberland County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5099 Perry County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5101 Philadelphia County 13.5 13.5 10.6 10.6 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 10.6 10.6 13.5103 Pike County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5105 Potter County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5107 Schuylkill County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.78.7 11.0 11.0 13.5109 Snyder County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5111 Somerset County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5113 Sullivan County 13.513.5 11.0 11.0 8.78.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5115 Susquehanna County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5117 Tioga County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5119 Union County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5121 Venango County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5123 Warren County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5125 Washington County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 11.0 11.0 13.5127 Wayne County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5129 Westmoreland County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 11.0 11.0 13.5131 Wyoming County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5133 York County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 11.0 11.0 13.5Oxygen Weight Percent001 Adams County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965003 Allegheny County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965005 Armstrong County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965007 Beaver County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965009 Bedford County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965011 Berks County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965013 Blair County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965015 Bradford County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965017 Bucks County 2.5303 2.5303 2.5303 2.5303 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.5303 2.5303 2.5303019 Butler County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965021 Cambria County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965023 Cameron County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965025 Carbon County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965027 Centre County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965029 Chester County 2.5303 2.5303 2.5303 2.5303 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.5303 2.5303 2.5303031 Clarion County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965033 Clearfield County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965035 Clinton County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965037 Columbia County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965039 Crawford County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965041 Cumberland County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965043 Dauphin County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965045 Delaware County 2.5303 2.5303 2.5303 2.5303 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.5303 2.5303 2.5303047 Elk County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965049 Erie County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965051 Fayette County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965053 Forest County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965055 Franklin County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965Table C-1 (continued)C-15FIPS_State State FIPS_County County JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC42 PENNSYLVANIA057 Fulton County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965(cont’d)059 Greene County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965061 Huntingdon County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965063 Indiana County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965065 Jefferson County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965067 Juniata County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965069 Lackawanna County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965071 Lancaster County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965073 Lawrence County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965075 Lebanon County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965077 Lehigh County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965079 Luzerne County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965081 Lycoming County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965083 McKean County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965085 Mercer County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965087 Mifflin County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965089 Monroe County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965091 Montgomery County 2.5303 2.5303 2.5303 2.5303 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.5303 2.5303 2.5303093 Montour County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965095 Northampton County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965097 Northumberland County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965099 Perry County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965101 Philadelphia County 2.5303 2.5303 2.5303 2.5303 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.5303 2.5303 2.5303103 Pike County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965105 Potter County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965107 Schuylkill County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.26790.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965109 Snyder County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965111 Somerset County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965113 Sullivan County 0.19650.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.26790.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965115 Susquehanna County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965117 Tioga County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965119 Union County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965121 Venango County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965123 Warren County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965125 Washington County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965127 Wayne County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965129 Westmoreland County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965131 Wyoming County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965133 York County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2322 0.2322 0.1965Gasoline Sulfur, ppm001 Adams County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0003 Allegheny County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0005 Armstrong County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0007 Beaver County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0009 Bedford County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0011 Berks County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0013 Blair County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0015 Bradford County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0017 Bucks County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 279.0 279.0 279.0Table C-1 (continued)C-16FIPS_State State FIPS_County County JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC42 PENNSYLVANIA019 Butler County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0(cont’d)021 Cambria County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0023 Cameron County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0025 Carbon County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0027 Centre County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0029 Chester County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 279.0 279.0 279.0031 Clarion County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0033 Clearfield County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0035 Clinton County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0037 Columbia County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0039 Crawford County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0041 Cumberland County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0043 Dauphin County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0045 Delaware County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 279.0 279.0 279.0047 Elk County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0049 Erie County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0051 Fayette County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0053 Forest County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0055 Franklin County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0057 Fulton County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0059 Greene County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0061 Huntingdon County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0063 Indiana County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0065 Jefferson County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0067 Juniata County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0069 Lackawanna County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0071 Lancaster County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0073 Lawrence County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0075 Lebanon County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0077 Lehigh County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0079 Luzerne County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0081 Lycoming County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0083 McKean County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0085 Mercer County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0087 Mifflin County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0089 Monroe County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0091 Montgomery County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 279.0 279.0 279.0093 Montour County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0095 Northampton County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0097 Northumberland County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0099 Perry County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0101 Philadelphia County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 279.0 279.0 279.0103 Pike County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0105 Potter County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0107 Schuylkill County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0109 Snyder County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0111 Somerset County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0113 Sullivan County 279.0279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0115 Susquehanna County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0Table C-1 (continued)C-17FIPS_State State FIPS_County County JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC42 PENNSYLVANIA117 Tioga County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0(cont’d)119 Union County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0121 Venango County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0123 Warren County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0125 Washington County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0127 Wayne County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0129 Westmoreland County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0131 Wyoming County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0133 York County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.044RHODE ISLANDRVP, psi001 Bristol County 12.5 12.5 10.1 10.1 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 10.1 10.1 12.5003 Kent County 12.5 12.5 10.1 10.1 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 10.1 10.1 12.5005 Newport County 12.5 12.5 10.1 10.1 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 10.1 10.1 12.5007 Providence County 12.5 12.5 10.1 10.1 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 10.1 10.1 12.5009 Washington County 12.5 12.5 10.1 10.1 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 10.1 10.1 12.5Oxygen Weight Percent001 Bristol County 1.7110 1.7110 1.6801 1.6801 1.6745 1.6745 1.6745 1.6745 1.6745 1.6801 1.6801 1.7110003 Kent County 1.7110 1.7110 1.6801 1.6801 1.6745 1.6745 1.6745 1.6745 1.6745 1.6801 1.6801 1.7110005 Newport County 1.7110 1.7110 1.6801 1.6801 1.6745 1.6745 1.6745 1.6745 1.6745 1.6801 1.6801 1.7110007 Providence County 1.7110 1.7110 1.6801 1.6801 1.6745 1.6745 1.6745 1.6745 1.6745 1.6801 1.6801 1.7110009 Washington County 1.7110 1.7110 1.6801 1.6801 1.6745 1.6745 1.6745 1.6745 1.6745 1.6801 1.6801 1.7110Gasoline Sulfur, ppm001 Bristol County 193.0 193.0 166.4 166.4 131.0 131.0 131.0 131.0 131.0 166.4 166.4 193.0003 Kent County 193.0 193.0 166.4 166.4 131.0 131.0 131.0 131.0 131.0 166.4 166.4 193.0005 Newport County 193.0 193.0 166.4 166.4 131.0 131.0 131.0 131.0 131.0 166.4 166.4 193.0007 Providence County 193.0 193.0 166.4 166.4 131.0 131.0 131.0 131.0 131.0 166.4 166.4 193.0009 Washington County 193.0 193.0 166.4 166.4 131.0 131.0 131.0 131.0 131.0 166.4 166.4 193.0Table C-1 (continued)C-18FIPS_State State FIPS_County County JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC50VERMONTRVP, psi001 Addison County 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 9.5 9.5 9.5003 Bennington County 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 9.5 9.5 9.5005 Caledonia County 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 9.5 9.5 9.5007 Chittenden County 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 9.5 9.5 9.5009 Essex County 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 9.5 9.5 9.5011 Franklin County 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 9.5 9.5 9.5013 Grand Isle County 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 9.5 9.5 9.5015 Lamoille County 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.58.5 9.5 9.5 9.5017 Orange County 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 9.5 9.5 9.5019 Orleans County 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 9.5 9.5 9.5021 Rutland County 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 9.5 9.5 9.5023 Washington County 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 9.5 9.5 9.5025 Windham County 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 9.5 9.5 9.5027 Windsor County 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 9.5 9.5 9.5Oxygen Weight Percent001 Addison County 0.1786 0.1786 0.2143 0.2143 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2143 0.2143 0.1786003 Bennington County 0.1786 0.1786 0.2143 0.2143 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2143 0.2143 0.1786005 Caledonia County 0.1786 0.1786 0.2143 0.2143 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2143 0.2143 0.1786007 Chittenden County 0.1786 0.1786 0.2143 0.2143 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2143 0.2143 0.1786009 Essex County 0.1786 0.1786 0.2143 0.2143 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2143 0.2143 0.1786011 Franklin County 0.1786 0.1786 0.2143 0.2143 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2143 0.2143 0.1786013 Grand Isle County 0.1786 0.1786 0.2143 0.2143 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2143 0.2143 0.1786015 Lamoille County 0.1786 0.1786 0.2143 0.2143 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.26790.2679 0.2143 0.2143 0.1786017 Orange County 0.1786 0.1786 0.2143 0.2143 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2143 0.2143 0.1786019 Orleans County 0.1786 0.1786 0.2143 0.2143 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2143 0.2143 0.1786021 Rutland County 0.1786 0.1786 0.2143 0.2143 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2143 0.2143 0.1786023 Washington County 0.1786 0.1786 0.2143 0.2143 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2143 0.2143 0.1786025 Windham County 0.1786 0.1786 0.2143 0.2143 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2143 0.2143 0.1786027 Windsor County 0.1786 0.1786 0.2143 0.2143 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2143 0.2143 0.1786Gasoline Sulfur, ppm001 Addison County 209.3 209.3 209.3 209.3 183.1 183.1 183.1 183.1 183.1 209.3 209.3 209.3003 Bennington County 209.3 209.3 209.3 209.3 183.1 183.1 183.1 183.1 183.1 209.3 209.3 209.3005 Caledonia County 209.3 209.3 209.3 209.3 183.1 183.1 183.1 183.1 183.1 209.3 209.3 209.3007 Chittenden County 209.3 209.3 209.3 209.3 183.1 183.1 183.1 183.1 183.1 209.3 209.3 209.3009 Essex County 209.3 209.3 209.3 209.3 183.1 183.1 183.1 183.1 183.1 209.3 209.3 209.3011 Franklin County 209.3 209.3 209.3 209.3 183.1 183.1 183.1 183.1 183.1 209.3 209.3 209.3013 Grand Isle County 209.3 209.3 209.3 209.3 183.1 183.1 183.1 183.1 183.1 209.3 209.3 209.3015 Lamoille County 209.3 209.3 209.3 209.3 183.1 183.1 183.1 183.1183.1 209.3 209.3 209.3017 Orange County 209.3 209.3 209.3 209.3 183.1 183.1 183.1 183.1 183.1 209.3 209.3 209.3019 Orleans County 209.3 209.3 209.3 209.3 183.1 183.1 183.1 183.1 183.1 209.3 209.3 209.3021 Rutland County 209.3 209.3 209.3 209.3 183.1 183.1 183.1 183.1 183.1 209.3 209.3 209.3023 Washington County 209.3 209.3 209.3 209.3 183.1 183.1 183.1 183.1 183.1 209.3 209.3 209.3025 Windham County 209.3 209.3 209.3 209.3 183.1 183.1 183.1 183.1 183.1 209.3 209.3 209.3027 Windsor County 209.3 209.3 209.3 209.3 183.1 183.1 183.1 183.1 183.1 209.3 209.3 209.3

## M ARYLAND 

## D EPARTMENT OF THE 

## E NVIRONMENT



## A IR AND 

## R ADIATION 

## M ANAGEMENT 

## A DMINISTRATIONState Implementation Plan



# 2002 Base Year State Implementation Plan

Emissions Inventory and Methodologies for Regional Haze

Prepared for:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Prepared By:

Maryland Department of the Environment

### Maryland Department of the Environment 2002 Base Year State Implementation Plan Emissions Inventory and Methodologies for Regional Haze

© Maryland Department of the Environment Air and Radiation Management Administration 1800 Washington Boulevard, Suite 730 Baltimore, Maryland 21230 Phone 410.537.3240 • Fax 410.631.3202

# Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................5

1.1 OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND ............................................................................................5

1.2 GEOGRAPHIC AREA ...................................................................................................................6

1.3 TEMPORAL RESOLUTION .........................................................................................................6

1.4 QUALITY ASSURANCE POLICY AND OBJECTIVES .............................................................6

1.5 PLAN INFORMATION SOURCES ..............................................................................................7

1.6 INVENTORY DEVELOPMENT AND QUALITY CONTROL PROCEDURES ........................7

1.7 ESTIMATION METHODS AND DATA GATHERING ..............................................................8 1.7.1 COMBINED APPROACH FOR O 3 , PM10 and CO BASE YEAR EMISSIONS ....................... 8

1.8 MISSING DATA ............................................................................................................................8

1.9 APPLICATION OF RULE EFFECTIVE AND RULE PENETRATION ......................................8

1.10 CORRECTIVE ACTION ...............................................................................................................9

2.0 POINT SOURCES ......................................................................................................................10

2.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................10

2.2 COMPILING THE POINT SOURCE LIST .................................................................................10 2.2.1 EMISSION CALCULATIONS ................................................................................................... 11 2.2.1.1 Seasonal Adjustments ...............................................................................................................12 2.2.2 CONSOLIDATED EMISSIONS REPORTING RULE (CERR) ............................................... 12

3.0 QUASI - POINT SOURCES ......................................................................................................13

3.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................13

3.2 ABERDEEN PROVING GROUNDS ..........................................................................................13

3.3 ANDREWS AIR FORCE BASE ..................................................................................................20

3.4 BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (BWI) ....................................25

4.0 AREAS SOURCES .....................................................................................................................29

4.1 EMISSION ESTIMATION METHOD BY CATEGORY ...........................................................29 4.1.1 PETROLEUM DISTRIBUTION LOSSES ................................................................................. 29 4.1.1.1 Tank Truck Unloading .............................................................................................................30 4.1.1.2 Stage II Refueling .....................................................................................................................35 4.1.1.3 Underground Tank Breathing...................................................................................................37 4.1.1.4 Gasoline Tank Trucks in Transit ..............................................................................................40 4.1.1.5 Aircraft Refueling .....................................................................................................................43 4.1.1.6 Petroleum Vessel Unloading Losses ........................................................................................45 4.1.1.7 Portable Fuel Containers ..........................................................................................................504.1.2 STATIONARY SOURCE SOLVENT APPLICATION ............................................................ 56 4.1.2.1 Dry Cleaners .............................................................................................................................56 4.1.2.2 Surface Cleaning (Cold Cleaning Degreasing) ........................................................................56 4.1.2.3 Architectural Surface Coating ..................................................................................................60 4.1.2.4 Auto Refinishing ......................................................................................................................67 4.1.2.5 Traffic Markings .......................................................................................................................70 4.1.2.6 Industrial Surface Coating ........................................................................................................74 4.1.2.7 Industrial Adhesives and Sealants ............................................................................................80 4.1.2.8 Graphic Arts .............................................................................................................................81 4.1.2.9 Asphalt Paving ..........................................................................................................................85 4.1.2.10 Synthetic Organic Chemical Storage Tanks .........................................................................87 4.1.2.11 Pesticide Application ............................................................................................................88 4.1.2.12 Commercial/Consumer Solvent Use ....................................................................................93 4.1.3 BIOPROCESS EMISSIONS SOURCES .................................................................................... 95 4.1.3.1 Bakeries

............................................................................................................................... .....95 4.1.3.2 Breweries

............................................................................................................................... ...98 4.1.3.3 Wineries

............................................................................................................................... ...100 4.1.3.4 Distilleries ...............................................................................................................................101 4.1.4 CATASTROPHIC/ACC IDENTAL RELEASES ..................................................................... 102 4.1.4.1 Oil Spills

............................................................................................................................... ..102 4.1.4.2 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks .....................................................................................104 4.1.5 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL, TR EATMENT, AND RECOVERY ......................................... 106 4.1.5.1 On-site Incineration ................................................................................................................106 4.1.5.2 Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) .........................................................................107 4.1.5.3 Open Burning – Land Clearing Debris ...................................................................................109 4.1.5.4 Open Burning – Residential Municipal Solid Waste .............................................................112 4.1.5.5 Open Burning – Residential Yard Waste ...............................................................................118 4.1.5.6 Cremation – Animal and Human ............................................................................................124 4.1.5.7 Municipal Solid Waste Landfills ............................................................................................127 4.1.6 SMALL STATIONARY SOURCE FOSSIL FUEL USE ........................................................ 131 4.1.6.1 Small Electric Utility Boilers .................................................................................................131 4.1.6.2 Other Fuel Consumption ........................................................................................................131 4.1.6.3 Fuel Oil Combustion ..............................................................................................................132 4.1.6.4 Coal Combustion ....................................................................................................................134 4.1.6.5 Natural Gas Combustion ........................................................................................................141 4.1.6.6 Liquified Petroleum Gas Combustion ....................................................................................146 4.1.6.7 Wood Combustion ..................................................................................................................152 4.1.7 FUGITIVE SOURCES .............................................................................................................. 159 4.1.7.1 Residential Construction Activity ..........................................................................................159 4.1.7.2 Heavy Construction Activity ..................................................................................................163 4.1.7.3 Road Construction Activity ....................................................................................................166 4.1.7.4 Agricultural Land Preparation................................................................................................169 4.1.7.5 Paved Roads ...........................................................................................................................173 4.1.7.6 Unpaved Roads .......................................................................................................................177 4.1.8 FIRE SOURCES ....................................................................................................................... 178 4.1.8.1 Vehicle Fires ...........................................................................................................................178 4.1.8.2 Forest Fires .............................................................................................................................1804.1.8.3 Slash/Prescribed Burning .......................................................................................................183 4.1.8.4 Agricultural Burning ..............................................................................................................185 4.1.8.5 Structure Fires ........................................................................................................................185 4.1.8.6 Orchard Heaters ......................................................................................................................188 4.1.9 AMMONIA SOURCES ............................................................................................................ 189 4.1.9.1 Cows (Milk Cows, Beef Cows, Heifers, and Steers) .............................................................190 4.1.9.2 Hogs and Pigs .........................................................................................................................192 4.1.9.3 Chickens (Pullets, Layers, and Broilers) ................................................................................194 4.1.9.4 Sheep

............................................................................................................................... .......196 4.1.9.5 Goats (Angora and Milk) ........................................................................................................198 4.1.9.6 Horses

............................................................................................................................... ......200 4.1.9.7 Ducks, Geese and Turkeys .....................................................................................................202 4.1.9.8 Agricultural Fertilizer Application .........................................................................................204 4.1.9.9 Human Breath and Perspiration ..............................................................................................208

5.0 NONROAD SOURCES ............................................................................................................210

5.1 NONROAD VEHICLES/ENGINES ..........................................................................................210

5.2 NONROAD MODEL .................................................................................................................211 5.2.1 NONROAD Model Equipment ................................................................................................. 214

5.3 RAILROADS .............................................................................................................................216

5.4 AIRCRAFT

............................................................................................................................... .221 5.4.1 Commercial Aircraft .................................................................................................................. 223 5.4.2 General Aviation ....................................................................................................................... 226 5.4.3 Military Aircraft ........................................................................................................................ 228

5.5 M ARINE V ESSELS ........................................................................................................................231

6.0 ONROAD MOBILE SOURCES .............................................................................................235

6.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................235

6.2 EMISSION FACTORS ..............................................................................................................237

6.3 VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED ................................................................................................237

6.4 KEY TRAVEL DATA INPUTS .................................................................................................237

6.5 MOBILE INPUT PARAMETERS .............................................................................................241

6.6 OTHER DATA INPUTS ............................................................................................................242

6.7 EMISSION PROCESS OUTPUTS ............................................................................................243

6.8 CONVERSION TO NIF FORMAT ............................................................................................244

7.0 BIOGENIC EMISSIONS ........................................................................................................245

7.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................245

8.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE PROCEDURES ...........................................................................247

8.1 REALITY CHECK/PEER REVIEW CHECK ...........................................................................2478.2 SAMPLE CALCULATIONS .....................................................................................................247

8.3 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................248

8.4 STANDARD RANGE CHECKS ...............................................................................................248

8.5 CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN ................................................................................................249

8.6 QUALITY ASSURANCE FINAL REPORT .............................................................................249

9.0 RESPONSIBILITY ..................................................................................................................2505 

## 1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND

The 2002 Base Year State Implementation Plan Em issions Inventory and Methodologies for Regional Haze is being prepared for the purpose of describing the Scope of Work required to prepare an emission inventory of sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ammonia (NH3), particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), and volatile organic co mpounds (VOC) emissions for the State of Maryland. The federal Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C.A § 7401 et seq , as amended by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, P.L. 101-549, (referred to hereafter as the Act) require s all areas of the nation to attain and maintain compliance with the federal ambient air quality standard s. These federal standard s are designed to protect the public health and welfare from these six criteria pollutants. Thes e standards are referred to as the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Areas that meet the NAAQS are referred to as “attainment areas”; those that do not are referred to as “nonattainment areas.” Th e Base Year will provide an outline for content and organization review of the inventory. The goal of the Base Year is to provide guidance on the development of a reliable inventory, the quality of emi ssions data collected and provide for acceptable documentation and reporting of this information. The Maryland Department of the Environment Air and Radiation Ma nagement Administration (MDE-A RMA), the Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT), and th e Metropolitan Washington Council of Government (MWCOG) will be involved in preparing various portions of the inventory by contributing information that is necessary for developing emissions estimates.

The final inventory document will include emissions from point sources, mobile sources, biogenic emissions, non-road mobile sources, and area sour ces. MDE-ARMA will use the Non-Road Mobile Emissions Model, NONROAD, for small engine em issions. MDE-ARMA will supply emissions for major point sources and area sources, and will accep t EPA estimates for biogenic emissions. Mobile source emissions will be estimated by a separate MDE-ARMA work plan with MDOT and MDE-ARMA Mobile Sources Control Program (MSCP) as well as the MWCOG.

The applications for emissions inventory data include use of the data in annual trends reports, State Implementation Plans (SIPs), compliance demonstrati ons, emissions trading, em issions fees programs, and in modeling activities designed to evaluate ambient air concentrations encountered by the general public. For the SIP program, the air emission inventory is a fundamental building block in developing an air quality control and maintenance strategy. Section 172, Part C, of the Clean Air Act (CAA) as amended in 1990, which addresses SIP requirements, states that “. . . plan provisions shall include a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual em issions from all sources or the relevant pollutants or pollutants in such area . . .”. Regulatory agencies and industrial f acilities rely on emission inventories on an ongoing basis as indicators of air quality ch anges and for setting permit requirements.

The end use of emission inventories re quires that they be of the highest quality obtainable. They are the foundation of air quality decisions. Inventory quality is cr itical to defining realistic regulations and attainment strategies. Deficiencies and inconsiste ncies in existing compilation processes accentuate the need for developing and implementing more uniform and systematic approaches to collecting and reporting data. One of the primary goals of the Base Year is to improve the qua lity of inventory data collection so that it is a reliable source of information for sound decision-making.6 1.2 GEOGRAPHIC AREA

The area that will be inventoried in cludes the entire State of Maryland. The area can be divided into the distinct Non-attainment areas (NAA). Categories th at will be inventoried ar e point, mobile, biogenic, non-road mobile and area sources.

1.3 TEMPORAL RESOLUTION

Another step of inventory devel opment is the temporal allocation of emissions. Because air quality modeling attempts to represent the actual physical and chemical processes as th ey occur over a specific duration of time, it is important that the temporal allocation of emissions be as accurate as possible. Temporal allocation can be thought of as an accounti ng of emissions variation over time. The simplest temporal allocation is for a steady-st ate emissions source that continually releases emissions at the same rate all the time. Under actual c onditions, however, steady-state emissi on sources are quite rare. Instead, under actual conditions, emissions sources may operate only in the winter not ope rate on Sundays, or their activity may peak during certain hours of the day.

The planning period for particle matt er is based on annual emissions.

1.4 QUALITY ASSURANCE POLI CY AND OBJECTIVES

In order to provide data of suffic ient quality for maintenance planning needs, quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) procedures are implemented as pa rt of the inventory proce ss. The procedures address data quality objectives of accuracy, completeness, comparability and representativeness. A brief discussion of the data qualit y objectives is given below.

Data quality objectives of accuracy, completeness, co mparability, and representativeness are addressed to ensure an inventory of high quality. The targ et goals for each objective are listed below.

Accuracy: All estimates must be calculated and documented using acceptable methods. Individual source requirements and av ailability of data and resources will affect the estimation method selection.

Completeness: Completeness is addressed by ensuring that all applicable source catego ries are included in the inventory, and that all informa tion required to estimate emissions is present. Applicable source categories are listed in Appendix A.

Comparability: Data will be compared to the most recent base year inventories: 1990 for PM 10 and 1999 for CO. Any discrepancies (data outliers) greater th an 20% involving sources th at made up greater than 5% of either the 1990 or the 2002 inventories for PM 10 , or the 1999 and 2002 inventories for CO will be corrected or justified.

Representativeness: Actual 2002 annual and seasonal daily emissions will be calculated for the base year inventory. Local data will be used in inventory calcul ations wherever possible.7 1.5 PLAN INFORMATION SOURCES

This plan draws upon inventory, quality assurance, a nd emissions projections guidance available from state and federal agencies and partnerships. 1
, 2
, 3
, 4
, 5
, 6
, 7 The effort will also draw upon experience gained with the 1990 Ozone and 1996/1999/ periodic emission i nventory reviews and prior SIP inventory efforts in other areas and for other pollutants.

A primary source of emissions inventory data will be the 2002 Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule (CERR) submittal recently submitted to the U.S. EPA by MDE-ARMA. Another source of information will be EPA’s National Emissions Inventory (NEI). The MD DOT and MDE-ARMAMobile Department will provide base year and project ion year onroad mobile source emissions data and additional activity data to be used in estimating em issions for other source cat egories (paved and unpaved road dust). Finally, information from local sour ces, including Maryland Transportation Authority, Maryland Aviation Authority, Maryland Port Authority, un iversity sources, and agricultural experts will be used to develop emission estimates for select source categories (as de scribed in Chapter 6).

1.6 INVENTORY DEVELOPMENT AND QUALITY CONTROL PROCEDURES

An inventory of actual emissions will be develo ped for base year 2002. Annual and typical VOC, NO X , SO 2 , PM 10 and CO season day emissions estimates will be made. A list of potential VOC, NO X , SO 2 , PM 10 and CO sources was developed using the 1990 ba se year inventory, 1996/1999 periodic emission inventories, local knowledge, categ ories as defined in references , and the 2002 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) for VOC, NO X , SO 2 , PM 10 and CO source categories. The source categories are listed in Appendix A.

The inventory development process consists of severa l steps. A description of each step and the quality control procedures implemented are discussed individually in the following sub-sections:

• Estimation methods and data gathering;

• Emissions calculations and data checking;

• Missing data;

• Application of rule effectiv eness and rule penetration;

• Corrective action; and

• Documentation.

1 PM-10 Emission Inventory Requirements. Final Report. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1994.
2 Emission Inventory Improvement Program, Volume IV: Qua lity Assurance Procedures. EP A-454/R-97-0041. July 1997.
3 Procedures Document for National Emissions Inventory, Criteria Air Pollutants 1985-1999. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standa rds. Research Triangle Park NC 27711. EPA-454/R-01-006. March 2001.
4 Procedures for Preparing Emissions Projections. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, July 1991
5 Emission Inventory Requirements for Carbon Monoxide State Implementation Plans, EPA-450/4-91-011, March 1991
6 June 4-6, 1991 EPA manual Workshop for Implementation of Clean Air Act Provisions Relating to Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Emission Inventories, June 4-6, 1991 EPA. 7 Guidance for the Preparation of Quality Assurance Plan s for O3/CO SIP Emission Inventories. EPA-450/4-88-023. December 1988.8 1.7 ESTIMATION METHOD S AND DATA GATHERING

Guidance listed under Plan Information Sources will be utilized to select estimation methods and gather information necessary to develop the inventory. QC activities during data gathering include thorough documentation of methods and data sources, and check ing for reasonableness of data obtained. General estimation methods and data s ources anticipated for each sour ce category are listed below.

1.7.1 COMBINED APPROACH FOR O 3 , PM 10 and CO BASE YEAR EMISSIONS

This section of the Base Year document is an overview of MD E-ARMA’s proposed approach to preparing the 2002 emission estimates. This is followed by approaches specific to the source categories.

For PM 10 , the top-emitting PM 10 categories are point sources, re sidential wood combustion, open burning, paved and unpaved road fugitive dust. In a ddition, agricultural tilling and other fugitive dust source categories were not quantified in the 1990 Base Year Emissions Inventory. For agricultural tilling, MDE-ARMA will evaluate the potential importance of this activity during the planning period through contacts with local agricultural experts. If little or no agricultu ral tilling occurs within the state during the planning period, no effort will be made to quantify these emissions. For windblown dust, emissions are dominated by sources outside of th e NAA. MDE-ARMA does not intend to estimate these emissions.

MDE-ARMA plans to focus most of its CO emissi on inventory and emissions projection effort on the top-emitting source categories in the area. For CO, th e priority source categories are onroad mobile sources, point sources, residen tial wood combustion, open burning, and nonroad engines/vehicles.

1.8 MISSING DATA

Missing data will be identified by the inability to co mplete the calculations. If data are found to be missing, a reasonable effort will be ma de to acquire the data. If this is unsuccessful, estimates will be made based on past years' data or default informa tion contained in EPA documents and models. Sources of all data will be documented.

1.9 APPLICATION OF RULE EFFECTIVE AND RULE PENETRATION

Rule effectiveness (RE) reflects th e ability of a control device or re gulation to achieve all the emission reductions that could be achieved by full compliance at all times. Rule penetrati on (RP) is a measure of the extent to which a regulation covers emissions fr om a source category. RE/RP has been the subject of ongoing discussion nationally and is the topic of a dr aft report by the Emissions Inventory Improvement Program (EPA/STAPPA/ALAPCO). 8 Briefly, the report recognizes that control efficiencies are often based on in-use conditions, and when this is the case, RE has already been taken into account. This is the situation for point sources in th e NAAs. Additionally, some point source emissions are estimated through source testing, and therefore do not use control effici encies and RE/RP to calculate emissions. For area sources, MDE will evaluate each control measure to determine whether EPA default RE and RP estimates (80% and 100%) should be applied or some more representative values.

8 "Emissions Inventories and Proper Use of Rule Effectiveness." September 23, 1998. Memorandum from EIIP Point Sources Committee Members to EIIP Steering Comm ittee Members. September 23, 1998.9 1.10 CORRECTIVE ACTION

Corrective and follow-up actions identified during the inventory development process will be noted and referred to the appropriate staff. Both the corrective actions identified and resu lts of actions taken in response will be documented and kept on file.

Written documentation specifying inventory methodol ogy and information sources will be provided. Emission summaries will be presented.10 

## 2.0 POINT SOURCES

2.1 INTRODUCTION

The Maryland Department of the Environment Air and Radiation Management Administration (ARMA) is the lead agency responsible for compiling the point source emissions invent ory, including identification of sources, documenting the method used to calculat e emissions from each source, and presenting the findings. In order to provide EPA with a written documentation of emi ssions calculations for major point sources, confidential information was included in the documentation. It is included with the understanding that EPA is also bound to respect the confidentiality of the information, including appropriate storage of the information. Any contr actors employed by EPA to re view the inventory are also subject to confidentiality provisions, or the EPA must remove the confidential material before submitting the document for review. This information doe s not appear in copies prepared public review.

The Maryland stationary point source inventory is th e result of efforts to ch aracterize air emissions sources since the early 1970's. Th is section describes da ta collection, verificati on and emission estimation methods used to estimate point source emissions from stationary sources. For the 2002 Periodic Emissions Inventory, point sources are defined as stationary commercial or industria l operations that emit more than 10 tons per year of volatile organic compounds (VOC); 100 tons pe r year of carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur oxides (SO x ), particulate matter with an aerodynami c diameter less than 10 micrometers (PM 10 ), and total suspended particul ates (TSP); or 25 tons per year of oxides of nitrogen (NO x . In addition, stationary sources included in previous PEI submissions were included herein re gardless of the amount of air pollutants emitted. These emissions criter ia are more commonly referred to as “emissions thresholds” or simply, “thresholds.”

2.2 COMPILING THE POIN T SOURCE LIST

Maryland has a substantial database of both small a nd large air emission sources compiled over the last eighteen years. Since the thirt een central counties of Maryland and Baltimore City have been nonattainment for ozone since before 1982 and 80% of the state's population and major industrial sources lie within these counties, the da tabase of over 10,700 sources (both a bove and below the point source thresholds) is reasonably complete. The list of point sources in this inventor y was developed by applying the appropriate thresholds to the emission levels in the database to differentiate between point and area stationary sources. Sources with emi ssion levels greater than the thresh old or sources previously included in PEI submittals are by definition point sources wh ile sources with emissions levels less than the thresholds are by definition area sources.

Several methods of source identifica tion are used by ARMA to ensure th e point source inventory is as complete as possible. The primary data source is the Permitting Program, which overseas the registration requirements found in Title 26, Subtitle 11, Chapter 02, Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR). The Compliance Program identifies other point source s though annual facility inspections and through investigations conducted in re sponse to citizen complaints.

The primary means of new source iden tification is the steady influx of permit applications and equipment registrations. Many sources are required by CO MAR 26.11.02, Permits, Approvals and Registration, to register with ARMA. From 700 to 1,000 new sources ar e registered with the Department each year.11 Most of these sources are not cons idered to be point sources as de fined for inventory purposes, even though they require permits. As an example, emissions from some sources can be less than one ton per year. However, all sources that are registered wi th the Department are tracked until the Department receives notification that the equipm ent or emission source has ceased operations. An emissions source or its equipment is not permanently deleted from th e registration database until the installation is demolished.

The Department has established a Small Business Assi stance Program as required by the Clean Air Act Amendments to acquaint the owners of potential sources with the State’s permitting requirements, including air quality permits. The De partment has also published a guidebook, Environmental Regulation: A Business Guide to the Maryland Depa rtment of the Environment's Permitting Process as part of its outreach program.

A secondary means of new source identification are the emission sources identified by Compliance Program staff during annual field inspections of major point sour ces. During these inspections, unregistered equipment is sometimes discovered. St atewide response to the Ai r Pollution Report and the Air Quality Complaint Hotline, has also led to the discovery of previously unidentified emissions sources. Sources discovered in this manner may be the result of the citizen complaints, or the result of further investigation of visual evidence such as buildings, storage yards, visibl e emissions, etc., sighted elsewhere during the response.

2.2.1 EMISSION CALCULATIONS

The ARMA technical staff uses one of the followi ng methodologies to calcul ate criteria pollutant emissions:

• EPA-supplied emission factors

• EPA-supplied emission models

• Material balances

• Emissions based on source test data

• Agency or company-generated emission factors

The Compliance Program facility insp ectors calculate annual emissions estimates following their annual facility inspections. The results are then entered into ARMA’s Registration Files for Facilities and Equipment, which lists facilities by premise numb ers and equipment by registration numbers under each facility. The emissions, both stack and fugitive, from all registered equipment at a specific facility are summed to yield the annual facility emissions estimate. This total facility estimate is used to determine whether the facility satisfies the criteria for classification of as a point source.

The estimation of emissions on a facility-wide basis can result in emissions from equipment in some subcategories, such as boilers, being obscured. For example, boiler emissions are included in the Amerada Hess Corporation’s total emissions. Ther efore, these boiler emi ssions are included with emissions from gasoline storage and handling operations and included in the Storage, Transportation and Marketing of Petroleum Products and Volatile Organic Liquids source cat egory rather than in External Combustion Sources category.12 Emissions from specific subcategories of sources can be extracted from the inventory to estimate possible reductions from various control st rategies. However, the emissions from specific equipment subcategories cannot be excluded from the facility -wide emissions because of the limitations of the software used to create the Regist ration File. Therefore, subcategor ies of equipment emissions are not included in the inventory as separa te line items for to do so would re sult in the double counting of those emissions.

The estimates prepared by the facility inspectors following the annual inspecti on of each facility are compared to the annual emissions reported by each facility in its Annual Em issions Certification. A person who owns or operates a major facility as defined in COMAR 26.11.01.05-1 must submit to the Department an emissions statement by April 1 of each year for the previous calendar year. The owner or operator of the facility must furthe r certify that the emissions statemen t is accurate to the best of the owner/operator’s best knowledge. Af ter the certified emissions statem ents are logged in, they are thoroughly reviewed by the assigned f acility inspectors. Each inspector compares their emissions estimate to that prepared by the respective company for consistency of methodology and final emissions estimate results. The facility inspectors resolve a ny discrepancies between the two estimates with the owner/operator of the facility in qu estion. When all discrepancies are reso lved to the satisfaction of MDE, the final emissions estimates are then submitted as an update to ARMA’s Regist ration File for Facilities and Equipment.

2.2.1.1 Seasonal Adjustments

ARMA has not collected extensive data on the temporal allocation of emissions. Typically, companies are required to partition annual emissions by calendar quarter. More specific information to allow allocation of emissions to time of day, peak ozon e season, ozone season, or even monthly periods of activity was not collected in 2002. More specific information may be collected in the future.

In cases where the facilities did not provide peak ozone season emission estimates, the peak ozone season emissions were calculated by the following method a nd are included in the emissions summary tables, by county, at the end of this section: 1) Annual emissions in pounds per year were conve rted into pounds per day emissions by dividing annual emissions by operating days, 2) Pounds per day emissions were then mu ltiplied by a seasonality factor, 3) The seasonality factor was based on the quarterly percentage of operations estimated by the company adjusted for June, July, and August. 4) The ratio obtained in Step 3 was multiplied by the da ily emissions calculated in Step 1 to generate the seasonally adjusted emissions.

2.2.2 CONSOLIDATED EMISSIONS REPORTING RULE (CERR)

MDE-ARMA compiled a 2002 point source emission i nventory in order to satisfy EPA reporting requirements under the Consolidated Emissions Repor ting Rule. This will be the primary resource for developing refined estimates of PM 2.5 and NH 3 emissions.

## 3.0 QUASI - POINT SOURCES

3.1 INTRODUCTION

The Maryland Department of the Environment Air and Radiation Management has identified several facilities that due to size and/or function are considered point sources . These establishments contain a wide variety of air emission sources, including traditional point sources, on-road mobile sources, off-road mobile sources and area sources. Fo r each particular establishment, th e emissions from these sources are totaled under a single point source and summary documents include these “quasi-point” sources as point

sources.
Sample calculations presented below are for illustrative purposes only and may not reflect actual emissions.

3.2 ABERDEEN PROVING GROUNDS

Description Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG) occupies more than 72,500 acres in Harford County, Md. Its northernmost point is marked by the confluence of the Susquehanna River and the Chesapeake Bay. On the south the Gunpowder River borders it. The installation comprises two principal areas, sepa rated by the Bush River. The northern area is known as the Aberdeen Area, and the southern sector, fo rmerly Edgewood Arsenal (established in November, 1917 - as a chemical weapons research, development a nd testing facility), is the Edgewood Area. The two areas were administratively combined in 1971. Aberdeen Proving Ground is home to 66 tenants and a host of satellite activities. Among the major tenants are the U.S. Research, Development and E ngineering (RDECOM), U.S. Army Ordnance Center and Schools, U.S. Army Developmen tal Test Command, U.S. Army Aber deen Test Center, U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medici ne, Northeast Region Civilian Personnel Operations Center, U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Chemical Defense, Program Manager for Chemical Demilitarization and major elements of the Army Research Laboratory. As a center for Army materiel testin g, laboratory research and military training, the post is a key element in the nation's defense. All tanks and wheeled vehicles which have served U.S. forces for the past 50 years have been tested for performance and durability at APG - from the M4 Sherman tank of World War II to the M1 tank and High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Ve hicle and Family of Stryker Vehicles of today.
Known as the "Home of Ordnance," APG has been training Army ordnance pe rsonnel since 1918. The Army's ordnance training was consolidated at the proving ground during Worl d War II, and today the U.S. Army Ordnance Center and School provides mechanical maintenance training for more than 20,000 U.S. and foreign personnel each year. APG is the regimental headquarters for the Army's Chief of Ordnance.
APG's Edgewood Area has been a center for chemical warfare research and development since it was established. From the trenches of France and Belgium in World War I to the desert battlefields of Iraq nearly 80 years later, the work done at APG has contri buted to the defense and safety of American forces threatened by chemical weapons.

13More than 7,500 civilians work at Aberdeen Prov ing Ground, and more than 5,000 military personnel are assigned there. In addition, there are nearly 3,000 contractors and private business employees working on the proving ground.
There are 2,148 military family members living on th e post and another 155 off post. The post supports more than 16,000 military retirees and retiree family members. The post is Harford County's largest employer and one of the largest empl oyers in the state of Maryland.
U.S. Army Garrison, Aberdeen Prov ing Ground, provides general, administ rative and logistical support to the post's tenants and satellite activiti es, and is responsible for the mana gement and operation of the entire installation, which in many wa ys is like a small city.
Environmental stewardship is an es sential component of all activity at APG. The installation and its tenants are actively involved in a wide variety of environmental compliance, pollution prevention, conservation, and restoration programs. In FY 2 004 APG spent a total of $31 million on environmental programs, installation programs and in stallation restoration activities.

Pollutants VOC, NOx, CO, PM, Toxics

Emission Source Categories
MDE staff reviewed emission estimat es prepared for Aberdeen Proving Grounds by a private contractor. These emission estimates included data for the following source categories:

• Mobile On-Road Source Emissions

o Mobile - LDGV Emissions

o Mobile - LDGT 1&2 Emissions

o Mobile - LDGT 3&4 Emissions

o Mobile - HDGV

o Mobile - LDDT 1-4

o Mobile - HDDV

o Mobile - HDDV Exhaust

o Mobile – HDDB

o Mobile - HD CNG Trucks

o Mobile - LD CNG Trucks

• Mobile Nonroad Source Emissions

o 2-Stroke Gas Eng; Lawn & Ga rden Equip; Other Equipment

o 4-Stroke Gas Eng; Recrea tional Equip; Golf Carts

o 4-Stroke Gas Eng; Recreational E quip; Specialty Vehicles/Carts

o 4-Stroke Gas Eng; Construction & Mining Equip; Off-Highway Trucks

o 4-Stroke Gas Eng; Indus trial Equip; Forklifts

o 4-Stroke Gas Eng; Lawn & Garden Equip; Chain Saws

o 4-Stroke Gas Eng; Lawn & Garden Equip; Leaf blowers/Vacuums

o 4-Stroke Gas Eng; Lawn & Garden Equip; Rear Eng Riding Mowers

14o 4-Stroke Gas Eng; Lawn & Ga rden Equip; Front Mowers

o 4-Stroke Gas Eng; Lawn & Garden Equip; Other Lawn & Garden Equip

o 4-Stroke Gas Eng; Commerci al Equip; Generator Sets

o LPG Eng; Construction & Mining Equip; Off-Highway Trucks

o Diesel Eng; Construction & Mining Equip; Rollers

o Diesel Eng; Construction & Mining Equip; Cranes

o Diesel Eng; Construction & Mining Equip; Graders

o Diesel Eng; Construction & Mi ning Equip; Off-highway Trucks

o Diesel Eng; Construction & Mini ng Equip; Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes

o Diesel Eng; Construction & Mini ng Equip; Other Construction Equip

o Diesel Eng; Industria l Equip; Forklifts

o Diesel Eng; Industrial E quip; Sweepers/Scrubbers

o Diesel Eng; Lawn & Gard en Equip; Front Mowers

o Diesel Eng; Agricultural E quip; Agricultural Tractors

o Diesel Eng; Commercial Equip; Generator Sets

o Recreational marine 4-str oke gasoline equipment

o Recreational marine diesel compression ignition equipment

o Aircraft

• Area Source Emissions

o Emissions from aircraft refueling.

o Construction Welding

o Solvent-based architectural surface coatings.

o Water-based architectural surface coatings.

o Cold cleaning solvents.

o Solvent Utilization - Miscellaneous

o Commercial/consumer solvents.

o Open Burning Detonation

o Landfills - All Categories

o Munitions Detonation

o Firefighting Training

o Industrial Process - Miscellaneous

o Commercial/institutional distillate oil combustion.

o Commercial/institutional natural gas combustion.

• Point Source Emissions

o MDE staff also reviewed and included em ission estimates from emission certification reports prepared by Aberdeen Proving Grounds and submitted on an annual basis to MDE’s Compliance and Enforcement Program. These emission estimates include major

sources.

Emission Estimation Methodologies Emission estimation methodologies varied by source ca tegory. A brief synopsis of the methodologies is presented below.

1516 Mobile On-Road Source Emissions Information on the privately owned vehicles for APG was estimated from a 2001 traffic study conducted for all gates at both Aberdeen and Edgewood.

Emissions for the on-road vehicles were calcula ted only for the estimated miles and hours of onbase vehicle operation. Miles traveled off the base were not included in the emission calculations. AP-42, Volume 11, Fifth Edition includes the emission factors for NOx, CO, and VOC, which were calculated using EPA's MOBILE 5 model for gasolin e and diesel operated ve hicles. AP-42 has not been updated with NOx, CO, and VOC emission fact ors from the latest version of EPA's MOBILE 6.2.03 model, released in Octobe r 2002, which also includes em ission factors for PM-10, PM-25, S02, and HAPS. Therefore, the emission factors fo r on-road vehicles were obtained by running the MOBILE 6.2.03 model.

APG government-owned vehicles were grouped into vehicle categories accor ding to vehicle type, gross vehicle weight (GVW), and fuel type. The CY 2002 mileage for each vehicle, if available, was provided by each organization, as were estimate s of on-base mileage or a percentage of the total miles per vehicle that were driven on the base . If the mileage data was not available, it was estimated based on mileage for similar types of vehi cles from other organiza tions or from estimates provided by organization personnel.

Emission estimates for privately owned vehicles (POVs) are based on traffic studies for CY 2000 and CY 2001. Each traffic study tracked incoming vehicles at all gates at both Aberdeen and Edgewood over a three-week period. The average number of vehicles coun ted at each gate over both years was used to estimate the number of P OVs entering each day. The average values were 7,680 POVs per day at Aberdeen and 5,277 per day at Edgewood.

POV miles traveled were determined by using the distance from each gate to a central location at both Aberdeen and Edgewood. Each POV that entere d a specific gate was assumed to drive that distance each day. The daily on-base mileage was determined by multiplying the number of POVs by the round-trip distance to a specific gate. The POV vehicles from the traffic study were conservatively estimated to be in th e above-referenced vehicle categories.

Emissions of NOx, CO, VOC, PM-1 0, PM-2.5, and SO2 from daily employee POVs were estimated by multiplying the annual on-base mileage of eac h vehicle category with the emission factors obtained from the MOBILE 6.2.03. Since the model ye ars of POVs traveling on the base would vary greatly, it is impractical to estimate the emissi ons from each vehicle in that model year range. Instead the year 2000 was considered the average vehicle model year , and the emission factors for the 2000 model year vehicles were used. The emissi on factors were used in the following equation to estimate annual emissions:

1.1.1.1.1.1.1 E = V * F * C

Where: E = Annual emissions of particular polluta nt from each vehicle category (lb/yr) V = Vehicle miles traveled on-base per year for each vehicle category (mi/yr) F = Average model year emission factor in the applicable vehicle category (g/mi) C = Conversion factor (2.205 

### x 10 lb/g)17 The information on the vehicles tested and miles driven on unpaved test tracks at APG was obtained from 2002 logs for each track. Th e test vehicles we re divided equally into the HDDV and HDGV vehicle classes.

Mobile Nonroad Mobile Source Emissions

APG gathered information about the number of ve hicles, model year, horsepower rating, fuel type, engine cycle type, and estimated operating hours for CY 2002. In the majority of instances, horsepower ratings and operating hour s were not readily available a nd have been assumed based on the typical horsepower of similar types equipment. If data was not available for CY 2002, then data was obtained for the closest available year.

Criteria pollutant emission f actors were obtained from Air Emissions Inventory Guidance Document for Mobile Sources at Air Force Installations, Un ited States Air Force Institute for Environment, Safety & Occupational Health Risk Analysis (IERA), January 2002, which includes the emission factors used in EPA's NON-ROAD 2002 model. Emi ssion factors to estimate PM-2.5 from PM-10 emissions were obtained from EPA's NON-ROAD 2002a model. The Non-road model incorporates research results from U.S. EPA 's Non-road Engine and Vehi cle Emission Study (NEVES), November 1991, as well as from the California Air Resour ces Board's off-road model, test results, and regulatory emission standards. These factors we re used to estimate the emissions from non-road vehicles and equipment.

Emission factors for stationary internal combustion engines were used to es timate criteria pollutant emissions for the non-mobile equipment. These factors are found in Table 3.3-1, AP-42 Section 3.3, Gasoline and Diesel Industrial Engines. Emissions were calculated by multiplying the power output by the emission factors applicable to the type of fuel used by the non-mobile equipment, either gasoline or diesel. The power output was calculate d by multiplying the power of the equipment in horsepower times the estimated hours of operation. Net workdays were derived from the equipment rental records. It was assumed that the light to wers were used 8 hours per day and that all other equipment was used 10 hours per day.

The total emissions for all non-road vehicles a nd equipment were separated into emissions for Aberdeen and Edgewood. In cases were vehicles were used at both Aberdeen and Edgewood the total emissions were divided equally.

Aircraft operations are conducted at Phillips Airfie ld at Aberdeen and Weide Heliport at Edgewood. These operations include landings and takeoffs (LTOs), touch and go's (T&Gs), low approaches (LAs), and trim and power checks (T&Ps). Emi ssions from aircraft operations were estimated using the EDMS (version 4.4) model.

Emissions of criteria pollutants for watercra ft were calculated using factors provided in AP-42, Volume 11. Inboard emissions were calculated based on fuel consumption or operating time. Outboard emissions were calculat ed using factors related to fuel consumption. Fuel consumption was rarely known, so a generic fuel usage of 3 ga llons per hour was used to calculate consumption from operating time.The inventory of watercraft includes APG vessels , privately owned boats, and rental boats. The inventory included the size of vesse ls, whether the boat has an inboa rd or outboard motor, whether the boat uses gasoline or diesel, on-site fuel usage, and on-site estimated usage.

Many assumptions were necessary to calculate emissions from th e limited information known about many of the watercraft. The numbe r of memberships to the privat e boat clubs located at APG and number of permits to launch boats at APG was know n, but no information as to the size and type of boats was, nor the time or distan ce they traveled with in the boundaries of APG. All privately owned boats launched in the Aber deen Area were considered outsi de of the APG boundary once in the water, so no emissions were counted from th ese boats. For privately owned watercraft it was assumed that 80% have outboard motors and 20% have inboard and that all ar e gasoline fueled. An assumption was made that privately owned watercraft were used 5 times per year and spent 2 hours on site each usage for a total of 10 hours each. For re ntal outboards it was assumed that they were used 3 hours on-site per rental weekend and that there were 40 rentals in 2002.

Area Source Emissions

Emissions from the various area source categorie s were estimated using a variety of methods, including population based, fuel consumption, and mass balance. Emission factors were derived from the EPA document titled 'Emission Inventory Improvement Program', and AP-42. Landfill losses as VOC were calculated fo r Michaelsville landfill using Landfill Gas Emissions Model (LandGEM) version 3.02 available through the EPA. Land GEM is based on a first-order decomposition rate equation for quantifying emi ssions from the decomposition of waste in municipal solid waste landfills. Activity

An activity level of 7 days a week with no seasonal adjustment factor was used.

Emission Factors Emission factors were derived from the Emissi on Inventory Improvement Program (EIIP); AP-42, Volume 11, Fifth Edition; EP A's NON-ROAD 2002 model; EPA' s MOBILE 5 model; and the Landfill Gas Emissions Model (LandGEM) version 3.02.

Point Source Adjustments Collecting all emissions estimates unde r one facility effectively creates a single point source for all of the emissions. No other point sources were subtract ed from the area source inventory to avoid double counting.

Adjustment for Controls Controls were applied when applicable to a particular source category.

Spatial and Temporal Allocations

1819 Spatial Spatial allocation of the emission estimates to specific areas within APG is not available.

Temporal Data for temporal allocation is not available for this source.3.3 ANDREWS AIR FORCE BASE

Description Andrews Air Force Base (ICAO code KADW) is a United States Air Force base near Washington, DC and the home base of the U. S. presidential aircraft, Air Force One.

The base is located a few miles southeast of Washington, in Prince George's County, Maryland near the town of Morningside. Acco rding to the United States Census Bureau, the town has a total land area of 6.8 mi2 and none of it is covered by water. There are two runways on the base; the western runway is 3,440 meters in length, and the eastern runway is 3,570 meters in length.

The host unit for Andrews AFB is the 89th Ai rlift Wing which falls under Air Mobility Command. The primary mission at Andrews AFB is to trans port the President of the United States. The base is also tasked, unde r what is known as "SAM FOX", to provide worldwide airlift for the vice president, the president's Cabinet, members of Congress, military leaders and other high ranking dignita ries. At one time, "SAM FOX", was used as a prefix to an aircraft tail number, during radio transmissions to identify Air Force aircraft that were transpor ting high-ranking VIPs, typically on foreign flights. The call sign prefix was constructed from the acronym SAM (Special Air Missi on) and the initial F (Foreign), which at the time was re presented by the phonetic word "Fox."

Andrews is also the home of the 89th Communication Group, a unit that provides communications to military installations all ov er the world. The technical control facility is one of the largest in the world, and hosts a myriad of sophisticat ed telecommunications equipment. One of the squadrons within the 89th Communications Group is the 789th Communications Squadron, whose CNCS remotely operates 15 HF Global radio stations from around the Globe. Other major tenants include the District of Columbia Air National Guard (DC-ANG), Naval Air Facility (NAF), and the Maryland State Police.

Pollutants VOC, NOx, CO, PM, Toxics

Emission Source Categories MDE staff reviewed emission estimates pr epared for Andrews Air Force Base by a private contractor. These emission estimat es included data for the following source categories:

• Mobile On-Road Source Emissions

o Mobile - LDGV

o Mobile - LDGT12

20o Mobile - LDGT34

o Mobile - HDGV / Buses

o Mobile - MC

o Mobile - LDDV

o Mobile - LDDT

o Mobile - HDDBT

o Mobile - HDDV

o Mobile - HDDBS

o Mobile - Heavy Duty Trucks

o Mobile - Light Duty Vehicles

• Mobile Nonroad Source Emissions

o Nonroad Mobile - Recreational

o Nonroad Mobile - Construction

o Nonroad Mobile - Industrial

o Nonroad Mobile - Lawn and Garden

o Nonroad Mobile – Agricultural

o Gas-Fired Non-road vehicle- 4-stroke gasoline engine

o Gas-Fired Non-road vehicle- 2-stroke gasoline engine

o Aircraft - All Aircraft Types and Operations

o Emissions from military aviation aircraft landing and takeoff.

o Emissions from commercial aviatio n aircraft landing and takeoff.

o Diesel Generators

o Off-highway Vehicle Gasoline, 2-Stroke Total without APUs

o Off-highway Vehicle Gasoline, 4-Stroke Total without APUs

o Off-highway Vehicle Gasoline, 4-Stroke APU emissions

o Off-highway Vehicle Diesel APU emissions

o Nonroad Mobile Aircraft Ground Equipment - All Gasoline Engines

o Nonroad Mobile Aircraft Ground Equipment - All JP-8 Engines

• Point Source Emissions

o MDE staff also reviewed and includ ed emission estimates from emission certification reports prepared by A ndrews Air Force Base and submitted on an annual basis to MDE’s Comp liance and Enforcement Program. These emission estimates include major sources.

Emission Estimation Methodologies Emission estimation methodologies varied by source category. A brief synopsis of the methodologies is presented below.

21Mobile On-Road Source EmissionsThe Andrews AFB on-road vehicle inventory consists of a mix of light- and heavyduty gasoline-, diesel-, and natural gas- powered government-, and privately owned vehicles (POVs). POVs include vehicl es owned by both daily employees and weekend personnel. The inventory contains the vehicle type, model year, number of vehicles, and annual on-base mileage. To distinguish leased General Services Administration (GSA) government-owned ve hicles (GOVs) from the regular fleet, vehicle tag numbers are provided in cases where they are known.

On the basis of inventory data prov ided by vehicle maintenance personnel, government-owned vehicles (GOVs) were grouped into eight vehicle categories according to vehicle type, gross vehicle weight (GVW), and fuel type. The 2002 mileage for each vehicle was provided by vehicle maintenance personnel, as were estimates of on-base mileage or a percentage of the total miles per vehicle that were driven on the base.

Emissions were calculated only for th e estimated miles and hours of on-base vehicle and equipment operation. Miles travel ed off the base were not included in the emission calculations. The Fifth Ed ition of AP-42, Volume II includes the emission factors for NOx, CO, and VOC, which were calculated using EPA’s MOBILE 5 model for gasoline and diesel operated vehicles. AP-42 has not been updated with NOx, CO, and VOC emission fact ors from the latest version of EPA’s MOBILE 6.2.03 model, released in Oct ober 2002, which also includes emission factors for PM-10, PM-2.5, SO2, and HAPs. Therefore, the emission factors for onroad vehicles were obtained by running the MOBILE 6.2.03 model. The MOBILE model does not address compressed natural gas vehicles, so emission factors for these vehicles have been obtai ned from 40CFR86.1708-99, 40CFR88.105-94, and 40CFR88.104.94.

Emission estimates for privately owned vehicles (POVs) are based on traffic studies supplied by base personnel (89th AW Civil Engineering, July 2004). Andrews AFB has approximately 61, 738 vehi cles traveling on base each workday. This number assumes a working schedule of employees of 40 hours per week. In addition, 25% of the daily personnel ar e assumed to be on the base on the weekends.

The emission factors were used in th e following equation to estimate annual emissions:

E = V * F * C

Where: E = Annual emissions of particular polluta nt from each vehicle category (lb/yr) V = Vehicle miles traveled on-base per ye ar for each vehicle category (mi/yr) F = Average model year emission factor in th e applicable vehicle category (g/mi) C = Conversion factor (2.205 

### x 10 lb/g)

22Mobile Nonroad Mobile Source Emissions

The Andrews AFB non-road vehicle invent ory consists of various equipment including forklifts, loaders, riding lawn care equipment, and towing equipment. The inventory contains the equipmen t name, model year, horsepower rating, number of vehicles, fuel type, engine cycle type, and operating hours for CY 2002. The inventory specifies whether the opera ting hours are a total operating time for CY 2002 for the number of units listed or an operating time for each unit.

Criteria pollutant and HAP emission factors were obtained from Air Emissions Inventory Guidance Document for Mobile Sources at Air Force Installations, United States Air Force Institute for En vironment, Safety & Occupational Health Risk Analysis (IERA), January 2002

, which includes the emission factors used in EPA’s NONROAD 2002a model. Emission factors to estimate PM-2.5 from PM10 emissions were obtained fr om EPA’s NONROAD 2002a model.

The Andrews AFB aircraft operations invent ory consists of info rmation related to landings and takeoffs (LTOs) , touch and go’s (T&Gs), low approaches (LAs), and trim and power checks (T&PCs). Calendar year 2002 was used for the calculations of the baseline emissions inventory because 2002 is the baseline year selected by the MDE for use in the revisi on of its SIP. The inventory contains the aircraft type and manufacturer, engine model and ma nufacturer, the number of LTOs, T&Gs, LAs, and T&PCs. The calendar year 2002 inventory was generated using information compiled from the Aerial Port Squadron, the Andrews AFB Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Liason, a nd Allan Holtzman, Andrews AFB Air Quality Program Manager. This inventor y will also be submitted to MDE for incorporation into ED MS (version 4.4).

Activity

An activity level of 7 days a week with no seasonal adjustment factor was used.

Emission Factors Emission factors were derived from the EDMS Airport Emission Model, Version 4.4; EPA's NON-ROAD 2002 model; and EPA's MOBILE 6.02.03 model.

Point Source Adjustments Collecting all emissions estimates under one facility effectively creates a single point source for all of the emissions. No other point sources were subtracted from the area source inventory to avoid double counting.

2324 Adjustment for Controls Controls were applied when applicable to a particular source category.

Spatial and Temporal Allocations Spatial Spatial allocation of the emission estimate s to specific areas within Andrews Air Force Base is not available.

Temporal Data for temporal allocation is not available for this source.25 3.4 BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON INTE RNATIONAL AIRPORT (BWI)

Description Baltimore-Washington International Airport (BWI) is located in Anne Arundel County, Maryland, approximately 9 miles south of the City of Baltimore and approximately 30 miles northeast of Washington, D.C. BWI Airport is generally bounded on the north, east, and west by Aviation Boulevard (MD Route 170 and MD Rout e 162) and on the south by Dorsey Road (MD Route 176). Interstate 195 (I-195) is a four-lane divided highway that serves as the primary access point to the airport terminal area. Elm Road and Aviation Boulev ard provide secondary access to the terminal and cargo facilities.

BWI is operated by the Maryland Aviation Administration, Maryland Department of Transportation. BWI Airport encompasses 3,596 acres of land. The passenger terminal contains 1.4 million square feet; 4 concourses (3 domestic, 1 international/swing); 69 jet gates with 12 gates dedicated to commuter aircraft.

The emission sources at BWI include aircraft, ai rcraft ground support service equipment, motor vehicles (on roadways, in parking facilities, and at terminal curbsides), the heating plant, fuel storage and handling, an d training fires.

Pollutants VOC, NOx, CO, PM, Toxics

Emission Source Categories MDE staff reviewed emission estimates prepared for BWI Airport by a private contractor. These emission estimates included data fo r the following source categories:

• Mobile Onroad Source Emissions

o Mobile - LDGV Emissions

o Mobile - Parking Facility Emissions

o Mobile - LDGT 1&2 Emissions

o Mobile - LDDT 1-4

o Mobile – HDDV

• Mobile Nonroad Source Emissions

o Emissions from airport service di esel compression ignition equipment

o Emissions from military aircraft LTOs

o Emissions from commercial aircraft LTOs

o Emissions from general aviation aircraft LTOs

o Emissions from aircraft auxiliary power units26 • Mobile Nonroad Source Constr uction Equipment Emissions

o 2-Stroke Gas Eng; Constructi on & Mining Equip; Paving Equip

o 4-Stroke Gas Eng; Construction & Mining Equip; Plate Compactors

o 4-Stroke Gas Eng; Construction & Mi ning Equip; Concrete/Industrial Saws

o Diesel Eng; Construction & Mining Equip; Pavers

o Diesel Eng; Construction & Mining Equip; Rollers

o Diesel Eng; Construction & Mining Equip; Scrapers

o Diesel Eng; Constructi on & Mining Equip; Sign al Boards/Light Plants

o Diesel Eng; Construction & Mining Equip; Trenchers

o Diesel Eng; Construction & Mining Equip; Excavators

o Diesel Eng; Construction & Mining Equip; Cranes

o Diesel Eng; Construction & Mining Equip; Graders

o Diesel Eng; Construction & Mi ning Equip; Off-highway Trucks

o Diesel Eng; Construction & Mi ning Equip; Rubber Tire Loaders

o Diesel Eng; Construction & Mini ng Equip; Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes

o Diesel Eng; Construction & Mini ng Equip; Crawler Tractor/Dozers

o Diesel Eng; Industrial Equip; Aerial Lifts

o Diesel Eng; Industria l Equip; Forklifts

o Diesel Eng; Industrial E quip; Sweepers/Scrubbers

o Diesel Eng; Commercial Equip; Generator Sets

o Diesel Eng; Commercial Equip; Air Compressors

o Diesel Eng; Commerci al Equip; Welders

• Mobile Onroad Source Emissions

o Firefighting Training

• Point Source Emissions

o MDE staff also reviewed and includ ed emission estimates from emission certification reports prepared by BWI and submitted on an annual basis to MDE’s Compliance and Enforcement Program. These emission estimates include major

sources.

Emission Estimation Methodologies Emission estimation methodologies varied by source category. A brief synopsis of the methodologies is presented below.

Emissions and Dispersion Modeli ng System (EDMS) Version 4.4

• Aircraft27 FAA’s EDMS computer program contains a data base of aircraft e ngine emission factors based on engine make and model and four e ngine operation modes (t axi/idle, takeoff, climb out, and approach). EDMS also contai ns a database of em ission factors for an aircraft’s auxiliary power units (APUs). Time-in-mode data is also used as an input into the emission inventory. EDMS time-in-mode da ta include the time that aircraft spend in each of the four operating modes.

• Ground Support Equipment

FAA’s EDMS computer program contains a database of the ground support equipment (GSE) used to service specific types of aircra ft. Also included in the database are the emission factors for each piece of GSE, as well as the time that each piece of equipment spends servicing the aircraft.

• Roadways

FAA’s EDMS computer program uses EPA’ s MOBILE 6.2 model to estimate on-road mobile vehicle emissions.

• Parking Facilities

FAA’s EDMS computer program uses EPA’ s MOBILE 6.2 model to estimate on-road mobile vehicle emissions fr om parking facilities.

• Training Fires

FAA’s EDMS computer program contains a da tabase of emission factors for five fuel types (JP-4, JP-5, JP-8, Tekflame and Propane). Training fire emissions are estimated by choosing the fuel type and specifying the amount of fuel consumed in the training exercise.

Nonroad Mobile Source Emissions

• Construction Equipment

Emissions from construction ac tivities were estimated based on the construction activity schedule, including the number and types of construction vehicles and equipment units and their utilization rates. Emission rates we re taken from EPA’s NONROAD program and MOBILE6.2. Emissions from several components of construction activities were calculated, specifically: onsite construction equipment (back hoes, bull dozers, graders, etc.), haul vehicles idling onsite (cement trucks, dump truc ks, etc.), and haul ve hicles and construction worker vehicles accessing the site. An industr y-wide, representative mix of the number and types of construction equipment, average power rating (horse power), and equipment load factors was used in the analys is. Construction-related motor vehicles (dump trucks, pick-up28 trucks, etc.) were assumed to travel a round trip on-site di stance of 5 miles while on the Airport construction site.

Activity

An activity level of 7 days a week with no seasonal adjustment factor was used.

Emission Factors Emission factors were derived from FAA’ s EDMS computer program (Version 4.4). Vehicular emission factors contained in EDMS are obtained from the EPA's MOBILE 6.2 model. Construction emission factors were derived from EPA’s NONROAD Model.

Point Source Adjustments Collecting all emissions estimates under one facility effectively cr eates a single point source for all of the emissions. No other point sources we re subtracted from the area source inventory to avoid double counting.

Adjustment for Controls Controls were applied when applicable to a particular source category.

Spatial and Temporal Allocations Spatial Spatial allocation of the emission estimates to specific areas within Baltimore Washington International Airport is not available.

Temporal Data for temporal allocation is not available for this source.29 

## 4.0 AREAS SOURCES

4.1 EMISSION ESTIMATION METHOD BY CATEGORY

Sample calculations presented below are for illust rative purposes only and may not reflect actual emissions.

4.1.1 PETROLEUM DISTRIBUTION LOSSES

Evaporative emissions occur at all points in th e gasoline distribution pro cess. These operations, generally inventoried as area sources, are gasoline dispensing outlets and gasoline tank trucks in transit. Bulk terminals and gasoline bulk plants, which are intermediate distribution points between refineries and outlets, have been inventor ied as point sources. Most gasoline dispensing outlets emit less than 10 tons of VOC per year and therefore have been inventoried using area source methods.

VOC emissions from gasoline di spensing outlets result from vapor losses during tank truck unloading into underground storage tanks, vehicle fueling (boat fueling at marinas), and underground storage tank breathing. Evaporativ e losses from each activity in this source category have been tabulated separately so th at various emission reduction control measures could be easily evaluated.

Emissions from vehicle fueling, including spilla ge during fueling, were calculated with the MOBILE6 model and the methodology is described in Section 5.0 Mobile Sources. Tank truck unloading, underground tank breathing, tank trucks in transit and aircraft refueling were calculated using emissions factors from AP-42 and EIIP.30 4.1.1.1 Tank Truck Unloading SCC: 25 01 060 053

Description: Emissions from tank truck unloading are aff ected by whether the service station tank is equipped for submerged, splash or balance fil ling. Therefore calcula tions were based on the filling method used and gallons sold.

Pollutants

VOC

Method and Data Sources: The method used to calculate emissions (all VOC), is presented in EIIP 9 , Chapter 11, Gasoline Marketing, which extracts the emission factors from AP-42 , Volume I, Table 5.2-7.

Activity

The Maryland Comptroller of the Treasur y, Gasoline Tax Divisi on provided annual gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel sold. This data includes taxable and non-taxed gasoline purchased by the U.S. Government. State an d local government sale s are included in the taxable sales data. The statewid e total of gallons of fuel so ld was allocated to the county level proportional to the number of regist ered vehicles within the county. Vehicle registration data was collected from the Ma ryland Department of Transportation, Motor Vehicle Administration that supplied the data to MDE’s Mobile Sources Control Program. Diesel fuel powered vehicle totals were subtracted from the Maryland and county registration numbers.

Percentages of submerged, balanced submerged and splash-fill tanks were determined with the assistance of MDE Waste Management. MDE staff reported no splash filling at Maryland service stations in 2002. All underground storage ta nks within the nonattainment areas of the State of Maryland are required to use vapor-balance submerged filling methods. Waste Management's underground tank inspection program and regulations concerning underground storage ta nks have eliminated splash-fill tanks in the state. A recent SSCD study determined that the rule eff ectiveness factor for vapor balance controls was 91%.

An activity level of 7 days per week was used, based on observations by MDE staff of unloading at Maryland retail ga s stations. A rule effectiveness of 91% was determined from a study of Stage I compliance performe d in Regions III and IV by the MDE/ARMA enforcement program in 1991. In the attainment counties outside of Regions III and IV, a default rule effectiveness of 80 % was used. This survey data was used to determine the penetration of each filling technology. The tota l fuel sales in the county were multiplied

9 Emission Inventory Improvement Program31 by the fraction using each filling technology. The AP-42 technology-specific emission factors were then used to estimate emissions from submerged filling and balanced submerged filling. The emissions from each filling technology were summed to estimate total emissions.

Filling Method Non-Attainment Area Transport Region Attainment Area

Submerged 9% 9% 20% Balanced Submerged 91% 91% 80% Splash 0% 0% 0%

Activity Days per Year 365

Emission Factors Emission factors are affected by true vapor pr essure and temperature. Emissions from loading petroleum liquid can be estimated (with a probable e rror of ±30 percent) using the following expression 10 :

T MPS L

L ** *46.12 =
where: L L = loading loss, pounds per 1000 gallons (lb/10 3 gal) of liquid loaded (The loading loss is equivalent to an emission factor) S = a saturation factor (see Table 5.2-1) P = true vapor pressure of liquid load ed, pounds per square inch absolute (psia) (see Figure 7.1-5, Figur e 7.1-6, and Table 7.1-2) M = molecular weight of vapors , pounds per pound-mole (lb/lb-mole) (see Table 7.1-2) T = temperature of bulk liquid loaded, °R (°F + 460)

Table 5.2-1 from AP-42 shows that the saturati on factor (S) is a constant for a specific petroleum liquid, carrier and type of loading service

The true vapor pressure (P) can be estimate d from the Reid vapor pressure using the following equation:

( ) ( ) ⎭ ⎩ ⎦ ⎣⎦ ⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎬ ⎫ ⎨ ⎧
+ ⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜ ⎝ ⎛

+ − ⎥ ⎤ ⎢ ⎡

− ⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜ ⎝ ⎛

+ + ⎥ ⎤ ⎢ ⎡ ⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜ ⎝ ⎛

+ −− ⎥ ⎤ ⎢ ⎡ ⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜ ⎝ ⎛

+ − = 64.15 6.459 8742 log013.2 6.459 2416
6.459 1042 854.1 log* 6.459 0.413 7553.0exp 10 5.0 10 5.0 T RVP T S T RVP S T P

The molecular weight varies slightly with temperature and pressure, however for this analysis it is assumed to be constant.

10 AP42, Chapter 5.2: Transportation and Marketing of Petroleum Liquids32 roportioning the loading factors yields P

2*1 1*2

1 1*1*1*46.12 2 2*2*2*46.12

1 2
TP TP

T MPS T MPS

LL LL

= = 2*1 1*2 *12 T P TP LLLL =

The loading factor or emission factor is directly proportio nal to true vapor pressure and

versely proportional to temp erature in degrees Rankin.

L1 = 0.3 at RVP of 10 and 60 F; this yields LL1 =0.3; P =5.186; T=520 R

o calculate LL2 at RVP of 6.7 a nd 81.8 F or P = 5.094; T = 541.8 R in

L

T

2828.0 8.541*186.5

520*094.5 *3.0 2*1 1*2 *12 = = = T P TP LLLL

Initial emission factors of 0.3 lb VOC per 1000 gallons throughput for balanced submerged filling and 7.3 lb VOC per 1000 gallons throughput for submerged filling were used in Maryland counties. These factors were then adjusted with county-specific mont all hly average temperature and true vapor pre ssure values using the above technique.

Lb. VOC per 1,000 gallon merged Filling Method Base Emission Factor

Balanced Sub 0.3 Submerged 7.3 Diesel Fuel Unloading 0.014

No subtraction of emissions fr om point sources is necessary.

Controls for this source category are reflected in the emission factors.

Data for spatial allocation is not available for this source.

Data for temporal allocation is not available for this source. nt for

Alloca Point Source Adjustments

Adjustme Controls

Spatial and Temporal tions Spatial

Temporal33 Emissions Calculation The equation for estimating emissions from tank truck unloading is:

(G i x F i (fm) x EF fm ) + (G i x F i (fm) x EF fm ) E fj = 2000 x 365 Where:

E fj = Emissions of VOC in tons per da y from tank truck unl oading per county i

G i = Gallons of gasoline sold in county i during 2002

F i (fm) = Fraction of gasoline dispensed per county i per filling method (balanced submerged or submerged) during 2002

EF fm = Emission factor per filling method fo r tank truck unloading adjusted by RVP and temperature: (0.3 lb. VOC/1000 gallon throughput or 7.3 lb. VOC/1000 gallon throughput )

Tank Truck Unloading Sample Calculation (Carroll County)

To calculate fuel usage for Carroll County:

Filling Method Carroll County Adjusted Emission Factor Lb. VOC per 1,000 gallon Balanced Submerged 0.2453 Submerged 5.9691 Diesel Fuel Unloading 0.014

Total fuel sold in Maryland in 2002 11 = 2,570,356,195 gallons

Allocate gallons of fuel sold to the county level by the 2002 county vehicle registration proportion:

Carroll County vehicle registration 12 138,645 Total MD vehicle registration = 4,100,225 = 0.0338

2,570,356,195 x 0.0338 = 86,914,019.269 gallons sold in Carroll County

11 Annual sales of gasoline from Maryland Comp troller of the Treasury, Gasoline Tax Division
12 State of Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration and MDE Mobile Sources Control Program.34 [86,914,019.269 gallons of gasoline so ld in Carroll County in 2002 x 91 percent 13 filled by balanced submerged filling method x 0.2453 lbs.. VOC per 1000 gallons of gasoline 14 ] + [86,914,019.269 gallons of gasoline so ld in Carroll County in 2002 x 9 percent filled by submerged filling method x 5.9691 lbs.. VOC per 1000 gallons of gasoline 15 ] = 66,093.07 lbs..

VOC emitted.

Convert to tons per day: 66,093.07 lbs. VOC / (365 days per year x 2000 lbs. per ton) = 0.09 tons VOC per day

13 A rule effectiveness of 91% was determined from a study of Stage I compliance performed in Regions III and IV by the MDE/ARMA enforcement program in 1991. In the attainment counties outside of Regions III and IV, a default rule effectiveness of 80 % was used.
14 Emission factor for balanced submerged filling from AP-42 Volume I, Table 5.2-7.
15 Emission factor for submerged filling from AP-42 Volume I, Table 5.2-7.35 4.1.1.2 Stage II Refueling SCC: 25 01 060 100

Description Emissions from Stage II refueling are substantiall y less than those from Stage I because gasoline vapors that ordinarily might ha ve escaped during vehicle fueli ng are recirculated by a special nozzle back into the pump. Th e start year for Stage II refu eling in all Maryland ozone nonattainment areas was 1993. Gasoline stations were required to have St age II nozzles installed by November of that year. Calculations were ba sed on the filling method used and gallons sold.

Pollutants

VOC

Method and Data Sources
EPA recommends that the MOBILE6 model be used to generate refuelin g (Stage II) emission factors for highway vehicle em ission inventories (EPA, 1992b). The model, designed to support the evaluation of air pollution from gasoline- and diesel-fueled vehicl es, generates emission factors for tailpipe emissions and refueling activities. A detailed discussion of using this model is available from EPA (EPA, 1994).

Activity The MOBILE6 model produces estimates of re fueling emissions in units of grams per mile. These values are multiplied by fuel ec onomy (in units of miles per gallon) and total gasoline sales (in units of gallons purchased/so ld) in the study area resulting in refueling emissions in terms of grams. It should be noted that MOBILE makes use of improved predictive equations to calculate refueli ng emission factors, including sensitivity to temperature and Reid vapor pre ssure (RVP), and these have no t yet been incorporated into published AP-42 factors for refueling. Additi onally, the user may provide information on local Stage II emission controls to develop an emission factor for controlled emissions.

Refueling emissions have two mechanisms of introducing emissions to the environment: (1) vapor displacement from the vehicle fuel ta nk during refilling; and (2) gasoline spillage during refueling. The MOBILE user may reque st either a single emission factor that combines the two mechanisms or separate em ission factors for displacement and spillage. Because both mechanisms should be taken into account when estimating refueling emissions, the preferred approach is to request the combined emission factor.

Emission Factors ARMA mobile sources staff ran the MOBILE6 model to estimate the refueling emissions using the grams per mile (g/mile) methodology described above. The emission estimates were converted from grams to tons.36 Point Source Adjustments
No subtration of emissions fr om point sources is necessary.

Adjustment for Controls Controls for this source category include St age II Vapor Recovery Systems and Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery (ORVR) systems. The controls are reflected in the emission estimates produced by the MOBILE6 model.

Spatial and Temporal Allocations Spatial The MOBILE6 model uses user -supplied county-level gasoline sales data to spatially allocate emission estimates.

Temporal Data for temporal allocation is not available for this source.

Emissions Calculation The equation for estimating emissions from tank truck unloading is:

(G i x EF StII x MPG x SAF) E StII = 2000 x 365 Where:

E StII = emissions of VOC in tons per day from stage II refueling

G i = gallons of gasoline sold in county i during 2002

EF StII = emission factor for stage II refueling from the MOBILE6 model (grams/mile)

MPG = average fuel economy (miles/gallon)

SAF = seasonal adjustment factor to reflect summer weekday emissions

Stage II Refueling Sample Calculation

Since all calculations are incl uded in the MOBILE6 model output , a sample calculation is not available for this source category.37 4.1.1.3 Underground Tank Breathing SCC: 25 01 060 201

Description: Underground tank breathing occurs when gasoline is drawn out of the tanks and into the pump lines. During this process air moves into th e tank evaporating gasoline and emitting vapors.

Pollutants

VOC

Method and Data Sources:
The method used to calculate emissi ons (all VOC), is presented in EIIP 16 , Chapter 11, Gasoline Marketing, which extracts the emission factors from AP-42 , Volume I, Table 5.2-7.

Activity The Maryland Comptroller of the Treasury, Gasoline Tax Divisi on provided annual gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel sold. This data includes taxable and non-taxed gasoline purchased by the U.S. Government. State an d local government sale s are included in the taxable sales data. The statewid e total of gallons of fuel so ld was allocated to the county level proportional to the number of register ed vehicles within the county. Vehicle registration data was collected from the Ma ryland Department of Transportation, Motor Vehicle Administration that supplied the data to MDE’s Mobile Sources Control Program. Diesel fuel powered vehicle totals were subtracted from the Maryland and county registration numbers.

An activity level of 7 days per week was used.

Activity Days per Year 365

Emission Factors An emission factor of 1.0 lbs. VOC per 1000 gallons throughput was used. The emission factor was taken from EIIP , Chapter 11, Gasoline Marketing, which extracts the emission factors from AP-42 , Volume I, Table 5.2-7.

MDE used the same sources for gasoline sa les and car registrati on as in tank truck unloading.

16 Emission Inventory Improvement Program38 Point Source Adjustments
No subtration of emissions fr om point sources is necessary.

Adjustment for Controls Controls for this source category are reflected in the emission factors.

Spatial and Temporal Allocations Spatial Data for spatial allocation is not available for this source.

Temporal Data for temporal allocation is not available for this source.

Emissions Calculation The equation used to estimate emissi ons from underground tank breathing is:

(G i x EF utb ) E utb = 2000 x 365 Where:

E utb = emissions of VOC in tons per day from underground tank breathing and emptying

G i = gallons of gasoline sold in county i during 2002

EF utb = emission factor for underg round tank breathing (1.0 lbs. VOC /1000 gallon throughput)

Underground Tank Breathing Sample Calculation (Carroll County)

To calculate fuel usage for Carroll County:

Total fuel sold in Maryland in 2002 17 = 2,570,356,195 gallons

Allocate gallons of fuel sold to the county level by the 2002 county vehicle registration proportion:

17 Annual sales of gasoline from Maryland Comp troller of the Treasury, Gasoline Tax Division39 Carroll County vehicle registration 18 138,645 Total MD vehicle registration = 4,100,225 = 0.0338

2,570,356,195 x 0.0338 = 86,914,019.269 gallons sold in Carroll County in 2002.

22,376,721 = gallons of gasoline sold in Carroll County during the summer of 2002.

[22,376,721 gallons of gasoline sold in Carroll County in 2002 x 0.000818 lbs. VOC per gallons of gasoline 19 ] = 18,304.16 lbs. VOC emitted.

Convert to tons per summer day: 18,304.16 / (92 days per year x 2000 lbs. per ton) = 0.0994 tons

VOC per day emitted from underground tank breathing in Carroll County.

18 State of Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration and MDE Mobile Sources Control Program.
19 Emission factor from AP-42 Volume I, Table 5.2-7.40 4.1.1.4 Gasoline Tank Trucks in Transit SCC: 25 05 030 120

Description Breathing losses from tank trucks during the transport of gasoline are caused by leaking delivery trucks, pressure in the tanks, and thermal effect s on the vapor and on the liquid. A worst case situation arises if a poorly sealed tank has been loaded with gasoline and pure air becomes saturated. During the vaporization process, pres sure increases and venting occurs. Emissons from this source category include the evaporation of petroleum vapor from:

• loaded tank trucks during transportation of gasoline from the bulk plant/terminal to the service station or othe r dispensing outlet, and

• from empty tank trucks returning from se rvice stations to bul k plant/terminals.

Pollutants

VOC

Method and Data Sources
The method used to calculate emissi ons (all VOC), is presented in EIIP 20 , Chapter 11, Gasoline Marketing (Stage I & Stage II), dated September 1997.

Activity

Emission Factors EPA documents the emission factors in AP-42, Table 5.2-5 and EIIP states the emission factors within the above-referenced docume nt in Table 11.3-1. The AP-42 emission factors represent a typical range of values. EIIP averages th e “typical range values” within AP-42 and arrives at average emission factor values of 0.055 and 0.005 lbs.. VOC per 1000- gallon gasoline, respectively for emissions from empty tank trucks and emissions from full tank trucks.

Emission Source EIIP Table 11-3.1 Lb/1000 gallon “Average” AP-42 Table 5-2.5 Lb/1000 gallon “Typical Range” Gasoline Tank Trucks in Transit Empty Tank Trucks 0.055 0 - 0.11 Full Tank Trucks 0.005 0 - 0.01

MDE used the same sources for gasoline sales an d car registration as in tank truck unloading.

MDE used the emission factors from EIIP, Volu me I, Table 5.2-5, of 0.06 pounds VOC per 1000 gallons throughput (combines 0.005 lb VOC /1000 gallon full tank truck delivery and 0.055 lb VOC

20 Emission Inventory Improvement Program41 /1000 gallon empty tank return). MDE also used a bulk facility throughput adjustment factor of 1.25 and calculated throughput by a ratio of county re tail sales and state retail sales times state fuel sales. MDE used the same sources for gaso line sales and car regist ration as in tank truck unloading.

Emission Factors:

Full tank truck delivery 0.005 lbs. VOC per 1000 gallons Empty tank truck return 0.055 lbs. VOC per 1000 gallons Combined (full & empty) 0.060 lbs. VOC per 1000 gallons

Bulk Facility Throughput Adjustment Factor: 1.25 Activity Days Per Year: 312

Equation:

(G i x 1.25 x EF tt ) E tt = 2000 x 312 Where:

E tt = emissions of VOC in tons per day from tank trucks in transit

G i = thousand gallons of fuel sold in county i

EF tt = Combined (full & empty) tank trucks in transit emission factor

2002 Gasoline Tank Trucks in Transit Sample Calculation (Carroll County)

To calculate fuel usage for Carroll County:

Total fuel sold in Maryland in 2002 21 = 2,570,356,195 gallons

Allocate gallons of fuel sold to the county level by the 2002 county vehicle registration proportion:

Carroll County vehicle registration 22 138,645 Total MD vehicle registration = 4,100,225 = 0.0338

2,570,356,195 x 0.0338 = 86,914,019.269 gallons

[86,914,019.269 gallons of gasoline sold in Carroll County in 2002 x 1.25 x 0.06 lbs. VOC per 1000 gallons of gasoline 23 ] = 6,518.55 lbs. VOC emitted.

21 Annual sales of gasoline from Maryland Comp troller of the Treasury, Gasoline Tax Division
22 State of Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration and MDE Mobile Sources Control Program .42 Convert to tons per day: 6,518.55 / (312 days per year x 2000 lbs. per ton) = 0.010446 tons VOC per day emitted from tank trucks in transit in Carroll County.

23 Emission factor from AP-42 Volume I, Table 5.2-7.43 4.1.1.5 Aircraft Refueling SCC: 22 75 900 000

Description Jet kerosene (used primarily by commercial turbojet and turbopr op aircraft), jet naphtha (used primarily by military aircraft) and aviation gaso line (used by aviation reciprocating engines) are the three most common types of aircraft fuels us ed in the United States. Emissions occur when vapor-laden air in a partially empty fuel tank is displaced to the atmosphere when the tank is refilled.

Pollutants

VOC

Method and Data Sources MDE staff apportioned state level fuel sale s to aircraft activity as suggested in Procedures
, Section 4.2.3.

Activity MDE used selected data from the Department of Energy’s State Energy Data System, to obtain fuel consumption data. MDE used ai rport survey data and the Maryland Aviation Administration’s 2002 Operations Count for P ublic-Use Airports to obtain operational counts. A few airports, such as Andrews Ai r Force Base, provided their own operations
count.

Fuel Type Fuel Consumption (1,000 Barrels) Jet Kerosene 3,938.000 Aviation Gasoline 38.877 Jet Naphtha 39.380

Emission Factors Emission factors, splash loadi ng factor and physical properties of aviation fuel are taken from AP-42 , Tables 5.2-1, 5.2-5, 7.1-2, and are summarized below. Note the relatively high emission factor for aviation gasoline which contributes to high em issions at airports with large amounts of ge neral aviation (piston e ngine aircraft).

Fuel Type Vapor Pressure (60 ° F) Molecular Weight (at 60 ° F) Jet Kerosene 0.0085 130 Aviation Gasoline 6.9 62 Jet Naphtha 1.3 80

Splash loading satu ration factor: 1.4544 Units conversion factor 42 gals/barrel Activity days per period 365 days/year Study Temperature 520 deg. R (unit used in Procedures )

Emission Factor Equation:

Refueling EF = 12.46 x splash loading

factor x true vapor pressure x molecular weight at the study temperature

Refueling EF (RE i ) Fuel Type (lbs. VOC/kgal) Jet Kerosene 0.03839 Aviation Gasoline 14.86358 Jet Naphtha 3.61340

Emission Estimate Equation:

CA I S i x SA i X RE i E ar = 2000 x 365

where: S i = State aircraft fuel sales for fuel type i CA i = County aircraft activity (LTO) for fuel type i SA i = State aircraft activity (LTO) for fuel type i RE i = Refueling emission f actor for fuel type i E ar = Emissions from aircraft refueling in tons VOC per day

2002 Sample Calculation for Aircraft Refu eling- General Aviation (Allegany County)

Maryland aviation gasoline fuel sales = 105,000 barrels 24 = 1,632,826.86 gallons

Allegany County General Aviation LTOs 7650.5 Maryland general aviation LTOs = 723,256 = 0.010578

Gallons of AvGas used Allegany = 1,632,826.86 x 0.010578 = 17,271.81

Emissions-GA Refueling Allegany = 17,271.81 ÷ 1,000 x 14.86358 25 = 256.721 lbs. VOC /year Emissions-GA Refueling Allegany = 256.721 ÷ (2000 x 365) = 0.0004 tons VOC /day

24 From Department of Energy State Energy Data Report
25 Emission factors, splash loading factor and physical properties of aviation fuel are taken from AP-42 , Tables 5.2- 1, 5.2-5, 7.1-2,45 4.1.1.6 Petroleum Vessel Unloading Losses SCC: 25 05 020 000

Description

Petroleum liquids are transported via ships and barges, and on-land transportation. The procedures discussed below relate to marine transpor t of petroleum liquids. This category does not include emissions from fuel consumed by vessels while in transit or in port. Evaporative VOC emissions from ocean going ships and barg es carrying petroleum liquids result from loading losses, ballasting losses and transit losses. Pe troleum liquids are classified into groups which are represented by crude oil, gasoline, jet naptha, distillate oil/kerosene, or residual oil. Loading and ballasting losses do not occur with pipeline transport of petroleum products ( AP-42
, Section 5.2).

Loading losses occur as organic vapors in “empty” car go tanks are displaced to the atmosphere by the liquid being loaded into the tanks. These va pors are a composite of vapors formed in three
ways:

 Vapors which are formed in the “empty” ta nk by evaporation of residual product from previous loads;

 Vapors transferred to the tank fr om a vapor balance system that was used when the previous load was being unloaded; and

 Vapors generated in the tank as the new product is being loaded.

Loading losses are usually the largest source of evaporative emissions from petroleum vessels (EPA, 1996).

Ballasting losses are associated with the unloading of pe troleum liquids at marine terminals and refinery loading docks. It is co mmon practice to load several cargo tank compartments with sea water after the cargo has been unloaded. This water, called “ballast,” improves the stability of the empty tanker during the subsequent voyage. Ballasti ng emissions occur as vapor-laden air in the empty cargo tank is displaced to the atmosphere by ballast water being pumped into the tank.

Transit losses are similar to breathing losses associated with petroleum storage. Transit loss is the expulsion of vapor from a vessel compartm ent through vapor contraction and expansion, which are the result of changes in temperature and barometric pressure. This loss may be accompanied by slight changes in the level of th e liquid in the tank due to liquid expansion or contraction due to the temperat ure change. Some ships are equi pped with controls for these losses.

Pollutants

VOC46 Method and Data Sources

Activity

The method used to calculate emi ssions (all VOC) is presented in EIIP 26 , Chapter 12, Marine Vessel Loading, Ballasti ng and Transit, dated May 1998.

A significant part of the emissions from th is source are from the Eastern Shore of Maryland because petroleum products are deliver ed to this area by barge rather than by pipeline as in the rest of the state. To compile emissions MDE used guidance in EIIP
, Chapter 12, Marine Vessel Load ing, Ballasting and Transit, Waterborne Commerce of the United States, Atlantic Region Freight Tables, Part 1, 1998 , and AP-42, Table 7.1-2 and Section 5.2. Waterborne Commerce supplied tonnage and type of petroleum products delivered to the various ports in Maryla nd for the year 2001. Tonnages of petroleum delivered were converted into Kgal.s (1000 ga llons) and then used to calculate emissions.

Factors

UNCONTROLLED VOC EMISSION FACT ORS FOR PETROLEUM CARRYING MARINE VESSELS (EPA, 1996)

Petroleum Liquid Ship/Ocean Vessel Loading

(Lbs. VOC per 1,000 gallons Transferred) Barge Loading (Lbs. VOC per 1,000 gallons Transferred) Ballasting (Lbs. VOC per 1,000 gallons Transferred) Transit (Lbs. VOC per 1,000 gallons Transferred)

Crude Oil 0.61 1 1.1 1.3 Gasoline 1.8 3.4 0.8 2.7 Jet Naphtha / Other 0.5 1.2 NA 0.7

Distillate Oil / Kerosene 0.005 0.012 NA 0.005

Residual Oil 4 x 10 -5 9 x 10 –5 NA 3 x 10 -5

Data obtained from sources such as the Waterborne Commerce of the United States are typically provided in terms other than 1,000 gallons (Mgal) as is required in Equation 12.4-1 and must be converted. Equation 12.4-3 can be used to c onvert units from 1,000 ton (Mtons) to Mgal. where:

26 Emission Inventory Improvement Program47 PP V = (PP M / d) x ( 2,000 lb/ton) x ( Mgal/1 ,000 gallons) x ( 1,000 tons/Mtons)

PP V = Amount of petroleum liquid (Mgal) PP M = Amount of petroleum liquid (Mtons) d = Density of petroleu m liquid; see Table 7.1- 2 in AP-42 (lb/gallon)

Density 27

(lb/gal) Distillate Oil 7.10 Residual Oil 7.90

Gasoline 5.60 Kerosene 7.00 Crude Oil 7.10 Jet Naphtha 6.40

If controls exist, then contro l efficiency can be calculated:

PP C = PP U x (1 - CE/100)

where:

PP C = Controlled emissions (tons) PP U = Uncontrolled emissions (tons) CE = Control efficiency (%)

Equation:

[(SOEF P x PP S,P ) + (BREF P x PP B,P ) + (BLEF P,U x 0.30 x PP BL,P ) + (TREF P x PP T,P )] PV P = 2000

Where:

PV P : Total VOC emissions from petroleum vessel loading, ballasting, and transit for each of the petroleum liquids (p) transported: crude oil, gasoline, kerosene, distillate oil, and residual oil (tons) SOEF P : Ship/ocean vessel loading emission f actor (pounds VOC per 1,000 gallons transferred) PP S,P : Amount of petroleum liquid (p) loaded into ships and ocean vessels in the inventory region (1,000 gallons)
BREF P : Barge vessel loading emission fact or (pounds VOC per 1,000 gallons transferred) PP B,P : Amount of petroleum liquid (p) loaded into barges in the inventory region (1,000 gallons)

27 AP-42, Table 7.1-248 BLEF P,U : Ballasting emission factor (pounds VOC per 1,000 gallons water ballasted) PP BL,P : Amount of petroleum liquid (p) unload ed from vessels that are ballasted (1,000 gallons) TREF P : Vessel transit emission factor ( pounds VOC per week per 1,000 gallons transferred) PP T,P : Amount of petroleum liquid (p) transpor ted by marine vessels in the inventory region (1,000 gallons)

2002 Petroleum Vessel Unloading Losses Sample Calculation (Gasolin e - Baltimore City)

Gallons (in Thousands) of Petrol eum Shipped in Baltimore Harbor

Crude Oil Distillate Oil Gasoline Jet Naphtha Residual Oil Kerosene

Baltimore Harbor 0.00 1690.14 33214.29 625 56202.53 0.00

Tonnage of distillate oil shipped in Baltimore Harbor (from Waterborne Commerce of the U.S., 2001) were converted in thousands of gallons (Kga l.s) and then used to calculate emissions.

Vessel Loading Emissions For vessel loading operations, 90 percent of the to tal throughput was loaded at terminals with a control system of 95 percent efficiency. According to the local port authoriti es, transit time in the inventory area is two days (2/7 of a week). Emissions for eac h emission point are calculated using Equation 12.4-1 and the emission factors from Table 12.4-5. In this example, emissions for each emission point are calculated separately and then totaled. Note that CE is applied to vessel loading emissions, and transit emissions are apportioned to two days per week by multiplying emissions by 2/7.

Vessel Loading (gasoline) emissions are calculated: PV GAS = [(1.8 lbs VOC /Kgal) x (31785.71 Kgal/yr) x {0.10 + [0.9 ( 1 – 95/100)]}÷ 2,000 lb/ton PV GAS = 4.1480 tons/year

Barge Loading emissions are calculated: PV GAS = [(3.4 lbs VOC /Kgal) x ( 113928.57 Kgal/yr)] ÷ 2,000 lb/ton PV GAS = 193.6786 tons/year

Ballasting emissions are calculated: PV GAS = [(0.8 lbs VOC /Kgal) x (477857.14 Kgal/yr) x ( 0.20)] ÷ 2,000 lbs/ton PV GAS = 38.2286 tons/year49 Note that the calculation for ballasting emissions in the equation include s a correction term of 0.20. This correction term refl ects the practice of loading a ship or barge at some fraction of capacity when ballasting.

Transit emissions are calculated: PV GAS = (2.7 lbs VOC /Kgal) x ( 1271071.43 Kgal/yr) x ( 2/7wk) ÷ 2,000 lbs/ton PV GAS = 490.2704 tons/year

Total VOC emissions are calculated as follows: Total VOC = 4.1480 tons/year + 193.6786 tons/year + 38.2286 tons/year + 490.2704 tons/year Total VOC = 726.3256 tons/yr

There are 260 activity days per year Total Daily VOC = (726.3256 tons/yr ÷ 260 days/yr = 2.7936 tons/day for Baltimore City.

True vapor pressure of distil late oil at 60 deg. F: 0.007450 4.1.1.7 Portable Fuel Containers SCC: 25 01 011 011 (Residential – Permeation) 25 01 011 012 (Residential – Diurnal) 25 01 011 016 (Residential – Transport) 25 01 012 011 (Commercial – Permeation) 25 01 012 012 (Commercial – Diurnal) 25 01 012 016 (Commercial – Transport)

Description

Portable fuel containers (PFCs) store and transport fuel from gasoline service stations to residential homes and businesses. Emissions from PFC use include:

• Permeation Emissions , which are produced after fuel ha s been stored long enough in a can for fuel molecules to infiltra te and saturate the can material.

• Diurnal Emissions , which result when stored fuel vapors escape to the outside of a gas can through any possible openings while the ga s can is subjected to daily cycle of increasing and decreasing ambient temperatur es. Diurnal emissions are dependent on the closed- or open-storage condition of a gas can.

• Transport Emissions arise when fuel escapes (e.g., spill s,etc.) from gas cans that are in transit.

• Equipment Refueling Emissions results when fuel escapes (e.g., spillage, vapor displacement) during the refueling of nonroa d equipment; however these emissions are handled by EPA’s NONROAD model. Activ ity data from the NONROAD model were used to estimate these emissions (described below).

Both residential and commercial PFCs are include d. The SCCs for PFCs are also new and are shown above.

Pollutants

VOC

Method and Data Sources The method used to calculate emissions (all VOC), is adoped from a CARB 28 survey and methodology adopted by OTC 29

.

Portable fuel container emissi on are calculated by accounting for emissions from five different components related to gas container use: permeat ion, diurnal, transport-spillage, refueling spillage and refueling vapor displacement em issions. The permeation, diurnal emissions

28 ARB’s Mailout MSC 99-25, “Public Meeting to Consid er Approval of CA’s Po rtable Gasoline-Container Emissions Inventory, “ (ARB, 199b)
29 Control Measure Development Suppoort Analysis of Ozone Trnasport Commission Model Rules, E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc. 5528-B Hempstead Way, Springfield, VA 22151, March 31, 2001.51 (associated with storage) and transport-spillage (associated with filli ng the can) emissions are included in the area source inventory. The e quipment refueling spillage and refueling vapor displacement emissions are calcul ated from the non-road model and are included in the non-road inventory

Activity The following input data is re quired to calculate emissions for this source category.

1. Number of residential hous ing units in 2002 by county, N 2. Number of commercial businesses 30 2002 expected to have at least one gas can by county, NAICS 11, 23, 31-33, 441, 45299, 447, 484, 488, 493, 53131, 5321, 532291, 5323, 5324, 54132, 54162, 54169, 56173, 71391, 71393, 7212, 811, 81293 3. Weekly activity, WAF = 7 days/week 4. Seasonal adjustment factors, SAF = 1

Emission Factors Separate emission factors were developed for permeation, diurnal, transport and spillage emissions for PFC (both for co mmercial and residential PFC s). These emission factors were derived from CARB’s survey data (CARB, 1999).

Point Source Adjustments Because the application of archite ctural surface coating is defined as an area source, there is no need to subtract point source emissions from the to tal, and all emissions estimated for this source are area source emissions.

Adjustment for Controls No controls are available for this source category.

Spatial and Temporal Allocations Spatial For the residential PFC SCCs, emissions were allocated to the local area level based on a housing surrogate. Commercial PFC emissions we re allocated to the local area level based on commercial and industria l business location.

Temporal For the residential PFC SCCs, the emissions were allocated based on the monthly and weekday/weekend day temporal profiles for re sidential lawn and garden equipment in the

30 Total 2002 employment and business establishments by 6 digit NAICS code and by county, County Business Patterns52 NONROAD model. For the commercial PFC S CCs, these emissions were allocated based on temporal profiles for the NONROAD model engines used in commercial applications.

Emissions Calculation The equation used to estimate emissions from portable fuel containers is:

Equation:

The residential-gas-can populati on is calculated as follows:

Pop R = (N)*(A)*(Count R ) (Eq. 1)

where: Pop R = Statewide Residential-Gas-Can Population N = Number of Occupied -Housing Units in OTC State A = Percentage of House holds with Gas Cans (46%) Count R = Average Number of Residential-Gas Cans per Household

Statewide residential-gas-can-permeati on emissions are computed as follows:

HC PR = Σ (Pop R )*(S)*(EF P )*(B R )*(Size R )*(Level)/CF (Eq. 2)

where: HC PR = Permeation Emissions in tons per day (tpd) Pop R = Statewide Residential-Gas-Can Population EF P = Appropriate Permeation-Em ission Factor (g/gal-day) S = Percentage of Gas Ca ns Stored with Fuel (70%) B R = Percentage of Cans Stored in Closed Condition with respect to Material (Plastic 53%; Metal 13%) Size R = Weighted Average Capacity of Residential-Gas Cans (2.34 gal.) Level = Weighted Average Amount of Stored Fuel (49%) CF = 908,105 g/ton

Diurnal emissions from both open- and closed-system-residentia l-gas cans are calculated as follows:

HC DR = (Pop R )*(S)*(EF D )*(B R )*(Size R )*(Level) (Eq. 3)

where: HC DR = Diurnal Emissions (tpd) for Resi dential-Gas Cans with respect to Storage Condition (Open or Closed ) and Material (Plastic or Metal) Pop R = Statewide Residential-Gas-Can Population S = Percentage of Gas-Can Popul ation Stored with Fuel (70%) EF D = Appropriate Diurnal-Emission F actor with respect to Storage Condition and Material (g /gal-day or g/day)53 B R = Percentage of Gas-Can Popul ation with respect to Storage Condition and Material Size R = Weighted Average Capacity of Residential-Gas Cans (2.34 gal.) Level = Weighted Average Am ount of Stored Fuel (49%) CF = 908,105 g/ton

Residential-transport-spillage emissions are determined as:

HC TR = (Pop R )*(S)*(Refill R )*(EF T )*(B R ) (Eq. 4)

where: HC TR = Residential-Gas-Can-Trans port-Spillage Emissions (tpd) Pop R = Statewide Residential-Gas-Can Population S = Percentage of Gas Cans Stored with Fuel (70%) Refill R = Average Number of Residential-Gas-Cans-Pump-Refills per Day per Can (refill/day from survey) EF T = Transport-Emission Factor w ith respect to Storage Condition (g/refill) B R = Percentage of Gas Cans with respect to Storage Condition and Material CF = 908,105 g/ton

The commercial-gas-can populati on is calculated as follows:

Pop C = (N C )*( Count C ) (Eq. 5)

where: Pop C = Statewide Commercial-Gas-Can Population N C = Number of Occupied Businesses in State Count C = Average Number of Gas Cans per Business

Statewide commercial-gas-can-permeation emissions are computed as follows:

HC PC = Σ (Pop C )*(S)*(EF P )*(B C )*(Size C )*(Level) (Eq. 6)

where: HC PC = Permeation Emissions (tpd) Pop C = Statewide Commercial-Gas-Can Population EF P = Appropriate Permeation-Em ission Factor (g/gal-day) S = Percentage of Gas Cans Stored with Fuel (70% for Residential Survey) B C = Percentage of Applicable Gas Cans Stored in Closed Condition Size C = Weighted Average Capacity of Commercial-Gas Cans (3.43 gal) Level = Weighted Average Amount of Stored Fuel (49% from Residential Survey) CF = 908,105 g/ton54 

## ) The amount of diurnal emissions from both open- and closed-s ystem commercial-gas cans is calculated as follows:

HC DC = (Pop C )*(S)*(EF D )*(B C )*(Size C )*(Level) (Eq. 7)

where: HC DC = Diurnal Emissions (t pd) for Commercial-Gas Cans with respect to Storage Condition (Open or Closed ) and Material (Plastic or Metal) Pop C = Statewide Commercial-Gas-Can Population EF D = Appropriate Diurnal-Emission F actor with respect to Storage Condition and Material (g /gal-day or g/day) S = Percentage of Gas Cans Stored with Fuel (70% from Residential Survey) B C = Percentage of Gas Cans with respect to Storage Condition and Material Size C = Weighted Average Capacity of Commercial-Gas Cans (3.43 gal.) Level = Weighted Average Amount of Stored Fuel (49% from Residential Survey) CF = 908,105 g/ton

The non-lawn-and-garden-equipment commercial-gas- can refills at the pump is derived as follows: 

# ( ) ( )( )( ⎥ ⎥ ⎦ ⎤ ⎢ ⎢ ⎣ ⎡

= 

## ∑

S POP SIZE Fuel REFILL

NON C C * * (Eq. 8)

where: Refill C = Average Number of Non-Lawn-and-Garden Equipment Commercial-Gas-Cans Pump Refills per Day per Can (refill/day) Fuel = Non-Lawn-and-Garden Equipm ent Fuel Consumption (gal/day) for 2000 Size C = Weighted Average Capacity of Commercial-Gas Cans (3.43 gal/can-refill) POP NON = Statewide Commercial-Gas-Can Population with respect to NonLawn-and-Garden Businesses S = Percentage of Gas Cans Stored with Fuel (70% from Residential Survey) CF = 908,105 g/ton

The commercial-transport-spillage emissions are determined as:

HC TC = (Pop C )*(S)*(B C )*(Refill C )*(EF TC ) (Eq. 9)

where: HC TC = Commercial-Gas-Can-Trans port-Spillage Emissions (tpd)55 Pop C = Statewide Commercial-Gas-Can Population S = Percentage of Gas Cans Stored with Fuel (70% from Residential Survey) B C = Percentage of Gas Cans with respect to Storage Condition and Material Refill C = Average Number of Gas-Cans Pump Refills per Day per Can EF TC = Transport-Spillage Emission Factor (g/refill) with respect to Storage Condition CF = 908,105 g/ton

The total area source portable fuel cont ainer emissions are summed as follows:

E PFC - A = HC PR +HC DR +HC TR +HCPC+HC DC +HC TC

E PFC - SD = E PFC - A *SAF / /ADDF

Where: E PFC - A = (tons/yr) for an annual emission of pollutant by county E PFC - SD = (tons/day) for a typical summer day emission of pollutant AADF = Annual activity day fact or (WAF * 52 weeks/year) SAF = Seasonal adjustment factor56 4.1.2 STATIONARY SOURCE SO LVENT APPLICATION

4.1.2.1 Dry Cleaners SCC: 24 20 000 000

Since perchloroethylene has been removed from the EPA list of reactive VOCs, it has been removed from the inventory total. Table 4.3-3 in Procedures lists three compounds under halogenated solvents for dry cleaning: 1,1,1 trichloroethane, trifl uorotrichloroethane and perchloroethylene. None of these solvents is on the VOC list. The la test Emission Inventory Improvement Program guidance on dry cleaning (Vol. III, Chapter 4, Dry Cleaning Final Report , May 2002), also states that the synthetic solvents used in dry cleaning are not photochemically reactive and should not be included in a VOC inve ntory of ozone precursors. Therefore this category ha s been eliminated from the 2002 periodic inventory.

4.1.2.2 Surface Cleaning (Cold Cleaning Degreasing) SCC: 24 15 300 000

Description Cold cleaning is seen primarily at auto repair st ations or manufacturing fa cilities, where solvents at room temperature (or slightly warmed) are us ed to clean parts via immersion or rinsing.

Cold cleaners are usually individually small em ission sources and, becau se they are widely scattered and frequently used, they are most easil y treated as area sources. If they are collocated at a major source, they may be included in the point source inventory a nd those emissions will need to be subtracted from the area source estimate.

There are two basic types of cl eaning machines: batch and in-lin e cleaning machines (also called continuous cleaning machines). Both of these eq uipment types are designed to use solvent to clean parts. The solvent is either used to cl ean in its non-vapor liquid form (at a temperature below the boiling point, referred to as cold cleani ng), or heated to a temperature above its boiling point (referred to as vapor clea ning). Other solvent cleaning operati ons involve the use of solvent in wipe-cleaning and equipment cleanup. Emissions from solvent cleaning machines can also be considered to be point sources; therefore, the estimation process for the source category must take this into account to prevent double count ing of emissions. Additionally, emissions from solvent cleanup may be included as a part of an industry- or pro cess-specific emission estimate.

Pollutants

VOC57 Method and Data Source MDE staff used an alternative per capita emission estimation method documented in EIIP 31

, Chapter 6, Solvent Cleaning, dated September 1997.

Activity The U.S. Census Bureau reports population statistics for the counties of Maryland. Population statistics for 2002 for the counties of Maryland were collected from the U.S. Census Bureau Internet address ( http://www.census.gov ).

An activity level of 6 days a week with no seasonal adjustment factor was used as recommended in the EIIP document. Solvent storage and recycling centers such as Safety Kleen are included in the point source inve ntory. The U.S. Census Bureau reports population statistics for the counties of Mary land. Population statistics for 2002 for the counties of Maryland were collected from th e U.S. Census Bureau Internet address ( http://www.census.gov ). A 2002 reduction factor (Pha se II Attainment Plan for the Baltimore Nonattainment Area and Cecil County) of 53.60% was applied to the calculated emissions. This factor combines reducti ons from technology rules and good housekeeping practices and the applic ation of rule effectiv eness as shown below:

Reduction factor = (contr ol efficiency) x (rule effectiveness) x (rule penetration)

Reduction factor = 0.67 x 0.80 x 1.00

Reduction factor = 0.5360

Emission Factor Table 6.5-4 of the EIIP document lists a tota l emission factor of 4.3 lbs. VOC per capita per year for solvent cleaning operations. The em ission factor is a composed of a total from four categories; including automobile repair (2.5 lbs. VOC per capita), manufacturing (1.1 lbs. VOC per capita), electronics and electrical (0.21 lbs. VOC per capita), and other (0.49 lbs.

VOC per capita).

Factors

E cc = 4.3 lbs VOC per capita per year for cold cleaning degreasers CE cc = 67% RE cc = 80% RP cc = 100%

Note:

31 Emission Inventory Improvement Program58 Emissions from this source category have increased because of a change in the emission factor and emission estimation methodology. In previo us emission inventorie s, only cold cleaning degreasing operations were considered an area source and open top and conveyor degreasing operations were considered point sources that were listed in the MDE/ARMA registration files. No point source emissions were then subtract ed from the area source inventory. MDE previously used an emission factor from AP-42 , Section 4.6 – Solvent Degreasing, Table 4.6-1 32

. This table reports a 4.0 lbs. VOC per capita emi ssion factor that includes 25 percent non-reactive VOCs, yielding an effective emission factor of 3.0 lbs. VOC per capita. A 1996 reduction factor of 0.70 was applied to th e calculated emissions (rule effectiven ess was not applied). This factor combines reductions from technology rules a nd good housekeeping practices. In effect, MDE increased the emission factor from 3.0 to 4.3.

Point Source Adjustments Solvent cleaning emissions from facilities identified as point sources were subtracted from the area source inventory to avoid double counting.

Adjustment for Controls Maryland has adopted a cold and vapor degrea sing regulation (COMAR 26.11.19.09). The regulation mandates that all cold degreasing material must have a vapor pressure less than or equal to 1 mm Hg at 20 degrees centigrade after May 15, 1996. The regulation also requires that good operating practices be implemented to minimize VOC losses. MDE estimates a 67 percent control efficiency for this control.

Spatial and Temporal Allocations Spatial Data for spatial allocation is not available for this source.

Temporal Data for temporal allocation is not available for this source.

Emissions Calculation The equation used to estimate emissi ons from cold cleaning/degreasing is:

32 Nonmethane VOC Emissions from small cold cleaning degreasing operations59 Equation:



## [ ] PtSourceCC CC CC CC ccj CC ERPRECE EFPOP E

− ⎭ ⎬ ⎫ ⎩ ⎨ ⎧

− = )**(1* 312*2000 *

Where:

E cc = Emissions of VOC in tons/day from cold cleaners POP j = 2002 population of county j EF cc = VOC emissions factor for cold cleaning degreasing CE cc = Control efficiency fo r cold cleaning degreasing RE cc = Rule Effectiveness for cold cleaning degreasing RP cc = Rule Penetration fo r cold cleaning degreasing E PtSourceCC = Point Source Emissions from cold cleaning degreasing

2002 Sample Calculation for Cold Cl eaning Degreasing (Anne Arundel County)

(503,388 33 people x 4.3 lb/capita/year)/(2000 lb s./ton x 312 operating days/year) = 3.469 tons/day. 503,388 x 4.3 lbs. VOC/ person/year 34 = 2,164,568 lbs. per person VOC emitted.

Converting to tons per day: 2,164,568 / (312 operating days per year 35 x 2000 pounds per ton) = 3.469tons VOC per day emitted (there is no seasonal adjustment 36 ).

To adjust for controls 3.469 x [1 – (0.67 x 0.80 x 1.00)] = 1.610 tons VOC / day emitted with 2002 controls applied

To adjust for point sources 1.610 tons VOC / day – 0.076 tons VOC / day = 1.534 tons VOC / day

33 Population data from the U.S. Bureau of Census, Population Estimates Branch
34 Emission factor from EIIP
35 6 days per week operation from EIIP
36 No seasonal adjustment from EIIP60 3.3.2.3 Surface Coating

Surface coating includes paints, enam els, varnishes, lacquers and other product finishes. Some of those coatings contain a solv ent-based liquid carrier; others use a water-based liquid carrier but still contain a small portion of solvents. Solvents are also used to clean up painting equipment. The primary types of surface coa ting applications are architectural coatings, automobile refinishing and traffic paints.

4.1.2.3 Architectural Surface Coating SCC: 24 01 001 000

Description Architectural surface coating is an area source that occurs from homeowners and contractors painting homes, buildings and signs.

Pollutants

VOC

Method and Data Sources MDE staff used an alternative per capita emission estimation method documented in EIIP 37

, Chapter 3, Architectural Surface Coating, da ted November 1995. The document provides an outline for developing a per capita usage factor, a nd for using that usage factor and an emission factor to calculated a VOC emission estimate.

Activity

Determine the per capita usage factor by divi ding the national total architectural surface coating quantities 38 for solvent- and water-based coatings by the U.S. population 39 for that
year.
Per Capita Usage Factor Development

The table below shows a portion of Table 2 fr om the U.S. Bureau of Census MA28F - Paint and Allied Products. This section of the table summarizes the market information available on architectural coatings for the year of 2002. In the table, types of paints are identified as being either solvent- or water-bas ed paints, except for the two types listed as Architectural Lacquers and Arch itectural Coatings N.S.K. These latter types of paints can be assumed to be entirely solvent-based co atings. The calculation to obtain the number of gallons of solvent based paints totals the gallons for Exterior Solvent Type, Interior Solvent Type, Architectural Lacquers and Architectural Coatings N.S.K:

37 Emission Inventory Improvement Program
38 Total national coating usage is compiled by the Bureau of the Census, Report MA28F—Paint and Allied Products, available on the Census Bureau Bulletin Board, (301)457-2310.
39 Population data from the U.S. Bureau of the Census, Population Estimates Branch .61 Solvent-Based Paints = 70,967 + 48,947 + 5,808 + 1,981 = 127,703 thousand gallons of paints

The calculation to obtain the number of gallons of water based paints totals the gallons for Exterior Water Type and Interior Water Type:

Water-Based Paints = 182,423 + 407,104 = 589,527 thousand gallons of paints

The per capita usage factor is calculated by divi ding the total usage of solvent based paints by the U.S. population, and the total usage of water based paint by the U.S. population.

Gallons of Solvent Based Paints Per Capita Solvent Based Usage Factor = U. S. Population 127,703,000
= 288,368,698

= 0.442846

Gallons of Water Based Paints Per Capita Water Based Usage Factor = U. S. Population 589,527,000
= 288,368,698

= 2.04435262 Table 2. Quantity and Value of Shipments of Paint and Allied Products: 2002 Product

code Product description 2002 Quantity

325510 Paint and allied products 1/ 1,448,755

3255101 Architectural coatings 717,230 Exterior solvent-type 70,967 3255101111 Solvent thinned paints and tinting bases, including barn and roof paints 19,874 3255101115 Solvent thinned enamels and tinting bases, including exterior-int erior floor enamels 11,444 3255101119 Solvent thinned undercoaters and primers 9,184 3255101121 Solvent thinned clear finishes and sealers 5,701 3255101125 Solvent thinned stains, including shingle and shake 14,665 3255101129 Other exterior solvent thinned coatings, including bituminous paints 10,099 Exterior water-type 182,423 3255101131 Water thinned paints and tinting bases, including barn and roof paints 118,492 3255101135 Water thinned exterior-interior deck and floor enamels 4,186 3255101139 Water thinned undercoaters and primers 13,786 3255101141 Water thinned stains and sealers 16,773 3255101145 Other exterior water thinned coatings 29,186 Interior solvent-type 48,947 3255101211 Flat solvent thinned wall paint and tinting bases, including mill white paints 6,288 3255101215 Gloss and quick drying enamels and other gloss solvent thinned paints and enamels 4,164 3255101219 Semigloss, eggshell, satin solvent thinned paints and tinting bases 9,674 3255101221 Solvent thinned undercoaters and primers 11,602 3255101225 Solvent thinned clear finishes and sealers 7,429 3255101229 Solvent thinned stains 1,892 3255101231 Other interior solvent thinned coatings 7,898 Interior water-type 407,104 3255101235 Flat water thinned paints and tinting bases 162,810 3255101239 Semigloss, eggshell, satin, and other water thinned paints and tinting bases 164,419 3255101241 Water thinned undercoaters and primers 43,051 3255101245 Other interior water thinned coatings, stains, and sealers 36,824 3255101249 Architectural lacquers 5,808 3255101YWV Architectural coatings, n.s.k. 1,981

3255104 Product finishes for original equipment manufacturers (OEM), excluding marine coatings 414,943 3255104111 Automobile, light truck, van, and sport utility vehicle finishes 47,99463 3255104121 Automobile parts finishes 5,636 3255104131 Heavy duty truck, bus, and recreational vehicle finishes 12,481 3255104141 Other transportation equipment finishes, including aircraft and railroad 11,558 3255104211 Appliance, heating equipment, and air-conditioner finishes 7,329 3255104215 Wood furniture, cabinet, and fixture finishes 43,725 3255104219 Wood and composition board flat stock finishes 10,060 3255104221 Metal building product finishes (including coatings for aluminum extrusions and siding) 35,855 3255104225 Container and closure finishes 43,393 3255104229 Machinery and equipment finishes, including road building equipment and farm implement 18,865

3255104231 Nonwood furniture and fixture finishes, including business 38,842 equipment finishes 3255104235 Paper, paper board, film, and foil finishes, excluding pigment 14,241 binders 4,447 3255104239 Electrical insulating coatings 77,567 3255104241 Appliance powder coatings 2/ 11,889 3255104245 Automotive powder coatings 2/ 8,903 3255104249 Architectural powder coatings (such as aluminum extrusions) 2/ 2,062 3255104251 Lawn and garden powder coatings 2/ 2,434 3255104255 General metal finishing powder coatings 2/ 22,203 3255104259 Thermoset functional powder coatings (for pipe, rebar, electrical insula tion, etc.) 2/ (D) 3255104261 Thermoplastic powder coatings (all) 2/ (D) 3255104265 Other industrial product finishes 38,485 3255104YWV Product finishes for original equipment manufacturers (OEM), excluding marine coatings, n.s.k. 4,465

3255107 Special purpose coatings, including all marine coatings 174,114 Industrial new construction and maintenance paints (especially formulated coatings for special conditions of industrial plants and/or facilities requiring protection against extreme temperatures, funge, chemicals, fumes, etc.): 3255107011 Interior 23,370 3255107015 Exterior 34,207 3255107021 Traffic marking paints (all types; shelf goods and highway department) 39,397 3255107031 Automotive, other transportation and machinery refinish paints and enamels, including primers 45,979 3255107041 Marine paints, ship and off-shore facilities and shelf goods for both new construction and marine refinish and maintenance. Excludes spar varnish 13,565 3255107051 Marine paints for yacht and pleasure craft, new construction, refinish and maintenance (D) 3255107061 Aerosol - Paint concentrat es produced for packaging in64 aerosol containers (D) 3255107YWV Special purpose coatings, n.s.k. 4,233

325510A Miscellaneous allied paint products 142,468 325510A011 Paint and varnish removers 6,433 325510A021 Thinners for lacquers and other solvent based paint products 31,386 325510A031 Pigment dispersions 25,151 325510A041 Other miscellaneous allied paint products, including brush cleaners, ink vehicles, putty and glazing compounds, etc. 78,512 325510AYWV Miscellaneous allied paint products, n.s.k. 986

Total Solvent-Based 127,703 Total Water-Based 589,527

Emission Factor Use the emission factors for architectural su rface coatings (EPA, 1993A), that are shown in Table 5-2 of the EIIP document and reproduced below:

Coating Type VOC Content Lbs / gallon Water-based 0.74 Solvent-based 3.87 Total 4.61

This activity occurs 7 days a week and is usually more common in the summer months as indicated by a seasonal adjustment factor of 1.3 (see Table 5.8-1 in Procedures) . It should be noted that 99% of solvents in these coatings are VOC.

Point Source Adjustments Because the application of archite ctural surface coating is defined as an area source, there is no need to subtract point source emissions from the to tal, and all emissions estimated for this source are area source emissions.

Adjustment for Controls EPA surface coating regulation provides a 20 percent reduction.

Spatial and Temporal Allocations Spatial Data for spatial allocation is not available for this source.65 Temporal Data for temporal allocation is not available for this source.

Emissions Calculation The equation used to estimate emissions from architectural surface coatings is:

Equation to calculate solv ent-based emissions is:

POP i x UF ASC - SB x EF ASC - SB x SAF ASC x [(1 – (CE ASC x RE ASC x RP ASC )] E ASC – SB = 2000 x 365

Where:

E ASC – SB = VOC emissions in tons per day from solvent-based architectural surface coatings POP i = 2002 population of county i UF ASC – SB = Usage factor for solvent-ba sed architectural surface coatings EF ASC – SB = VOC emission factor for solvent- based architectural surface coatings SAF ASC = Seasonal adjustment factor for architectural surface coatings CE ASC = Control efficiency 40 for architectural surface coatings RE ASC = Rule effectiveness 41 for architectural surface coatings RP ASC = Rule penetration for architectural surface coatings

Equation to calculate water-based emissions is:

POP i x UF ASC - WB x EF ASC - WB x SAF ASC x [(1 – (CE ASC x RE ASC x RP ASC )] E ASC – WB = 2000 x 365

Where:

E ASC – WB = VOC emissions in tons per day from water-based architectural surface coatings POP i = 2002 population of county i UF ASC – WB = Usage factor for water-based architectural su rface coatings EF ASC – WB = VOC emission factor for water-bas ed architectural surface coatings SAF ASC = Seasonal adjustment factor for architectural surface coatings CE ASC = Control efficiency for architectural surface coatings RE ASC = Rule effectiveness for architectural surface coatings RP ASC = Rule penetration for architectural surface coatings

40 A 20% reduction in emissions is due to EPA’s AIM regulation
41 EPA’s AIM regulation is a federal rule applying to architectural surface coatings66 2002 Example Calculation Architectural Surface Coating (Anne Arundel County)

Solvent-Based 503,388 1 x 0.442846 gal/capita x 3.87 lbs. VOC /gal/year 2 = 862,713.4 lbs. VOC per person per yr
To adjust for controls 862,713.4 x [1 – (0.20 x 1.00 x 1.00)] = 690170.7 lbs. VOC / year with 2002 controls Converting to tons per day: 690,170.7 / (365 days per year x 2000 lbs. per ton) = 0.945439 tons VOC per average day

To seasonally adjust: 0.945439 x 1.3 3 = 1.229 tons VOC per ozone season day emitted from solvent-based architectural surface coating

Water-Based 503,388 1 x 2.044352 gal/capita x 0.74 lbs. VOC /gal/year 2 = 761,535.7 lbs. VOC per person per yr
To adjust for controls 761,535.7 x [1 – (0.20 x 1.00 x 1.00)] = 609,228.6 lbs. VOC / year with controls applied

Converting to tons per day: 609,228.6 / (365 days per year x 2000 lbs. per ton) = 0.83456 tons VOC per average day

To seasonally adjust: 0.83456 x 1.3 3 = 1.085 tons VOC per ozone season day emitted from water-based architectural surface coating67 4.1.2.4 Auto Refinishing SCC: 24 01 005 000

Description

Automobile refinishing is the re painting of worn or damaged auto mobiles, light trucks and other vehicles. Coating of new cars is not included in this category but falls under industrial coating. In automobile refinishing, lacquers and enam els are usually applied with hand-operated spray guns. Because the vehicles contain heat-sensitive plastics and rubber, the coatings are dried or cured in low-temperature ovens or at ambient conditions. MD E adopted a regulation based upon federal guidance that requires the use of refo rmulated coatings and equipment with greater transfer efficiency in the application of coatings.

Pollutants

VOC

Method and Data Sources

MDE staff used an alternative per employ ee emission estimation methodology documented in EIIP 42 , Chapter 13, Auto Body Refinishing, date d January 2000. The document provides an outline for developing a per employee emission f actor using a national VOC emission estimate and national employment data.

Activity MDE calculated an emission factor of 0.3858 tons VOC per employee per year by utilizing the national VOC emission estimate found in the EIIP document (79,429.39 tons) and totaling all of the reported stat e employment totals within SIC 7532 for the entire U. S. The national VOC emission estimate of 79,429.39 tons per year has been developed using 1997 activity and 1998 and 1999 emission rate information and are thus controlled emissions. An EPA memo on auto body refinish ing allows a 37% reduction for the federal rule. Maryland’s auto body regulation is more stringent than the national rule, which allowed MDE to take an additional 8% reduction.

County Business Patterns lists employee data by Standard Industry Code (SIC). Many values are based on actual data. However, so me county SICs list a range for the number of employees through a letter code. In this cas e the arithmetic average number of employees per letter code per county was ad justed so that the state total employment in a SIC matched the sum of the number of employees reported per county.

42 Emission Inventory Improvement Program68 The autobody refinishing category does not in clude new car coating. Applicable point source emissions (those within the same SIC) taken from the MDE/ARMA registration files have been subtracted from the calculate d emissions, and their emissions are separated from the totals presented below. Table 5.8-1 in Procedures shows th at there is no seasonal variation in this category and the activity level is 5 days a week.

Emission Factor:

MDE calculated an emission factor of 0.3858 tons VOC per employee per year by utilizing the national VOC emission estimate found in the EIIP document (79,429.39 tons) and totaling all of the reporte d state employment totals within SIC 7532 for the entire U. S.

0.3858 tons VOC per employee per year

Point Source Adjustments Autobody refinishing emissions from facilities identified as point sources were subtracted from the area source inventory to avoid double counting.

Adjustment for Controls The national VOC emission estimate of 79,429.39 tons per year has been developed using 1997 activity and 1998 and 1999 emission rate informati on and are thus controlled emissions. An EPA memo on auto body refinishing allows a 37 % reduction for the federal rule. Maryland’s auto body regulation is more stringent than the national rule, which allowed MDE to take an additional 8% reduction.

Spatial and Temporal Allocations Spatial Data for spatial allocation is not available for this source.

Temporal Data for temporal allocation is not available for this source.

Emissions Calculation The equation used to estimate emissi ons from automobile refinishing is:

EMP J x EF AR x [ 1- (RE x RP x CE)] E AR = 260 - E Point Source AR69 Where:

E AR = VOC emissions in tons per day from auto refinishing

EMP J = Number of employees in county j for SIC 7532 (auto refinishing), from County Business Patterns

EF AR = VOC emission factor for auto refinishing

E Point Source AR = Point source emissions from auto body refinishing

2002 Example Calculation Auto Refinishing (Baltimore County)

594 43 x 0.3858 44 x [ 1- (1.0 x 1.0 x .08)] E AR = 260 - 0.00

210.832 E AR = 260 - 0.00

E AR = 0.811 Tons VOC / day

43 Employee data from County Business Patterns - Maryland
44 Emission factor from EIIP Chapter 13 – Auto Body Refinishing70 4.1.2.5 Traffic Markings SCC: 24 01 008 000 - Traffic paints SCC: 24 01 008 999 - Traffic paint solvents

Description

Traffic paints are used to mark pavement, the majo rity of which is used to create dividing lines for traffic lanes. These markings are applied by state or local highway maintenance crews or by contractors. VOC emissions result from the evap oration of organic solv ents during and shortly after the application of the marking paint. Al l traffic paint emissions are included in the area source inventory.

Pollutants

VOC

Method and Data Sources
MDE staff were not able to ut ilize EPA's recommended "pounds per lane-mile painted" emission factor due to the fact that several jurisdictions did not keep records on lane-miles painted. Instead MDE surveyed agencies for gallons of paint used and the VOC content of the paint used.

Activity The Maryland State Highway Ad ministration (SHA) keeps data on gallons of traffic marking paint used by district and not by indi vidual county. For emissions from SHA line painting, each county’s proportion of the total di strict’s lane miles was multiplied by total gallons painted in a district to get an estimat ed amount of gallons used for each county. In a few counties, SHA does all th e line painting. Also, da ta was collected from the Maryland Aviation Addministration (MAA) a nd the Mass Transit Addministation (MTA).

MDE was able to gather information on gall ons of traffic paint used during the ozone season and during a year. The Material Safety Data Sheets and Environmental Data Sheets were collected for each paint and solvent used by each local jurisdiction and State agency doing the striping. It was necessary to colle ct data on yellow and white paint separately because the amount of VOCs per gallon is different for each type of paint.

The emission totals are slightly lower than in previous inventories because many jurisdictions have switched to latex (water-b orne) paints for traffic marking, and those areas already using latex paints have switched to using a late x paint that is lower in VOC content than what was previously used. The widespread use of latex paints means that there are no longer any emissions from the solvents used to clean painting equipment when oil based paints are used.71 The following information was collected from all public agencies using traffic marking paint in Maryland:

Gallons of yellow traffic pain t and solvent used in 2002. Gallons of white traffic pain t and solvent used in 2002.

The MSDS and Environmental Data Sheets per type of paint provided the following information:

• Percent volatile by weight

• Percent water by weight

• Percent volatile organic compounds by weight

• Total VOC (lbs./gal)

• VOC/gallon less water

Emission Factor

Point Source Adjustments
No subtraction of emissions from point sources is necessary.

Adjustment for Controls MDE surveyed the various state agenicies that a pply coatings to road surfaces and transportation projects. MDE collected data on the gallons of pa int applied and the VOC content of the paint. MDE made emission estimates based on this data a nd therefore no controls are available for this source category.

Spatial and Temporal Allocations Spatial Data for spatial allocation is not available for this source.

Temporal Data for temporal allocation is not available for this source.

Emissions Calculation Traffic Paint Sample Calculation (Caroline County)72 (1) Calculate VOC emissions from yellow a nd white traffic paints for ozone season

a. State Highway Administrati on (SHA) Traffic Paint Use

Total yellow gallons used April - October 45 = 4,671 gallons Total VOC per gallon of yellow paint used 46 = 0.78 lbs. VOC /gallon Total white gallons us ed April – October 47 = 6,481 gallons Total VOC per gallon of white paint used 48 = 0.77 lbs. VOC /gallon

(4,671 gallons) x (0.78 lbs. VOC /gallon) E Yellow Paint = (2,000 lbs./ton) x (214 days / ozone season)

E Yellow Paint = 0.0085 tons / ozone day

(6,481 gallons) x (0.77 lbs. VOC /gallon) E White Paint = (2,000 lbs./ton) x (214 days / ozone season)

E White Paint = 0.0117 tons / ozone day

E Local Paint Total = E Yellow Paint + E White Paint

E Local Paint Total = 0.0085 + 0.0117

E Local Paint Total = 0.0202 tons / ozone day

b. Maryland Aviation Administration (MAA) Traffic Paint Use

The MAA did not apply any pa int in Caroline County.

c. Maryland Transportation Administ ration (MTA) Traffic Paint Use

The MTA did not apply any pa int in Caroline County.

d. Local Jurisdiction Traffic Paint Use

The Local Jurisdictions did not appl y any paint in Caroline County.

45 Reported by Caroline County's Department of Public Works, Division of Highways
46 MSDS from Caroline County's Department of Public Works, Division of Highways
47 Reported by Caroline County's Department of Public Works, Division of Highways
48 MSDS from Caroline County's Department of Public Works, Division of Highways73 (2) Calculate VOC emissions from paint cleaning solvent use for ozone season

a. Local Jurisdiction Traffic Paint Use

The Local Jurisdictions did not use any paint cleaning solvents in Caroline County.

b. State Highway Administration (SHA) Solvent Use - None

The SHA did not use any paint cleaning solvents in Caroline County.

c. Maryland Aviation Administration (MAA) Solvent Use - None

The MAA did not use any paint cleaning solvents in Caroline County.

d. Maryland Transportation Admini stration (MTA) Solvent Use - None

The MTA did not use any paint cleaning solvents in Caroline County.

(3) Total VOC emissions from traffic paint us e and paint cleaning solvent use for ozone

season

E Paint Total = E Local Paint Total + E SHA Paint Total + E MAA Paint Total + E MTA Paint Total + E Paint Solvent

E Paint Total = 0.0202 + 0.0 + 0.0 + 0.0 + 0.0

E Paint Total = 0.020274 4.1.2.6 Industrial Surface Coating

Industrial surface coatings are ap plied during the manufacture of a wide variety of products, including furniture, cans, automobiles, other tr ansportation equipment, machinery, appliances, metal coil, flat wood, wire and other miscellane ous products. In addition, coatings are used in maintenance operations at industrial facilities but these are considered paint sources.

VOC Description

Pollutants

Method and Data Sources MDE used the methods and procedures documented in EIIP 49 , Chapter 8, Industrial Surface Coatings, dated September 1997. Applicable poi nt source emissions (those within the same NAICS) taken from the MDE/ARMA registration f iles have been subtracted from the emissions calculated on a per capita and per employee basis that are presented below.

Activity The choice between using per capita factors an d per employee factors in categories where a choice of factors was offered was made based on the quality of data. County Business Patterns lists employee data by North American I ndustry Classification System (NAICS). Many values are based on actual data. Howeve r, some county NAICS list a range for the number of employees through a letter code. In th is case the arithmetic average number of employees per letter code per c ounty was adjusted so that the state total employment in a NAICS matched the sum of the number of employees reported per county. For those categories where all or most of the employment data was listed as a range, the per capita factor was assumed to be more reliable and was used to calculate emissions. The U.S. Census Bureau reports populat ion statistics for the countie s of Maryland. Population statistics for 2002 for the counties of Maryla nd were collected from the U.S. Census Bureau Internet address ( http://www.census.gov ).

Because the emission factors were develope d based on NAICS empl oyment data and 2001 was the last year employment data was av ailable per NAICS, MDE used the 2001 County Business Patterns as the sour ce for employment figures.

Emission Factor Per employee factors were used for the following SIC and NAICS because they are generally more reliable (see Procedures , Table 4-10.1), and a comparison with per capita emissions in one county showed that for these SICs, the per capita factors led to a large overestimation of emissions.

49 Emission Inventory Improvement Program75 Industry SCC SIC NAICS

Factory Finished Wood 24 01 015 000 2426, 2427, 2428, 2429, 2430, 2440, 2450, 2493, 2499 32121

Metal Furniture and Fixtures 24 01 025 000 2500 33636, 33791, 33792, 337121, 337122, 337124, 337125, 337127, 337129, 337211, 337212, 337214, 337215, 339111, 339942 Machinery and Equipment 24 01 055 000 3500 33272 Other Transportation Equipment 24 01 990 000 3700 except 3711 and 3730 333924

Marine Coatings 24 01 080 000 3730 48839, 81149, 336611, 336612

NAICS were used that best corresponded to SIC for each source category so that emission factors that were generated from E IIP SIC data could be used. EPA provided the correlation between NAICS and SIC. Emi ssion factors are listed in Table 8.5-1 in the EIIP Industrial Surface Coating document and below. As an example, MDE has chosen finished wood for presentation of an equa tion and emissions by county. The EIIP document lists no seasonal adjustment factor and 5 days per week activity. For counties with no employees listed in County Business Patterns 2001- Maryland , MDE assumed no emissions were generated because these proce sses were not located in those counties.

Appliances (SIC 363) , and Electrical Insulation (SIC 3357,3612) , had no employees listed in County Business Patterns in Maryland, thus no emissions were calculated. Emissions from New Motor Vehicles (SIC 3711) , were assigned to the point source section of the inventory since they are all from the General Motors Truck and Bus Group in Baltimore City.

Industry VOC Emission Factor (lbs. VOC /employee/year) Factory Finished Wood 131 Metal Furniture and Fixtures 944 Machinery and Equipment 77 Other Transportation Equipment 35 Marine Coatings 308 Appliances 463 Electrical Insulation 290 New Motor Vehicles 79476 Point Source Adjustments Applicable point source emi ssions (those within the same SIC or NAICS) taken from the MDE/ARMA registration files ha ve been subtracted from the calculated emissions, and their emissions are separated from the totals presented below.

Adjustment for Controls MDE surveyed the various state agenicies that a pply coatings to road surfaces and transportation projects. MDE collected data on the gallons of pa int applied and the VOC content of the paint. MDE made emission estimates based on this data a nd therefore no controls are available for this source category.

Spatial and Temporal Allocations Spatial Data for spatial allocation is not available for this source.

Temporal Data for temporal allocation is not available for this source.

Emissions Calculation

Equation:

EMP i x EF FW

E FW = 2000 x 260

Where: E FW = VOC emissions in t ons per day from finished wood EMP i = employees in county i employed in NAICS 32121. EF FW = VOC emission factor for finished wood which is 131 lbs. VOC per employee per year

To adjust for control efficiency, etc.:

E FWA = (E FW - E FWR ) x [1

- (CE x RE x RP)] where:

E FWA = finished wood adjusted emissions77 E FWR = emissions from factory finished wood sources in ARMA re gistration files that emit more than 10 tons per year VOC

CE = Control Efficiency RE = Rule Effectiveness RP = Rule Penetration

2002 Example Calculation Industrial Surface Coa ting – Machinery Coating (Baltimore County)

Number of employees in NAI CS 33272 in Baltimore County (2001 County Business Patterns ): 4543

Emission factor for other transportation equipment (lbs. VOC/employee/year): 77 50

5 days per week activity level, no seasonal adjustment factor

(4543 x 77) x [1 – (0 * 1.00 * 1.00)] E MC – Baltimore = (260 x 2000)

E MC – Baltimore = 0.6727 tons VOC per day

Adjusting for registered point sources:

E MC-ADJ – Baltimore = E MC – Baltimore - E MC Pt. Sources - Baltimore 51
E MC-ADJ – Baltimore = 0.6727 – 0.00 E MC-ADJ – Baltimore = 0.6635 tons VOC per day

50 Table 8.5-1, EIIP Chapter 8 Industrial Surface Coatings
51 Point Source Reduction from JCB Incorporated (SIC 3531)78 Industrial Surface Coating- per Capita Emissions

The following sources had their emissions calc ulated by per capita emission factors because employment data was not definitive.

Industry VOC Emission Factor (lbs. VOC /person/year) Metal Cans 1.3 Misc. Manufacturing 0.6 Industrial Maintenance 0.8 Other Special Purpose Coatings 0.8 Misc. Finished Metals 0.5

Equation:

POP i x EF MFM E MFM = 2000 x 260 x [1 – (CE x RE x RP)]

where: E MFM = VOC emissions in tons per day from miscellaneous finished metals POP i = 2002 population of county i EF MFM = VOC emission factor for mi sc. finished metals (0.5 lbs. VOC per person per year) CE = Control Efficiency RE = Rule Effectiveness RP = Rule Penetration79 To adjust for Point Sources: E MFMA = (E MFM - E mfmar )

Where: E MFMA = adjusted emissions fr om miscellaneous finished metals E MFMAR = emissions from miscellaneous finished metal coating facilities in ARMA registered premise files

2002 Per Capital Sample Calculation for Misc. Manufacturing Coating in Anne Arundel County

503,388 52 x 0.6 lbs. VOC/capita/year 53 x [1 – (0.0 x 1.0 x 1.0)] = 302,032.8 lbs. VOC per person
Converting to tons per day: 302,032.8 / (260 days per year x 2000 lbs. per ton) = 0.5808 tons VOC per day

52 2002 estimated population from U.S. Bureau of the Census, Population Estimation Branch .
53 Emission factor from EIIP Industrial Surface Coating80 4.1.2.7 Industrial Adhesives and Sealants SCC: 2440020000

Description Industrial adhesive and sealant surface coating is the application of a liquid or powder substance, such as solvent type paints, varnishes, and l acquers to a surface for decorative or protective purposes. The substances can be applied by brushing, rolling, spraying, dipping or flow coating. VOCs are released into the air as the substance dries. Powder coatings are applied to a hot surface and then melted; VOCs are released as the powder melts and dries.

Pollutants

VOC

Method and Data Sources
MDE staff used EPA’s “Solvent Mass Bala nce” methodology for estimating emissions from nonpoint solvents, which uses the total solven t production and sales fo r a particular source category to estimate overall emissions then subtr acting out emissions due to point sources, waste management, and recycling.

Activity

EPA used the Freedonia 54 market research report on nonpoi nt solvents to obtain solvent utilization data for this source category. Some solvent usage estimates came from a National Paint and Coating Association (NP&CA) 55 . A brakedown of the methods used to derive the data for painting and coating sources are described in the report and is attached as section 3.4.1 Industrail Adhesives and Sealants . VOC emission estimates were then allocated to the state and county levels a nd adopted by MDE for this source category.

54 Data were estimated from Freedonia Group, Inc. - Freedonia Reports from 1999 and 2004
55 National Paint and Coating Association (N P&CA) “Paints and Coatings ‘2000': Review and Forecast”81 4.1.2.8 Graphic Arts SCC: 24 25 000 000

Description Graphic arts includes operations that are involv ed in the printing of newspapers, magazines, books and other printed materials. There are six basic operations used in graphic arts: lithography, gravure, letterpress, flexography, screen printing and metal decorating. Lithography accounts for nearly half of all graphic arts operations.

Pollutants

VOC

Method and Data Sources MDE staff used an alternative per capita emission estimation method documented in EIIP 56

, Chapter 7, Graphic Arts, dated November 1996. The EIIP methodology recommended an emission factor of 1.3 lbs. VOC per capita per year emission fact or (EPA, 1991) for graphic arts sources emitting less than 100 tons VOC per year. An activity level of 5 days per week was used with no seasonal adjustment factor as recommended in Table 5.8-1 in Procedures . Any point source graphic arts facility (SIC 275) in the ARMA re gistration files that had 2002 emissions of between 10 and 100 tons VOC per year had its emissions subtracted from the area source inventory.

Activity The estimated percentage of market share, reported in Table 7.2-3 of the EIIP document and reproduced below, was used to allocate th e total graphic arts emissions to specific printing types. Maryland has different regulations regarding specific types of printing operations and thus to calculate controlled em issions the estimated percentage that each type of printing operation contributes to the total had to be determined.

Type of Printing Estimated Percentage of Product Market Share Rotogravure 18 Flexography 18 Offset Lithography 47 Letterpress 8 Screen 3 Plateless 3

Emission Factor 1.3 lbs. VOC per capita per year

56 Emission Inventory Improvement Program82 Point Source Adjustments Graphic arts emissions from facilities identified as point sources were subtracted from the area source inventory to avoid double counting.

Adjustment for Controls Control efficiency is based on Maryland regulati ons for each type of printing process and has been developed within technica l support documents for the gra phic arts printing regulations. Rule penetration has been defined as the estim ated percentage that each type of printing operation. Rule effectiveness has been assi gned the EPA default value of 80 per cent.

Lithographic Rotogravure Flexographic Screen Rule Effectiveness (RE) 0.800 0.800 0.800 0.800 Rule Penetration (RP) 0.640 0.180 0.180 0.050 Control Efficiency (CE) 0.750 0.630 0.540 0.350 Reduction factor (RE x RP x CE) 0.3840 0.0907 0.0778 0.0140

Spatial and Temporal Allocations Spatial Data for spatial allocation is not available for this source.

Temporal Data for temporal allocation is not available for this source.

Emissions Calculation The equation used to estimate emissions from graphic arts is:

Equation:

POP i x EF GA E GA = 2000 x 260 x [ 1 - RF L – RF R – RF F – RF S ]

Where:

E GA = VOC emissions in tons per day from graphic arts POP i = 2002 population of county i EF GA = VOC emission factor fo r graphic arts (1.3 lbs. VOC per person per year)83 RF L = Reduction Factor for Lithographic Printing RF R = Reduction Factor for Rotogravure Printing RF F = Reduction Factor for Flexographic Printing RF S = Reduction Factor for Screen Printing

To adjust for point sources emitting below 100 tons per years:

E GAA = (E GA - E GAR )

Where:

E GAA = adjusted emissions E GAR = emissions from printers in MDE/ARMA re gistered premise files th at emit more than 10 tons VOC /year84 2002 Example Calculation Graphic Arts (Anne Arundel County)

E GA = 503,388 57 x 1.3 lbs. VOC /capita/year 58 x [1 – 0.384 – 0.0907 – 0.0778 – 0.014] E GA = 283684.3 lbs. VOC per person
Converting to tons per day: E GA = 283684.3 / (260 days per year x 2000 lbs. per ton) E GA = 0.5455 tons VOC per day

Adjusting for registered point sources emitting between 10 and 100 tons per year: E GAA = (E GA - E GAR ) E GAA = 0.5455 – 0.1035 E GAA = 0.4420 tons VOC per day

57 2002 estimated population from U.S. Bureau of the Census, Population Estimation Branch .

58 Emission factor from EIIP Chapter 7 Graphic Arts85 4.1.2.9 Asphalt Paving SCC: 24 61 022 000

Description The two types of asphalt paving used for road paving and repair are cutback asphalt and emulsified asphalt. Cutback asphalt is a liquefied road surface prepared by blending (or "cutting back") asphalt cement with diffe rent petroleum distillates. Th e second type, emulsified asphalt, is also a liquefied road surface, but is prepared with a water/soap mixture instead of petroleum distillates. Cutback asphalt emits more VOCs, and its use has been limited in Maryland to the non-ozone period of April 15 to October 15.

Pollutants

VOC

Method and Data Sources MDE calculated emissions from this category ba sed on a per capita emission factor of 0.004 pounds VOC per person per year fo r emulsified asphalt from the Short List of AMS SCCs and Emission Factors prepared by EPA's National Air Data Branch. All emissions from this source are reactive VOC. An activity le vel of 5 days a week and no seasonal variation were assumed. State of Maryland Department of Environment regulations (COMAR 26.11.11.02B), prohibit use of cutback asphalt paving from April 15 to October 15 so ozone precursor emissions from cutback asphalt application were not calculated. Cutback asphalt is made by blending asphalt cement with petroleum distillates that evapor ate when the road surface is "cured" after application. Emulsified asphalt is asphalt cement mixed with a blend of water and an emulsifier, usually soap. The equations for calculating VOC emissions from emulsifi ed asphalt paving are presented below.

Activity The U.S. Census Bureau reports population statistics for the counties of Maryland. Population statistics for 2002 for the counties of Maryland were collected from the U.S. Census Bureau Internet address ( http://www.census.gov ).

Emission Factors: Emulsified Asphalt 0.004 pounds VOC per person per year

Point Source Adjustments
No subtraction of emissions from point sources is necessary.

Adjustment for Controls State of Maryland Department of Environment regulations (COMAR 26.11.11.02B), prohibit use of cutback asphalt paving from April 15 to October 15 so ozone precursor emissions from86 cutback asphalt application were not calculated. Cutback asphalt is made by blending asphalt cement with petroleum distillates that evapor ate when the road surface is "cured" after application. Emulsified asphalt is asphalt cement mixed with a blend of water and an emulsifier, usually soap.

Spatial and Temporal Allocations Spatial Data for spatial allocation is not available for this source.

Temporal Data for temporal allocation is not available for this source.

Emissions Calculation The per capita equation used to estima te emissions from asphalt paving is:

POP i x EF EA E EA = 2000 x 260 Where:

E EA = VOC emissions in tons per day from emulsified asphalt POP i = 2002 population of county i EF EA = VOC emission factor for emul sified asphalt which is 0.004 lbs. VOC per person per yr
2002 Emulsified Asphalt Sample Calculations: Anne Arundel County

• No seasonal variation assumed

• Activity of five days per week

• Emission factor of 0.004 lbs. VOC/person/year

503,388 (2002 County Population) x 0.004 = 0.0039 tons VOC per day 2000 lbs. per ton x 260 days per year

503,388 59 x 0.004 lbs. VOC/capita/year 60 = 2,013.552 pounds per person VOC emitted

Converting to tons per day: 2,013.552 / (260 days per year x 2000 lbs. per ton) = 0.0039 tons VOC per day emitted

59 Population data from U.S. Bureau of the Census, Population Estimates Branch

60 Emission factor from the Short List of AMS SCCs and Emission Factors from EPA National Air Data Branch.87 4.1.2.10 Synthetic Organic Chemical Storage Tanks

This category is fully represente d in the point source inventory.88 4.1.2.11 Pesticide Application SCC: 24 61 800 000

Description
Pesticides are substances or mi xtures used to control plant an d animal life for the purposes of: agricultural production, public heal th from pest-borne disease, reducing property damage due to pests, and improving the aesthet ic quality of outdoor and ind oor surroundings. Agriculture, homeowners, industry, and governme nt agencies use pesticides. Th e largest usage of pesticides by weight is in agriculture. Agricultural pe sticides control weeds, insects, mites, fungi, nematodes, and other threats to the yiel d, quality, or safety of food production.

Emissions arise from pesticide use because of the volatile nature of many ingredients, solvents, or other additives used in the fo rmulations. Many pesticide formul ations use solvents as carriers for more active organic or inorga nic ingredients. In pesticid e formulations, the organic or inorganic solute is the "active ingredient" (AI), wh ile the solvent carrier is the "inert carrier." Thus, the terms "active" and "inert" in pesticide formulations refer to t oxicological action, and are not indicators of photochemical activity. Bo th the active and inert ingredients in these formulations evaporate and c ontribute to VOC emissions.

Pollutants

VOC

Method and Data Source: Maryland Agricultural Statistics service in cooperation with the Pesticide Regulation Section of the Maryland Department of Agriculture compiled information for Maryland's 2000 pesticide statistics document. The document, Maryland Pesticide Statistics for 2000 , reported pesticide usage in pounds used in a year by active ingr edient for each Maryland county. Along with the pounds of AI applied, the document also listed th e form of many pesticid es and the formulation of some selected pesticides. From this, MD E used the EIIP’s emission inventory reference document titled Pesticides – Agricultural and Nonagricultural , December 1997, Section 9.2.2 to generate the VOC emissions for the active ingredie nt and inert carrier of the pesticide. This required assumptions and other refere nces to collect the best inform ation used in the calculations.

The EPA method for estimating pesticide emissions uses a six-step procedure, as follows: 1. Determine both the application method and the quantity of pesticide product applied. 2. Determine the type of formulation used. 3. Determine the specific AI(s) in the formulation and their vapor pressure(s). 4. Determine the percentage of the AI (or each AI) present. 5. Determine the VOC content of the formulation. 6. Calculate the emissions.89 MDE slightly deviated from this method, sin ce information was presented to MDE in pounds of active ingredient. With the activ e ingredient, the vapor pressure and general application method (surface application or soil incorporation) was determined from the EPA's AP-42 document or The SCS/ARS/CES Pesticide Properties Data base For Environmental Decision-Making , by R. D. Wauchope, et al. Then the form (i.e. wettable powder, emulsified concentrate, granule, etc.) of the most likely pesticide was determined from a list in the Maryland Pesticide Statistics for 2000

. Also, the statistics listed some formulations, for example 80% inert, 20% AI. Most of the formulations were assumptions based on the inform ation provided with the form of the pesticide in the Maryland Pesticide Statistics for 2000

.

The table below lists the EIIP emissions factors taken from AP-42 (Table 9.2.2-4) used to calculate this category.

Uncontrolled Emission Factors fo r Pesticide Active Ingredients

Vapor Pressure Range Emission Factor

(mm Hg at 20 ° to 25 ° C) kg/Mg lbs./ton

Surface Application

1 x 10 -4 to 1 x 10 -6 350 700

> 1 x 10 -4 580 1160
Soil Incorporation

< 1 x 10 -6 2.7 5.4

1 x 10 -4 to 1 x 10 -6 21 42

> 1 x 10 -4 52 104

Equations:

E pest = VOC Emissions from Active Ingredient (AI) + VOC Emissions from the Inert Ingredients (Inert).

VOC Emissions Active Ingredients (AI) = (lbs AI / year) x (lbs VOC / lb AI )

VOC Emissions Inert Ingredients = [(lbs AI / year) / % AI] x % In ert Ingredients x % VOC INERT INGREDIENTS
(lbs AI/year) x EF AI in lbs VOC/ton AI (lbs AI/year) E pest = 2000 lbs. Per ton + (1 - % Inert) x (% Inert) x (% VOC in Inert)

Annual Emissions Daily Emissions = 312 days / year x Seasonal Adjustment Factor90 where: AI = Active Ingredient ( lbs. / yr. ) EF AI = Emission Factor ( lbs. VOC / ton AI ) % inert = percentage of formulati on that contains the Inert Carrier % VOC in the inert = percentage of VOCs in the Inert Carrier portion of the pesticide SAF = seasonal adjustment factor of 1.3 to adjust for the summer ozone season

MDE assumed six working days per week and 100% volatilization of the VOC portion of the inert carrier.

Sample Calculations:

The following information was compiled from The Maryland Pestic ide Statistics for 2000 and The SCS/ARS/CES Pesticide Properties Data base for Environmental Decision-Making :

Table 3-26 Allegany County Pesticide Information

VOC V. Press Formulation Formula % VOC EF Alleg. Alleg.

Pesticide mm Hg Applicatio n Type (% Inert) Inert lbs. VOC/ lbs. A.I. lbs of A.I. Lbs/yr
2,4-D 8E-06 foliar spray gas 0.8 0.29 0.35 2,058 3107.580 Acephate 1.7E-06 crop spray gas 0.8 0.29 0.35 62 93.620 Alachlor 1.4E-05 soil spray gas 0.15 0.29 0.35 19 7.622 Amitrole 4.40E-07 foliar spray gas 0.784 0.29 0.35 6 8.416 Atrazine 2.89E-07 soil surface wp 0.8 0.25 0.35 478 645.300 Azinphos-Methyl 2E-07 crop spray ec 0.35 0.56 0.35 33 21.501 Azoxystrobin crop spray gas 0.77 0.29 0.35 1 1.321 Bacillus thuringiensis neg crop spray gr 0.96 0.25 0.35 107 679.450 Benomyl 1E-10 crop spray wp 0.8 0.25 0.35 9 12.150 Bifenthrin 1.8E-07 crop spray gas 0.1 0.29 0.35 2 0.764 Boric Acid 0.0001 spray wp 0.1 0.25 0.35 4 1.511 Captan 8E-08 crop spray gas 0.5 0.29 0.35 727 465.280 Carbaryl 1.2E-06 crop spray gas 0.5 0.29 0.35 93 59.520 Carbofuran 6E-07 foliar spray fog 0.56 0.39 0.35 1 0.846 Chloroneb 0.003 spray wp 0.35 0.25 0.58 17 12.148 Chlorothalonil 1E-03 crop spray gas 0.8 0.29 0.58 368 640.320 Chlorpyrifos 1.7E-05 soil incorporation gas 0.15 0.29 0.021 36 2.598

Clomazone 1.4E-04 soil incorporation ec 0.3 0.56 0.052 3 0.876

Clopyralid 0 foliar spray gas 0.8 0.29 0.35 1 1.510 Cyanazine 1.6E-09 crop spray dust 0.8 0.21 0.35 31 36.890 Cyfluthrin 1.6E-08 crop spray wp 0.3 0.25 0.35 153 69.943 Cypermethrin 1.4E-09 crop spray wp 0.3 0.25 0.35 5 2.286 Diazinon 6E-05 crop spray pellet 0.143 0.27 0.35 21 8.296 Dicamba 0 spray gas 0.8 0.29 0.35 126 190.260 Dichlobenil 1E-03 crop spray wp 0.8 0.25 0.58 3 4.740 Dicofol 4E-07 crop spray wp 0.3 0.25 0.35 25 11.42991 VOC V. Press Formulation Formula % VOC EF Alleg. Alleg.

Pesticide mm Hg Applicatio n Type (% Inert) Inert lbs. VOC/ lbs. A.I. lbs of A.I. Lbs/yr

Diflubenzuron 9E-10 crop spray wp 0.25 0.25 0.35 80 34.667 Dimethenamid > 1.0 soil spray gas 0.468 0.29 0.35 5 3.026 Diuron 6.9E-08 soil surface wp 0.8 0.25 0.35 310 418.500 Endosulfan 1.7E-07 crop spray gas 0.5 0.29 0.35 2 1.280 Esfenvalerate 1.1E-08 crop spray dust 0.3 0.21 0.35 7 3.080 Fenarimol 2.2E-07 crop spray wp 0.3 0.25 0.35 1 0.457 Flumetsulam ND spray aq 0.18 0.21 0.35 12 4.753 Fluvalinate 1E-07 crop spray rtu 0.8 0.2 0.35 69 79.350 Fosamine Ammonium 4E-06 foliar spray aq 0.8 0.21 0.35 8 9.520 Glyphosate 0 foliar spray aq 0.8 0.21 0.35 2,610 3105.900 Hydroprene ? ? gr 0.09 0.25 2 0.049 Imidacloprid 1.50E-09 spray aq 0.786 0.21 0.35 1,426 1598.986 Iprodione 1E-07 crop spray wp 0.8 0.25 0.35 24 32.400 Lambda-cyhalothrin 1.50E-09 spray ec 0.87 0.56 0.35 8 32.782 MCPP 0 foliar spray aq 0.5 0.21 0.35 49 27.440 Malathion 8E-06 contact spray ec 0.3 0.56 0.35 7 4.130 Mancozeb 0 crop spray Fl aq conc 0.8 0.21 0.35 165 196.350 Maneb 0 crop spray wp 0.8 0.25 0.35 26 35.100 Metalaxyl 5.62E-06 soil spray wp 0.25 0.25 0.35 7 3.033 Metam-Sodium 20 soil spray aq 0.8 0.21 0.58 334 474.280 Methoprene 17.5 spray aq 0.8 0.21 0.58 26 36.920 Methoxychlor 0 spray wp 0.25 0.35 3 1.050 Methyl Bromide 1824 release of gas Fl aq conc 0.8 0.21 0.58 58 82.360 Metolachlor 3.135E-05 soil spray ec 0.3 0.56 0.35 488 287.920 Metribuzin 1E-05 soil surface Fl aq conc 0.75 0.21 0.35 3 2.940 Metsulfuron Methyl 2.5E-12 foliar spray gr 0.2 0.25 0.35 1 0.413 Nicosulfuron 1.20E-16 grass spray gr 0.162 0.25 0.35 2 0.797 Oryzalin 1E-08 soil spray wp 0.75 0.25 0.35 77 84.700 PCNB 1.1E-04 soil spray wp 0.6 0.25 0.58 88 84.040 Paclobutrazol 6.00E-10 spray wp 0.5 0.25 0.35 13 7.800 Paraquat 0 target spray aq 0.8 0.21 0.35 124 147.560 Pendimethalin 9.4E-06 soil spray ec 0.6 0.56 0.35 1,257 1495.830 Permethrin 1.3E-08 crop spray ec 0.3 0.56 0.35 9,455 5578.450 Petroleum Oils 1.0E-03 spray ec 0.56 0.58 1,503 871.740 Phosmet 4.9E-07 crop spray wp 0.5 0.25 0.35 26 15.600 Picloram Neg foliar spray aq 0.8 0.21 0.35 252 299.880 Primisulfuron-methyl 1.50E-05 crop spray gr 0.49 0.25 0.35 2 1.180 Propachlor 7.90E-05 spray gr 0.35 0.25 0.35 2 0.969 Propoxur 9.7E-06 crop spray ec 0.3 0.56 0.35 2 1.180 Quizalofop-ethyl 3E-07 foliar spray ec 0.2 0.56 0.35 1 0.490 Sethoxydim 1.6E-07 foliar spray ec 0.3 0.56 0.35 1 0.590 Simazine 2.21E-08 soil spray wp 0.8 0.25 0.35 776 1047.600 Sulfentrazone spray gr 0.25 0.25 0.56 1 0.643 Sulfometuron Methyl 6E-16 soil spray gr 0.2 0.25 0.35 7 2.888 Sulfur 0 dust dust 0.2 0.21 0 96 5.040 Terbacil 3.1E-07 soil spray wp 0.8 0.25 0.35 4 5.400 Thifensulfuron methyl 1.3E-10 foliar spray gr 0.2 0.25 0.35 1 0.413 Thiophanate-methyl 1E-07 crop spray wp 0.5 0.25 0.35 37 22.200 Triadimefon 1.5E-08 crop spray wp 0.8 0.25 0.35 7 9.45092 VOC V. Press Formulation Formula % VOC EF Alleg. Alleg.

Pesticide mm Hg Applicatio n Type (% Inert) Inert lbs. VOC/ lbs. A.I. lbs of A.I. Lbs/yr

Trichlorfon 2E-06 crop spray sp 0.8 0.12 0.35 36 29.880 Triclopyr 1.26E-06 foliar spray ec 0.8 0.56 0.35 454 1175.860 Trifluralin 1.1E-04 soil incorporation ec 0.015 0.56 0.052 3 0.182

Vinclozolin 120.0099 spray ec 0.5 0.56 0.58 16 18.240 Zinc Phosphide 0 powder pellet 0.8 0.27 0 1 1.080 County Total 24529 23472.544

Emissions are calculated for each pesticide ac tive ingredient per county and then summed.

Example calculation for the emissions from Pendi methalin pesticide use in Allegany county.

Lbs lbs. VOC 1257 Emis Pendimethalin 1257 year x 0
lbs. AI + (1-0.6) x 0.6 x 0.56

Emis Pendimethalin = 1495.83 lbs. VOC / year
Emis Pendimethalin = 1495.83 / 2000 = 0.7479 tons VOC / year
Emis Pendimethalin = (0.7479 tons VOC / year) * (1 year / 312 days) * (1.3)
Emis Pendimethalin = 0.0031 tons VOC / day

The remaining pesticides used in Allegany c ounty are calculated in a similar manner.

Results: Since the EPA has released new guidance on the calcu lation of agricultural pesticide application, the new methodology vastly differs from the method used in 1990. In the Maryland Ozone Precursor Inventory for 1990 , Air and Radiation Management, MDE, September 1993, pesticide application for the state totaled 42 tons per day. This method assumed 90% volatilization of the AI. The method also assumed the inert carrier content to be 145% by weight of the AI. Another major assumption is 100% volatilization of the inert carrier.

Since publication, the accuracy of the old pesticide methodology ha s been debated by different groups. General thoughts from scholars and priv ate industry is the ol d methodology overpredicts the volatility of the organics in the pesticid e. The new methodology, presented here, requires many assumptions and uses data that takes account for the different vapor pressures of individual active ingredients. Th is method, along with some genera l assumptions, estimated pesticide emissions at 8.7 tons per day for the state. Th e decrease is due to th e change in method, along with a decline in pounds of pes ticides applied in the state.93 4.1.2.12 Commercial/Consumer Solvent Use SCC: 24 65 000 000

Description Certain commercial/consumer uses of products containing volatile organi cs cannot easily be identified by questionnaires, su rveys or other inventory proced ures yielding locale-specific emission estimates. This category includes th e following sources: household products, toiletries, aerosol products, rubbing compounds, windshield washing fluid, polishes, waxes, non-industrial adhesives, space deodorants, moth control agents and laundry detergents.

Pollutants

VOC

Method and Data Sources
The recommended emission factor that combines emissions from all these sources is 7.84 pounds VOC per person per year, from EIIP Volume III , Area Sources, Preferre d and Alternate Methods (July, 1997). This emission factor excludes non -reactive VOC and takes into account more recent volatility levels based on product reformulation, than does AP-42 , Fifth Edition. MDE used an activity level of 7 days a week and no seasonal adjustment factor as suggested in Table 5.8-1 in Procedures

. Activity The U.S. Census Bureau reports population statistics for the counties of Maryland. Population statistics for 2002 for the counties of Maryland were collected from the U.S. Census Bureau Internet address ( http://www.census.gov ).

Emission Factors: Commercial and Consumer Products (All) 7.84 lbs. VOC /person/year

Point Source Adjustments
No subtraction of emissions from point sources is necessary.

Adjustment for Controls Federal regulations provide a 20 percent reduction in emissions from a 3.9 lbs. VOC /person subset of the total commercial and consumer products category.

Spatial and Temporal Allocations Spatial Data for spatial allocation is not available for this source.94 Temporal Data for temporal allocation is not available for this source.

Emissions Calculation The per capita equation used to estimate emissi ons from commercial and consumer solvents is:

[ POP i x EF CC ] - [ (POP i x CS CC ) x CE CC ] E CC = 2000 x 365

Where:

E CC = VOC emissions in tons per day from commercial and consumer solvents POP i = 2002 population of county i EF CC = VOC emission factor for commercia l and consumer solvents (7.84 lbs. VOC /person) CS CC = Controlled subset of commercial and consumer solvents (3.9 lbs. VOC /person) CE CC = Control efficiency for controlled subset of commercial and consumer solvents (20%)

2002 Sample Calculation Commercial/Cons umer Solvent Use (Anne Arundel County)

[ (503,388 61 ) x (7.84 62 ) ] - [ (503,388 x 3.9 63 ) x (0.20) 64 ] E CC = 2000 x 365

E CC = 4.868 tons VOC per day

61 Population data from U.S. Bureau of Census, Population Estimates Branch
62 Emission factor from EIIP Chapter 5 Commercial and Consumer Solvent Use
63 EPA memo from John Sietz
64 EPA memo from John Sietz95 4.1.2.12.1 Barge, Tank, Tank Truck, Rail Car and Drum Cleaning

SCC: 24 61 160 000

The EPA explained to MDE staff that the agency has not developed an emission factor for this category. The EPA also stated that most barge, tank truck, rail car and drum cleaning is done by steam cleaning and the residue goes to industrial and public waste disposal treat ment plants. It is impossible to separate this category's portion of the treatment plant emissions. The EPA considers the emissions from this category to be insignificant. Emissions from this category are calculated for the appropriate facilities in the point source inventory.

4.1.3 BIOPROCESS EMISSIONS SOURCES

4.1.3.1 Bakeries SCC: 23 02 050 000

Description Bakeries emit VOC, primarily ethanol formed by yeast fermentation of bread or dough, during the baking process. Ethanol is emitted through a vent, along with combustion product gases. Large commercial bakeries are inventoried as poin t sources. In-store and neighborhood bakeries have lower emissions, and thus are considered area sources.

Pollutants

VOC

Method and Data Sources MDE staff followed methodology described in an EIIP Area Source Category Method Abstract – Bakeries, dated June 1999 and an emission factor of 0.11 tons VOC per employee cited in an April 24, 1992 Technical Memorandum prepared by Radian Corporation for EPA. Applicable point source emissions (those within the same NAICS) taken from the MDE/ARMA registration files have been subtracted from the emissions calcul ated on a per employee basis that are presented below.

Activity Employee numbers were taken from County Business Patterns 2001 - Maryland , NAICS 311812, Bakery Products and 311811, Retail Bakeries. Some county employment data is represented by a letter code i ndicating a range for the number of employees for that SIC. In this case the arithmetic average number of employees per letter code per county was adjusted so that the state total employment in a SIC matched the sum of the number of employees reported per county96 Emission Factor An emission factor of 0.11 tons VOC per employee cited in an April 24, 1992 Technical Memorandum prepared by Radian Cor poration for EPA was utilized.

Point Source Adjustments Bakery emissions from faciliti es identified as point source s (NAICS 311812 and 311811) were subtracted from the area source in ventory to avoid double counting.

Adjustment for Controls No controls are available for this source category.

Spatial and Temporal Allocations Spatial Data for spatial allocation is not available for this source.

Temporal Data for temporal allocation is not available for this source.

Emissions Calculation The equation used to estimate emissions from bakeries is:

Equation :

EF BAK x EMPj E BAK = 260

Where:

E BAK = VOC emissions from small bakeries in tons per day EF BAK = per employee emission factor for bakeries EMPj = number of employees at small (le ss than 20 employees), bakeries in county j97 Point Source Adjustments

E BAK-ADJ = E BAK - E BAK – Pt. Sources 65

Where: E BAK-ADJ Point source adjusted bakery emissions E BAK Calculated area source bakery emissions E BAK – Pt. Sources Point source emissions from MDE ARMA registration files

2002 Sample Calculation for Bakery VOC Emissions (Prince George’s County) :
Employees in NAICS 311811 in Prince George’s County: 256

0.11 x 256 E BAK = 260

E BAK = 0.108 tons VOC per day

Point Source Adjustment

E BAK – Pt. Sources (Prince George’s County) = 0.0728 tons VOC per day

E BAK-ADJ = E BAK - E BAK – Pt. Sources E BAK-ADJ = 0.1083 – 0.0728 E BAK-ADJ = 0.0355 tons VOC per day

65 Point Source Reduction from MDE ARMA registration files98 4.1.3.2 Breweries SCC: 23 02 070 001

Description During the fermentation process, breweries emit ethanol and other VOCs. Although large-scale commercial breweries have been inventoried as point sources, there are microbreweries and brewpubs that emit lower levels of VOCs and therefore must be inventoried as area sources. These smaller breweries emit most of their VOC s from the fermentation room, not the brew kettle as is the case with the large breweries.

Pollutants

VOC

Method and Data Sources MDE/ARMA staff surveyed small brewpubs and microbreweries in Maryland.

Activity The survey questionnaire aske d the brewing facilities to provide MDE/ARMA with the amount of barrels brewed per month for the cal endar year 2002. For those facilities that reported only annual production amounts, an average monthly value was used.

Emission Factor Emissions from the small breweries were calcu lated using an emissi on factor cited in a February 5, 1992 Technical Memorandum prepared by Radian Corporation for EPA. This emission factor is 56.743 lbs. VOC per 1000 barrels produced. On e barrel equals 31 gallons.

Point Source Adjustments
No subtraction of emissions from point sources is necessary.

Adjustment for Controls No controls are available for this source category.

Spatial and Temporal Allocations Spatial Data for spatial allocation is not available for this source.99 Temporal Data for temporal allocation is not available for this source.

Emissions Calculation The equation used to estimate emissions from bakeries is:

EF BREW x BPj E BREW = 2000 x 260

Where:

E BREW = VOC emissions from small bakeries in tons per day EF BREW = emission factor for small breweries BPj = 2002 beer production in barrels 260 = 5 days/week activity level

2002 Sample Calculation for Small Brew ery VOC Emissions (Anne Arundel County) :
Number barrels produced by microbrewe ries in Anne Arundel County: 1470.25

0.05674 x 1506.40 E BREW = 2000 x 260

E BREW = 0.000164 lbs. VOC per day100 4.1.3.3 Wineries

Description
Ethanol emissions from wineries occur during the fermentation pr ocess. The emissions vary, depending upon the type of wine (red vs. white), the fermentation temperature and the sugar content of the grapes used.

Pollutants

VOC

Method and Data Sources MDE used the methods and procedures documented in AP-42 66 , Chapter 12, Beverages, Section 2, Wines and Brandies dated September 1995. AP42 Chapter 9.12.2

Activity State of Maryland Comptrollers Office and the State of Maryland Department of Agriculture informed MDE staff that in 2002 Maryland wineries produced approximately 99,701 gallons of wine. An informal survey of wineries in the ar ea suggests that 64,233 gallons of white and 57,303 gallons of red wi ne yielding approximately 121,536 gallons of wine was actually produced.

Emission Factor Table 9.12.2-1 of AP-42 shows that ethanol emissions are 1.8 lbs. VOC per 1000 gallons of white wine fermented and 4.6 lbs. VOC per 1000 gallons of red wine fermented.

Point Source Adjustments
No subtraction of emissions from point sources is necessary.

Adjustment for Controls No controls are available for this source category.

Spatial and Temporal Allocations

66 AP42, Chapter 9.12.2: Food and Agricultural Industries, Beverages, Wines and Brandies101 Spatial Data for spatial allocation is not available for this source.

Temporal Data for temporal allocation is not available for this source.

Emissions Calculation Using the above figures, the production of wine by all Maryland wineries in 2002 resulted in the production of 379.2 pounds of ethanol. MDE has d ecided not to include this source in the periodic inventory due to the insignificance of the 2002 emissions.

4.1.3.4 Distilleries

Description Ethanol emissions are the largest component of th e VOCs emitted from distilleries. Distilleries produce both grain alcohol for industrial and fuel purposes, and distilled sp irits such as whiskey and brandy for consumption purposes. The em issions points in th e distilled spirits manufacturing process are likely to be the same as in brewerie s and wineries, with the aging process as an additional source of emissions. Du ring the aging process, ethanol and water seep through the wooden barrels used to age whiskey and evaporate into the air. Aging and barrel emptying are the major sources of VOC emissions from whiskey production.

Pollutants

VOC

Method and Data Sources
MDE staff indicated that no distilleries below th e 10 ton per year point source cutoff operated in the inventory area during 2002. Fugitive VOC em issions from the aging process at large distillery operations can be substa ntial and will be included in the point source inventory.102 4.1.4 CATASTROPHIC/ACCIDENTAL RELEASES

4.1.4.1 Oil Spills SCC: 28 30 000 000

Description Oil spills involve oil tanker acc idents, tanker truck accidents, and spills and blowouts from oil rigs or pipelines in coastal and inland areas. Because a wide range of fuel types may be spilled, the nature and quantity of emissions can vary. Emissions are also influenced by the clean-up procedure and by dispersion and weathering processes.

Oil spill evaporation produces local VOC emissions. If spills catch fire, additional SO2, CO, CO2, PM, NOx and VOC emissions may result. Other potentially toxic chemical compounds may also be released as a result of chemical cleanup

Pollutants

VOC

Method and Data Sources Activity Data on oil spills in Maryland were obtai ned from MDE's Hazardous Waste Emergency Response Department. They provided MDE/ARMA st aff a monthly list of all oil spills that occurred in Maryland during 1999, by county. Gall ons of oil spilled per ozone season were summed by county for the ozone season period of April 1 through October 31 (214 days).

Emission Factor MDE staff used an emission factor recomme nded to the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments by E.H. Pechan and Associat es, Inc., the contractor used by MWCOG to prepare their 1990 base year inventory. This emission factor was based on a California Air Resources Board (CARB), study of air emissi ons from large oil spills (over 10 million gallons of oil). Based on this study, a range of evaporation estimates for reactive organic gases was found to be between 5,500 and 13,000 tons. Using this information, an average emission factor was calculated to be 0.0000925 tons VOC per ga llon of oil spilled. below.

Point Source Adjustments No point source adjustments were made.103 Adjustment for Controls No controls are available for this source category.

Spatial and Temporal Allocations Spatial Data for spatial allocation is not available for this source.

Temporal Data for temporal allocation is not available for this source.

Emissions Calculation The equation used to estimate emissions from oil spills:

EF Oil Spills x GOSj E Oil Spills = 2000 x 365

Where:

E Oil Spills = VOC emissions from oil spills in tons VOC per day EF Oil Spills = emission factor for small breweries GOSi = gallons of oil spilled in county I

2002 Sample Calculation for Oil Spill VOC Emissions (Baltimore County) :

Annual Emissions: Number gallons oil spilled in Baltimore County, 2002:

(0.0000925) x (Gal) E Oil Spills = 2000

E Oil Spills = tons VOC per year
Number gallons oil spilled in Ba ltimore County, April-October, 2002

(0.0000925) x (Gal) E Oil Spills = 2000 x 214

E Oil Spills = tons VOC per ozone season day104 4.1.4.2 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks SCC: 26 60 000 000

Description Many underground storage tanks (USTs) are over 15 years old and are constructed of steel, which may rust over time. The underground pipi ng connected to these tanks also has the potential to leak. Leaking USTs are of concern because they may result in the contamination of drinking water, subsurface so ils, and ground and surface water, and may emit toxic and/or explosive vapors. The contaminated soil and water may also emit VOC.

Pollutants

VOC

Method and Data Sources Activity As suggested in section 4.8.6 of Procedures , MDE staff used emissions from soil and groundwater remediation to estimate VOC emissions from leaking underground storage tanks. From the MDE/ARMA registration file s, inventory staff obtained location of soil and groundwater remediation sites and obtained fugitive VOC emissions from each site in pounds per day. No seasonal variation was assumed.

Emission Factor VOC emissions are those allowable in each remediation permit- there are different allowable emissions for each permit.

Point Source Adjustments No point source adjustments were made.

Adjustment for Controls
No controls are available for this source cate gory. Because MDE staff used maximum allowable emissions from permit information, MDE believes that Rule Effectiveness, Control Efficiency, and Rule Penetration are not applicable to this source.105 Spatial and Temporal Allocations Spatial Data for spatial allocation is not available for this source.

Temporal Data for temporal allocation is not available for this source.

Emissions Calculation

RS1 j + RS2 j + RS3 j
.... E UST = 2000

where: E UST = VOC emissions in tons per day from leaking underground storage tanks

RS1 j , RS2 j = pounds VOC per day allowed from remedi ation site(s) in county j

2002 Sample Calculation for Leaking Underg round Storage Tanks (Anne Arundel County)

No seasonal variation assumed

Annual VOC emissions in pounds per day: (f rom soil and groundwater remediation) Activity level: 7 days/week (see text)

VOC emissions in tons per day: pounds/day total from registration data: pounds/day/ 2000 = tons VOC per day from leaking underg round storage tanks in Anne Arundel County106 4.1.5 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL, TREATMENT, AND RECOVERY

4.1.5.1 On-site Incineration SCC: 26 01 000 000

Description
On-site incineration is the confin ed burning of waste on a small scale by institutions such as hospitals, nursing homes, veterinary offices, funeral homes and laboratories. Large-scale incineration is included in the point source inventory.

Pollutants VOC, NOx, SOx, CO, and PM 10

Method and Data Sources In Maryland incinera tors are regulated under COMAR 26. 11.08. Maryland began regulating incinerators for control of particulates in the 1970's. In AQCRs III and IV single chamber incinerators, the type that would be used for on- site residential incineration, were banned. All such incinerators were rendered inoperative under the direction of the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). Over 1700 small incine rators were eliminated under this requirement.

In the other Maryland counties included in the Washington, D.C. nonattainment area, incineration of trash in on-site incinerators is prohibited except in areas where public trash collection is not provided.

COMAR 26.11.08.09 now requires a ll incinerators to obtain a pe rmit to operate and any person who owns or operates an inci nerator must obtain certificat ion from MDE and renew the certification annually.

MDE/ARMA maintains a registry of all incine rators within the State. Because of the requirements prohibiting single cham ber incinerators, the requirement for a permit to operate, and the operator certification require ments, staff used the sum of the incinerators in the registry as representing the total area source emissions from incinerators of all types emitting less than 10 tons/VOC, 100 tons/yr CO and 50 tons per year NO x . Incinerators from the registry with emissions above these thresholds are in cluded in the point source inventory.

No seasonality is applied. The emission factor is chosen by type of incinerator: waste, pathological, hazardous, industrial, special medical, sewage sludge and municipal waste combustors. The burn rate is determined by stack test or AP-42. Hours of operation and tons of waste per day are supplied by the operator.107 4.1.5.2 Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) SCC: 26 30 020 000

Description

EPA Procedures mentions that research into VOC emi ssions from POTWs has found that in the event of "heavy chemical loading", 85% of volatil e pollutants discharged to these facilities "are stripped to the ambient air" (Section 3.5.1). Also, VOC concentration in POTW influent is directly proportional to the industrial cont ribution to POTWs as stated in Procedures , Page 3-14.

Pollutants VOC, NH 3

Method and Data Sources
The emissions from these facilities were calculated based on the method described in Procedures
, Section 3.5.1.

Activity The percent industrial flow for each POTW in Maryland was supplied by the Maryland Water Management Administration. MDE st aff multiplied this amount by the emission factor listed above to get VOC emissions from each POTW. The individual POTW emissions were then totaled by county. Some counties are not listed in this table because their industrial effluent is discharg ed to a POTW in another county.

Emission Factor This method uses an emission factor of 1.1 x 10 -4 pounds VOC emitted per gallon of industrial wastewater disc harged to a POTW.

Point Source Adjustments VOC stack emissions in the Air Management regi stration files from the Patapsco Wastewater Treatment Plant in Baltimore City were subtracted from the totals below.

Adjustment for Controls No controls are available for this source category.108 Spatial and Temporal Allocations Spatial Data for spatial allocation is not available for this source.

Temporal Data for temporal allocation is not available for this source.

Emissions Calculation The equation used to estimate emissions from POTWs is:

DF I J x PIF I J x EF POTW x SAF POTW E POTW = 2000

Where: E POTW = VOC emissions in tons VOC per day from POTWs DF I J = Daily flow into POTW i in county j PIF I J = Percent industrial fl ow from POTW i in county j EF POTW = VOC emission factor 67 for POTWs SAF POTW = Seasonal adjustment factor 68 for peak ozone season which is 1.4

2002 Sample Calculation for POTW VOC Emissions (Anne Arundel County) :
Back River Sewage Treatment Plant statistics 69 : Average daily flow (MGD) 70 : 152.0 Percent industrial flow: 4.2%

(843,800) x (4.2%) x (1.1 x 10 -4 lbs. VOC / gal) x 1.4 E POTW = 2000

E POTW = 0.0639 tons VOC / day

67 Emission factor taken from Procedures, Section 3.5.1
68 Seasonal adjustment factor taken from Procedures, Table 5.8.1
69 Supplied by the Maryland Water Management Administration
70 MGD : Million Gallons per Day109 4.1.5.3 Open Burning – Land Clearing Debris SCC: 26 10 000 500

Description Open burning of land clearing debr is refers to the clearing of land for new construction and the burning of organic material (i.e., trees, shrubs and other vegetation). The clearing of land for the construction of new buildings and highways often re sults in debris consisting of trees, shrubs, and brush. This debris may be burned in place but it is usually collected in piles for burning. The burning of land clearing wastes may be practi ced by private individua ls, corporations, and government agencies (e.g., highway constructio n department). There are no federal laws restricting the open bur ning of land clearing wastes, although state or local laws may exist.

Residential open burning without a permit is pr ohibited in Maryland, COMAR 26.11.07, where trash and leaf collection is available. The basic difference between the regulation as it applies to counties in AQCRs III and IV and the rest of the state is the requirements under which the burn takes place, i.e., minimum setbacks from property lin es, etc. In the more rural counties, areas with no available trash collection are more preval ent. MDE adopted a regulation that prohibits open burning during the peak oz one period (June to August). The seasonal prohibition only affects those counties that lie within serious and severe ozone nonattain ment areas. Certain exemptions must be in place however so as not to adversely affect agriculture or restrict fire training and recreational activitie s. Commercial open burning w ithout a permit is prohibited in Maryland.

Pollutants VOC, NOx, SOx, CO, PM 10 and PM 2.5

Method and Data Sources The method used to calculate emissions, is presented in EIIP 71 , Chapter 16, Open Burning (Revised Final 2001).

Activity The number of acres disturbed by residential, non-residential and ro adway construction are estimated and then these values are added togeth er to obtain a county- level estimate of total acres disturbed by land-clearing. County-level emissions from land clearing debris are then calculated by multiplying the total acres disturbed by construction by a weighted loading factor and emission factor.

71 Emission Inventory Improvement Program110 The BELD database in BEIS was used to determine the number of acres of hardwoods, softwoods, and grasses in each county. Average loading factors were weighted according to the percent contribution of each t ype of vegetation class to the total land area for each county. The loading factors for slash hardwood and slas h softwood were further adjusted by a factor of 1.5 to account for the mass of tree that is below the soil surface that would also be subject to burning once the land is cleared.

Fuel loading factors are as follows:

Fuel Type Fuel Load Factor (tons/acre) Adjusted Load Factor (tons/acre) Hardwood 99 148.5 Softwood 57 85.5 Grass 4.5 4.5

Average fuel loading factors were calculated as follows:

(Acres HW-COi x LF Adj-HW ) +(Acres SW-COi x LF Adj-SW ) +(Acres GR-COi x LF Adj-GR ) LF OB –LCD – COi Acres TOT-COi

LF OB –LCD – COi = Average Load Factor in County i Acres HW-COi = Acres of hardwood in County i from BELD database LF Adj-HW = Adjusted Load Factor for Hardwood Acres SW-COi = Acres of softwood in County i from BELD database LF Adj-SW = Adjusted Load Factor for Softwood Acres GR-COi = Acres of grasses in Coun ty i from BELD database LF Adj-GR = Adjusted Load Factor for Grasses Acres TOT-COi = Total Land Acres in County i

Emission Factors 72 Emission factors in lbs. /ton were taken from AP-42 Table 2.5-1, Emission Factors for Open Burning of Municipal Refuse and are listed below:

VOC 13 Lbs. VOC / ton SOx 1.0 Lbs. SOx / ton CO 85 Lbs. CO / ton PM 10 16 Lbs. PM10 / ton PM 2.5 17 Lbs. PM2.5 / ton

Ozone Season Daily (OSD) emissions calculated by multiplying annual emissions by 0.25 then dividing by 92.

72 Emissions factors for VOC NOx, CO, SO 2 , PM 10 and PM 2.5 were obtained from AP-42 Table 2.5-1.111 Point Source Adjustments
No subtraction of emissions fr om point sources is necessary.

Adjustments for Controls No controls are available for this source category.

Spatial and Temporal Allocations Spatial Data for spatial allocation is not available for this source.

Temporal Data for temporal allocation is not available for this source.

Emissions Calculation

Annual Emissions

AD R-NR-Road x LF OB –LCD – COi x EF OB i E OB –LCD – Ann = 2000

E OB –LCD – Ann = Annual emissions from open burning of land clearing debris AD R-NR-Road = Acres disturbed from Resident ial, Non-residential and Roadway construction in the county LF OB –LCD – COi = Average Load Factor in County i FL HW-SW-G = Fuel loading factor for hardwoods, softwoods, and grasses EF OB i = Open burning emission factor for pollutant i in lbs. / ton

Ozone Season Daily Emissions

E OB –LCD – Ann E OB –LCD – Day = 4 x 92

E OB –LCD – Day = Ozone Season Daily emissions from open burning E OB –LCD – Ann = Annual emissions from open burning of land clearing debris 4 = Number of seasons in the year 92 = Days in the season112 4.1.5.4 Open Burning – Residential Municipal Solid Waste SCC: 26 10 030 000

Description

Open burning is the unconfined burning of wood, leaves, land cl earing debris, household waste, and agricultural crop waste. Household waste, of ten referred to as residential municipal solid waste (MSW), is a term for nonhazardous refuse produced by households (e.g., paper, plastics, metals, wood, glass, rubber, leathe r, textiles, and food wastes).

Open burning without a permit is prohibited in Maryland where trash and leaf collection is available, COMAR 26.11.07. The basic differe nce between the regula tion as it applies to counties in AQCRs III and IV and the rest of the state is the requirements under which the burn takes place, i.e., minimum setbacks from property lin es, etc. In the more rural counties, areas with no available trash collection are more preval ent. MDE adopted a regulation that prohibits open burning during the peak oz one period (June to August). The seasonal prohibition only affects those counties that lie within serious and severe ozone nonattain ment areas. Certain exemptions must be in place however so as not to adversely affect agriculture or restrict fire training and recreational activities.

Pollutants VOC, NOx, SOx, CO, PM 10 , PM 2.5 , and Toxics

Method and Data Sources

The method used to calculate emissions is pres ented in a study/survey conducted by the MidAtlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU), titled “Open Burning in Residential Areas Emissions Inventory Development Report.” 73

Activity The purpose of the survey was to obtain data for developing activity estimates and control information (e.g., bans on burning) that woul d form the basis of an improved open burning emission inventory for Mid-Atlantic/Northeas t Visibility Union (MANE-VU) states and tribes for the year 2002.

A rule effectiveness (RE) survey was also pe rformed to estimate controlled emissions for areas that prohibit open burning. Househol d waste burning surveys were completed for 72 respondents or jurisdictions, while yard wast e surveys were conducted for 181 espondents. The respondents for this survey were typi cally local fire wardens or chiefs. Rule

73 Open Burning in Residential Areas Emissions Inventory Development Reprt, Preparted by E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc. for the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union, dated January 31, 2004.113 effectiveness surveys related to residentia l MSW rules were conducted for 49 respondents, while RE surveys for yard waste burning rules were performed for 51 respondents. In obtaining survey responses, Pechan collected activity data and control information for areas classified as urban, s uburban, and rural, or a comb ination of these designations (defined using data from the 2000 U.S. Census). Pechan also developed a control database for each open burning category that describes the recommended control efficiency (CE) and rule penetration (RP) va lues by state and county, and by subcounty, where applicable.

Open burning activity estimates recorded from the survey were used directly to estimate emissions for the surveyed ju risdictions. For the non-surveyed areas, including tribal lands, the default activity data derive d from all survey responses we re applied. Households are defined as detached single-family unit dw ellings as provided by the 2000 U.S. Census.

Emission Factors

Emission factors in lbs/ton total mass were taken from AP-42 Table 2.5-1, Emission Factors for Open Burning of Municipal Re fuse and from a 1997 EPA research paper on open burning 74 are listed below:

Pollutant Emission Factor Lb/ton total mass burned VOC 8.556 NOx 6 CO 85 PM 10 38 PM 2.5 34.8 SO 2 1.0

Point Source Adjustments
No subtration of emissions fr om point sources is necessary.

Adjustments for Controls If an area has controls or prohibitions on residential burning, controlled emissions were calculated from uncontrolled emission s using the following equation:

E c = E uc * [(1-(CE)(RP)(RE)]

74 EPA. 1997. Evaluation of Emissions from the Open Burning Of Household Waste in Barrels. EPA-600/R-97- 134a. U.S. Enivironmental Protection Agency, Control Technologies Center. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.114 where: E c = Controlled area source emissions E uc = Uncontrolled area source emissions CE = % Control efficiency/100 RP = % Rule penetration/100 RE = % Rule effectiveness/100

The following sections describe how values for CE, RP and RE were derived from the
survey.

Rule Effectiveness Pechan evaluated differences in RE between rural/suburban and urban areas, as well as differences in RE for MSW and yard waste burni ng. Although one may expect that RE would be higher for urban than for suburban or rural ar eas, ANOVA of the survey results from these geographic subdivisions, as well as for the different open burning categories, did not show that RE values were drawn from dis tinct populations. Therefore, the fi nal selection of RE reflects a value for all areas and all burning categories.

There was a total of 26 RE survey responses that included information on the number of violating households. To calculate RE, Pechan used the number of households violating the rule, and the number of households expected to perf orm open burning for areas in the region where there is no rule (i.e., # househol ds x fraction of open burning hous eholds by region from survey).

The RE values obtained from the survey responses will be used for the specific State or jurisdiction surveyed. Non-surveyed areas could not be assigned a jurisdiction-specific RE, because no survey responses were obtained for t hose areas. Pechan did not develop statespecific RE values since we had no reason to believe th at local jurisdictions in individual states implemented their rules differently than local ju risdictions in the rest of the MANE-VU region. To estimate a default RE value for the remaining areas, the survey data were statistically analyzed. After evaluating the da ta using the Census 2000 data, a mean value of 96.8 percent reflected the best estimator of central tendency. As such, Pechan applied a rule effectiveness of 96.8 percent to all areas and for both MS W and yard waste burning (Pechan, 2002b).

Control Efficiency and Rule Penetration For those areas identified to have a control, CE is assume d to be 100 percent (since the control is typically a ban on burning activity). For MSW bur ning, with the exception of Pennsylvania, Pechan assigned 100 percent CE and 100 percent RP to urban and suburban areas in the MANE-VU region (i.e., even if the stat e did not have a statew ide ban on burning). In Pennsylvania, unless a jurisdic tion or county (e.g., Allegheny County) was determined via survey to have a ban, it will be assumed that suburban and rural areas allow open burning. For yard waste burning, Pechan assigned 100 percent CE and RP to all urban areas in the MANE-VU region. Yard waste emissions calculated for suburban and urban areas were assumed to be115 uncontrolled, unless the survey data or other st atewide or local control information indicated otherwise. For municipal yard waste burning, area s were assumed to either perform this activity and have associated emissions, or did not c onduct burns and therefore were assigned zero emissions.

In determining annual emissions for those areas w ith a seasonal ban, Pechan adjusted the RP by the length of the seasonal ban relative to the entire year. The RP value also depends on how the time period of the ban overlaps with the activ ity profile for the specific category of burning. For example, for brush waste burning, the survey data revealed an average activity profile as follows: Winter–20%; Spring–46%; Summer–6%; a nd Fall–28%. So, for an area that has a brush burning ban in the summer, although some pe rcentage of burning is likely to be prevented during this season, we assume th at 2 percent of the summer season brush burning in August is delayed until September when burning is permitted, resulting in an RP of 4 percent to apply to annual brush waste burning emissions. As mentione d in the discussion of temporal allocation profiles, this also has an aff ect on the monthly activity profile. A summer RP value of 4 percent would result in a revised temporal allocati on profile to be: Wint er–20%; Spring–46%; Summer– 4%; and Fall–30%.

Spatial and Temporal Allocations Spatial Pechan collected activity data and control in formation for areas classified as urban, suburban, and rural, or a combination of thes e designations (defined using data from the 2000 U.S. Census).

Temporal Activity estimates and associated emissions are calculated on an annual basis. Pechan proposes the following temporal allocation profile s to represent monthly, weekly, and daily activity profiles by SCC (see Tables II-2 thr ough II-5). The monthly activity profiles were developed based on data obtained from the survey. The weekly and weekday/weekend profiles were developed based on engineering judgment. These profiles will be applied to annual activity for all areas of MANE-VU (i.e., variations in regional, State, or tribal areas are not accounted for).

Temporal Allocation Profile Formats (monthly)

Month

SCC Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2610030000 0.083 0.083 0.083 0.083 0.083 0.083 0.083 0.083 0.083 0.083 0.083 0.083
2610000400 0.067 0.067 0.153 0.153 0.153 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.093 0.093 0.093 0.067
2610040400 0.067 0.067 0.153 0.153 0.153 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.093 0.093 0.093 0.067
2610000100 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.333 0.333 0.333 0.000

Temporal Allocation Profile Formats (weekly)
Day of Week116 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
2610030000 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.222 0.222
2610000400 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.222 0.222
2610040400 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.000 0.000
2610000100 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.222 0.222

Temporal Allocation Profile Formats (daily; weekday) Weekday Hour
SCC 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200
2610030000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071
2610000400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071
2610040400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071
2610000100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071

Weekday Hour
SCC 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 0000
2610030000 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0 0 0 0
2610000400 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0 0 0 0
2610040400 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0 0 0 0
2610000100 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0 0 0 0

Temporal Allocation Profile Formats (daily; weekend day) Weekend Day Hour SCC 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200
2610030000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071
2610000400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071
2610040400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071
2610000100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071

Weekend Day Hour
SCC 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 0000
2610030000 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0 0 0 0
2610000400 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0 0 0 0
2610040400 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0 0 0 0
2610000100 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0 0 0 0

Emissions Calculation
Emissions were caculated at a census tract level and summed over a county for county level emissions. A county level sample emission calcu lation will not be presented here, however the equations for a particular census tract are presente d below. All of the census tracts in a county would then be summed for county level emission estimates.

The equation for estimating the mass of waste burned is:

PUT EQUATION HERE117 Wt MSW = Mass of waste burned per time period HH = Number of households that burn (Question 1, Part 2 of survey) Bt = Number of burns per tim e period (Question 3, Part 2) M = Mass of waste per burn (Question 5, Part 3)

Uncontrolled emissions were then calculated using the following equation:

E UNC = Wt MSW * EF

where: E UNC = Uncontrolled area source emissions Wt MSW = Mass of waste burned per time period EF = Emission factor per pollutant

Controlled emissions were then calcu lated using the following equation:

E C = E UNC * [(1-(CE)(RP)(RE)]

where: E C = Controlled area source emissions E UNC = Uncontrolled area source emissions CE = % Control efficiency/100 RP = % Rule penetration/100 RE = % Rule effectiveness/100118 4.1.5.5 Open Burning – Residential Yard Waste SCC: 26 10 000 100 (Leaf Debris) SCC: 26 10 000 400 (Brush Debris)

Description

Open burning is the unconfined burning of wood, leaves, land cl earing debris, household waste, and agricultural crop waste. Household waste, of ten referred to as residential municipal solid waste (MSW), is a term for nonhazardous refuse produced by households (e.g., paper, plastics, metals, wood, glass, rubber, leathe r, textiles, and food wastes).

Open burning without a permit is prohibited in Maryland where trash and leaf collection is available, COMAR 26.11.07. The basic differe nce between the regula tion as it applies to counties in AQCRs III and IV and the rest of the state is the requirements under which the burn takes place, i.e., minimum setbacks from property lin es, etc. In the more rural counties, areas with no available trash collection are more preval ent. MDE adopted a regulation that prohibits open burning during the peak oz one period (June to August). The seasonal prohibition only affects those counties that lie within serious and severe ozone nonattain ment areas. Certain exemptions must be in place however so as not to adversely affect agriculture or restrict fire training and recreational activities.

Pollutants VOC, NOx, SOx, CO, PM 10 , PM 2.5 , and Toxics

Method and Data Sources

The method used to calculate emissions is pres ented in a study/survey conducted by the MidAtlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU), titled “Open Burning in Residential Areas Emissions Inventory Development Report.” 75

Activity The purpose of the survey was to obtain data for developing activity estimates and control information (e.g., bans on burning) that woul d form the basis of an improved open burning emission inventory for Mid-Atlantic/Northeas t Visibility Union (MANE-VU) states and tribes for the year 2002.

A rule effectiveness (RE) survey was also pe rformed to estimate controlled emissions for areas that prohibit open burning. Househol d waste burning surveys were completed for 72

75 Open Burning in Residential Areas Emissions Inventory Development Reprt, Preparted by E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc. for the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union, dated January 31, 2004.119 respondents or jurisdictions, while yard waste surveys were conducted for 181 respondents. The respondents for this survey we re typically local fire wardens or chiefs. Rule effectiveness surveys related to residential MSW rules were conducted for 49 respondents, while RE surveys for yard wa ste burning rules we re performed for 51 respondents. In obtaining surv ey responses, Pechan collected activity data and control information for areas classified as urban, s uburban, and rural, or a combination of these designations (defined using data from the 2000 U.S. Census). Pechan also developed a control database for each open burning categor y that describes the recommended control efficiency (CE) and rule penetration (RP) values by state and county, and by subcounty, where applicable.

Open burning activity estimates recorded from the survey were used directly to estimate emissions for the surveyed ju risdictions. For the non-surveyed areas, including tribal lands, the default activity data derive d from all survey responses we re applied. Households are defined as detached single-family unit dw ellings as provided by the 2000 U.S. Census.

Emission Factors

Emission factors in lbs/ton total mass were taken from AP-42 Table 2.5-1, Emission Factors for Open Burning of Municipal Re fuse and from a 1997 EPA research paper on open burning 76 are listed below:

Pollutant Emission Factor Lb/ton total mass burned VOC 8.556 NOx 6 CO 85 PM 10 38 PM 2.5 34.8 SO 2 1.0

Point Source Adjustments
No subtration of emissions fr om point sources is necessary.

Adjustments for Controls

76 EPA. 1997. Evaluation of Emissions from the Open Burning Of Household Waste in Barrels. EPA-600/R-97- 134a. U.S. Enivironmental Protection Agency, Control Technologies Center. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.120 If an area has controls or prohibitions on residential burning, controlled emissions were calculated from uncontrolled emission s using the following equation:

E c = E uc * [(1-(CE)(RP)(RE)]

where: E c = Controlled area source emissions E uc = Uncontrolled area source emissions CE = % Control efficiency/100 RP = % Rule penetration/100 RE = % Rule effectiveness/100

The following sections describe how values for CE, RP and RE were derived from the
survey.

Rule Effectiveness Pechan evaluated differences in RE between rural/suburban and urban areas, as well as differences in RE for MSW and yard waste burni ng. Although one may expect that RE would be higher for urban than for suburban or rural ar eas, ANOVA of the survey results from these geographic subdivisions, as well as for the different open burning categories, did not show that RE values were drawn from dis tinct populations. Therefore, the fi nal selection of RE reflects a value for all areas and all burning categories.

There was a total of 26 RE survey responses that included information on the number of violating households. To calculate RE, Pechan used the number of households violating the rule, and the number of households expected to perf orm open burning for areas in the region where there is no rule (i.e., # househol ds x fraction of open burning hous eholds by region from survey).

The RE values obtained from the survey responses will be used for the specific State or jurisdiction surveyed. Non-surveyed areas could not be assigned a jurisdiction-specific RE, because no survey responses were obtained for t hose areas. Pechan did not develop statespecific RE values since we had no reason to believe th at local jurisdictions in individual states implemented their rules differently than local ju risdictions in the rest of the MANE-VU region. To estimate a default RE value for the remaining areas, the survey data were statistically analyzed. After evaluating the da ta using the Census 2000 data, a mean value of 96.8 percent reflected the best estimator of central tendency. As such, Pechan applied a rule effectiveness of 96.8 percent to all areas and for both MS W and yard waste burning (Pechan, 2002b).

Control Efficiency and Rule Penetration For those areas identified to have a control, CE is assume d to be 100 percent (since the control is typically a ban on burning activity). For MSW bur ning, with the exception of Pennsylvania, Pechan assigned 100 percent CE and 100 percent RP to urban and suburban areas in the MANE-VU region (i.e., even if the stat e did not have a statew ide ban on burning). In Pennsylvania, unless a jurisdic tion or county (e.g., Allegheny County) was determined via survey to have a ban, it will be assumed that suburban and rural areas allow open burning. For121 yard waste burning, Pechan assigned 100 percent CE and RP to all urban areas in the MANE-VU region. Yard waste emissions calculated for suburban and urban areas were assumed to be uncontrolled, unless the survey data or other st atewide or local control information indicated otherwise. For municipal yard waste burning, area s were assumed to either perform this activity and have associated emissions, or did not c onduct burns and therefore were assigned zero emissions.

In determining annual emissions for those areas w ith a seasonal ban, Pechan adjusted the RP by the length of the seasonal ban relative to the entire year. The RP value also depends on how the time period of the ban overlaps with the activ ity profile for the specific category of burning. For example, for brush waste burning, the survey data revealed an average activity profile as follows: Winter–20%; Spring–46%; Summer–6%; a nd Fall–28%. So, for an area that has a brush burning ban in the summer, although some pe rcentage of burning is likely to be prevented during this season, we assume th at 2 percent of the summer season brush burning in August is delayed until September when burning is permitted, resulting in an RP of 4 percent to apply to annual brush waste burning emissions. As mentione d in the discussion of temporal allocation profiles, this also has an aff ect on the monthly activity profile. A summer RP value of 4 percent would result in a revised temporal allocati on profile to be: Wint er–20%; Spring–46%; Summer– 4%; and Fall–30%.

Spatial and Temporal Allocations Spatial Pechan collected activity data and control in formation for areas classified as urban, suburban, and rural, or a combination of thes e designations (defined using data from the 2000 U.S. Census).

Temporal Activity estimates and associated emissions are calculated on an annual basis. Pechan proposes the following temporal allocation profile s to represent monthly, weekly, and daily activity profiles by SCC (see Tables II-2 thr ough II-5). The monthly activity profiles were developed based on data obtained from the survey. The weekly and weekday/weekend profiles were developed based on engineering judgment. These profiles will be applied to annual activity for all areas of MANE-VU (i.e., variations in regional, State, or tribal areas are not accounted for).

Temporal Allocation Profile Formats (monthly)

Month

SCC Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2610030000 0.083 0.083 0.083 0.083 0.083 0.083 0.083 0.083 0.083 0.083 0.083 0.083
2610000400 0.067 0.067 0.153 0.153 0.153 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.093 0.093 0.093 0.067
2610040400 0.067 0.067 0.153 0.153 0.153 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.093 0.093 0.093 0.067
2610000100 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.333 0.333 0.333 0.000

Temporal Allocation Profile Formats (weekly)122 Day of Week SCC Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
2610030000 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.222 0.222
2610000400 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.222 0.222
2610040400 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.000 0.000
2610000100 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.222 0.222

Temporal Allocation Profile Formats (daily; weekday) Weekday Hour
SCC 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200
2610030000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071
2610000400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071
2610040400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071
2610000100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071

Weekday Hour
SCC 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 0000
2610030000 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0 0 0 0
2610000400 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0 0 0 0
2610040400 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0 0 0 0
2610000100 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0 0 0 0

Temporal Allocation Profile Formats (daily; weekend day) Weekend Day Hour SCC 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200
2610030000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071
2610000400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071
2610040400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071
2610000100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071

Weekend Day Hour
SCC 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 0000
2610030000 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0 0 0 0
2610000400 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0 0 0 0
2610040400 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0 0 0 0
2610000100 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0 0 0 0

Emissions Calculation
Emissions were caculated at a census tract level and summed over a county for county level emissions. A county level sample emission calcu lation will not be presented here, however the equations for a particular census tract are presente d below. All of the census tracts in a county would then be summed for county level emission estimates.

The equation for estimating the mass of waste burned is:123 Where: Wt MSW = Mass of waste burned per time period HH = Number of households that burn (Question 1, Part 2 of survey) Bt = Number of burns per tim e period (Question 3, Part 2) M = Mass of waste per burn (Question 5, Part 3)

Uncontrolled emissions were then calculated using the following equation:

E UNC = Wt MSW * EF

where: E UNC = Uncontrolled area source emissions Wt MSW = Mass of waste burned per time period EF = Emission factor per pollutant

Controlled emissions were then calcu lated using the following equation:

E C = E UNC * [(1-(CE)(RP)(RE)]

where: E C = Controlled area source emissions E UNC = Uncontrolled area source emissions CE = % Control efficiency/100 RP = % Rule penetration/100 RE = % Rule effectiveness/100124 4.1.5.6 Cremation – Animal and Human SCC: 31 502 102

Description

Propane-fired burners (afterburne r and ignition) are typically us ed at cemeteries for human body and animal cremation. Burners are usually ra ted at 2,115,000 Btu per hour capacity. Newer units installed in thelate 1980's are equipped with a modulating ignition burner. When afterburner temperatures reach about 1800 F (980 C), the igniti on burner modulates to a low-fire mode that will reduce the Btu per hour usage.

When the crematory reaches an operating temper ature of 1,250 F (680 C) the body container is placed on the combustion chamber grate and the i gnition burner is fired to attain a target combustion temperature sufficient for the prop er reduction of human remains. The chamber preheat by the afterburner reaches 1,250 F (680 C) in about 30 to 45 minutes prior to ash removal. When the body containe r is introduced into the combus tion chamber, and the burner is ignited, cremation begins at about 1600 to 1800 F (870 to 980 C). Flame impingement on the body takes two to three minutes; cremation occurs for about two hours. The remains are then raked towards the ignition burner for about two minutes. Cooldown follows for 45 minutes to 1.5 hours.

Pollutants Air Toxics (Criteria Polluta nts were not calculated)

Method and Data Sources

The method used to calculate emissions, is pres ented in “Documentation for the 1996 Base Year National Toxics Inventory for Area Sources” prepar ed by Eastern Research Group, Inc. (May 31, 2001) and distributed by U.S. EPA Emissions, Monitoring and Analysis Division, Emission Factor and Inventory Group.

Activity In Maryland crematories are regulated under COMAR. COMAR now requires all crematories to obtain a permit to operate and any person who owns or operates an crematory must obtain certification from MDE and renew the cer tification annually.

MDE/ARMA maintains a registry of all crematories within the State. Because of the requirement for a permit to operate, and the ope rator certification requirements, staff used the sum of the crematories in the registry as representing the total area source emissions from crematories of all types emitting less th an 10 tons/VOC, 100 tons/yr CO and 50 tons per year NO x .125 Emission Factors

Emission factors these hazardous air pollutants, except formaldehyde, were taken from the State of California Air Resources Board Test Report No. C-90-004 77 . The emission factor used for formaldehyde was reported in the USEPA FIRE 78 system database.

Emission factors were converted to a pound pe r ton basis using the procedure provided by the Emission Standards Division 79 . National activity was provided by the Emissions Standards Division based on an assumed body weight of 150 pounds and information reported by the Cremation Association of North America 80 that 21.13 percent of bodies were cremated and that there were 2, 322,265 deaths in the United States in 1996 81

.

Animal and Human Cremation Emission Factor Pollutant Lbs. pollutant / ton cremated arsenic 4.00E-04 beryllium 1.84E-05 cadmium 1.48E-04 chromium 3.99E-04 formaldehyde 2.89E-09 nickel 5.09E-04 POM as 16-PAH 9.63E-04 POM as 7-PAH 1.03E-09 Mercury 4.39E-02

Point Source Adjustments
No subtration of emissions fr om point sources is necessary.

Adjustments for Controls

77 State of California Air Resources Board, Engineering Evaluation Branch, Monitoring and Laboratory Division. “Evaluation Test on Two Propane Fired Crematories at Ca mellia Lawn Cemetary.” Test Report No. C-90-004. October 29, 1992
78 U.S. EPA. Factor Information Retrieval (FIRE) System Database, Version 5.1a. Research Triangle Park, NC. September 1995.
79 Crume, Richard, U.S. EPA, Emission Standards Division. Note to Anne Pope, U.S. EPA/Emissions Monitoring and Analysis Division. Comments on Human and Anim al Cremation information in the “Baseline Emission Inventory of HAP Emissions from MACT Sources – Interim Final Report,” September 18, 1998. October 30, 1998.
80 Cremation Association of North Ameri ca. 1996 Statistics as found on the Internet Cremation Society, Cremation Stats Nationwide webpage: ww w.cremation.org/stats.htm
81 Ventura, S. et al. “Births and Deaths: United States, 1 996.” Monthly Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 64, No. 1, Supplement 2. Setpember 11, 1997. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Dieseas Control and Prevention, National Center for Health and Statistics.126 No controls are available for this source category.

Spatial and Temporal Allocations Spatial Data for spatial allocation is not available for this source.

Temporal Data for temporal allocation is not available for this source.

Emissions Calculation The equation for estimating emissions from crematories is:

where: E CREM = Annual emissions from crematories TON cty = Tons cremated per year in county EF = Emission Factor per pollutant (lbs/ton)

2002 Sample Calculation (Harford County)

Arsenic Annual Emissions:

TON cty = 26 EF = 0.0004 lbs Arsenic/Ton Cremated

(26) x (0.0004) E CREM = (2000 lbs/ton)

E CREM = 5.20E-06 tons Arsenic per Year127 4.1.5.7 Municipal Solid Waste Landfills SCC: 26 20 030 000

Description

Municipal solid waste landfills receive household and commercial trash. VOC emissions are produced from volatilization, chemical reaction a nd biological decomposition of waste. Methane and Carbon dioxide are the primary constituents of landfill gas, and are produced during anaerobic decomposition of cellulose and proteins in the landfilled waste. 98.7 percent of landfill emissions are methane and carbon dioxide according to the Volatile Organic Compounds Species Data Manual , an EPA publication. In addition to methane and carbon dioxide, nonmethane organic carbons (NMOCs) are produced as a small fraction of the landfill gas emissions (less than 1%). NMOCs include hazar dous air pollutants and reactive VOCs.

Pollutants

VOC

Method and Data Sources

The method used to calculate emissions, is presented in AP-42 , Chapter 2.4, Municipal Solid Waste Landfills and EIIP 82 , Volume III, Chapter 15, Landfills, dated September 1997.

Emission estimation assumptions were also ma de using supporting documents Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources (NAR A, 1991a) and Emission Guidelines for Control of Existing Sources (NARA, 1997b).

To estimate uncontrolled emissions of the va rious compounds present in landfill gas, total landfill gas emissions must first be estimated. Emissions of landfill gas depend on several factors including: (1) the size, configuration, and operating conditi ons of the landfill; and (2) the characteristics of the refuse such as moisture content, age, and composition. Uncontrolled CH 4 emissions may be estimated for individual landfills by using a theoretical first-order kinetic model of methane production developed by the EPA. A computer program that uses this model is known as the Landfill Gas Emissions Model (La ndGEM). The model equation is as follows:

Q CH4 = L O R (e -kc - e -kt ) (1)

Where:
Q CH4 = Methane generation rate at time t, m 3 /yr;

82 Emission Inventory Improvement Program128 L o = Methane generation potential, m 3 CH 4 / Mg (megagrams) refuse;
R = Average annual refuse acceptance rate during active life, Mg/yr; e = Base log, unitless;
k = Methane generation rate constant, yr -1;
c = Time since landfill closure, years (c = 0 for active landfills); and t = Time since the initial refuse placement, yrs. Site-specific landfill information is generally available for variables R, c, and t. When refuse acceptance rate information is scant or unknown, R can be estimated by dividing the refuse in place by the age of the landf ill. Also, nondegradable refuse should be subtracted from the refuse in place to prevent over estimation of CH 4 generation. The average annual acceptance rate should only be estimated by this method when ther e is inadequate information available on the actual annual acceptance rate.

The following LandGEM parameters are needed to estimate emissions from a landfill:

 The methane generation rate (k),

 The potential methane generation capacity (Lo),

 The number of years past closure that the model will estimate emissions,

 The estimated percentage composition of methan e and carbon dioxide in the gas (the default value is a 50/50 split),

 The concentration of nonmethane organic co mpounds (NMOC) found in the landfill gas,

 The concentrations of toxic air pollutants found in the landfill gas, and whether the landfill has been used for disposal of hazardous waste (co-disposal).

 The years the landfill has been in op eration (including the closure year),

 The design capacity of the landfill,

The Landfill Gas Emissions Model has several different default values for k, Lo and NMOC concentration. The EIIP document recommends using AP-42 default values for k, Lo and NMOC concentration when site-specific informa tion is not known. The AP-42 default value for k (0.04/yr) was used for Maryland since it has normal or above nor mal precipitation, rather than the default value. This recommendation is ba sed on a comparison of gas-yield forecasts with landfill gas recovery data. The LandGEM contains a proposed regulatory default value for total VOCs of 595 ppmv expressed as hexane for non-codisposal and 2,420 ppmv for codisposal. However, there is a wide range for total VOC va lues from landfills. The proposed regulatory default value for VOC concentration was develope d for regulatory complia nce purposes and to provide the most cost-effective defa ult values on a national basis fo r the regulation. Therefore, if the landfill is known to contain only municipal solid waste or have very little organic commercial/industrial wastes, then the mean va lue of all VOC concentrations, 595 ppmv as hexane should be used. This was done for Mary land. The AP-42 default values used in the LandGEM to develop Maryland’s landfill inventory are shown in the table below:129 Landgem Model Parameters AP-42 Default Values

Lo : 100.00 m 3 / Mg Methane Generation Potential k : 0.0400 1/yr Decay Rate/Rate of Decomposition NMOC : 595.00 ppmv Non-methane Concentration Methane : 50.00 % volume Carbon Dioxide : 50..00 % volume

Activity Data was obtained from MDE’s Solid Waste Program and from the landfill facilites directly.

Emission Factors All factors are incorparted into the LandGEM itself.

Point Source Adjustments

The Brown Station Sites A & B, Sandy Hill La ndfill, Montgomery County RRF, and Newland Park Landfill are considered Point Sources. La ndGEM model runs for these landfills are not included in the area source emi ssion estimates for landfills.

Emission reductions were calculated for landf ills that used control technology to reduce emissions. Controlled emissions from landfills were calculated in the following manner: Adjustments for Controls

Equation:

E CON-LF = {E UNC-LF x (1 – C EFF )} + {E UNC-LF x C EFF x [1 – (D EFF x RE)]}

Where: E CON-LF = Controlled emissions from landfills

E UNC-LF = Uncontrolled emissions from landfill s (generated from the LandGEM model)

C EFF = Landfill collection efficiency (EPA default = 75%)

D EFF = Control device destruction efficiency (98%)

RE = Rule effectiveness (EPA default 80%)130 Spatial and Temporal Allocations Data for spatial and temporal allocation is not available for this source.131 4.1.6 SMALL STATIONARY SO URCE FOSSIL FUEL USE

4.1.6.1 Small Electric Utility Boilers

All small electric utility boilers are inventoried in the point sour ce category. The list of small boilers from Inventory of Power Plants in the United States , DOE/EIA-0095(88) was obtained and indicated that all small electric boilers were included in the poi nt source inventory.

4.1.6.2 Other Fuel Consumption

Coke and process gas emissions will be inventoried as point sources.132 4.1.6.3 Fuel Oil Combustion

SCC: 21 04 011 000 (residential kerosene) SCC: 21 03 011 000 (commercial/institutional kerosene) SCC: 21 04 004 000 (reside ntial distillate oil) SCC: 21 03 004 000 (commercial/institutional distillate oil) SCC: 21 02 004 000 (industrial distillate oil) SCC: 21 03 005 000 (commercial/institutional residual oil) SCC: 21 02 005 000 (industrial residual oil)

Description

Data collection for fuel oil consumption covers the use of both distil late and residual oil. Distillate oil includes fuel oil grades 1,2 and 4. Diesel fuel and kerosene also can be considered as distillate oils. Residential and commercial/in stitutional sources are the largest consumers of distillate oil, nationwide. Residual oil includes fuel oil grades 5 and 6. In most areas residual oil is not used by residential sources, but industr ial and commercial/institutional users may consume significant amounts.

Pollutants

PM 10 , PM 2.5 , SOx, NOx, CO, VOC

Method and Data Sources Activity Total sales statistics of kerosene, distillate o il, and residual oil in the State of Maryland were obtained from the Annual Report on Sale s of Fuel Oil and Kerosene, 2002, published by Energy Information Administrati on, U.S. Department of Energy 83

.

Emission Factors Emission factors were obtained from AP-42 84 , Tables 1.3-1 and 1.3-3 (hand-fed units).

Uncontrollled Emission Factors – AP-42 Tables 1.3-1 and 1.3-3 Residential Commercial Commercial I ndustrial Industrial Commercial Industrial

Distillate Distillate Residual Distillate Residual Residual 1% S Residual 1% S

83 Total residential distillate oil use in the State of Maryland in 2002 from U.S Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Office of Oil and Gas, Petroleum Marketing Monthly, "Annual Report on Sales of Fuel Oil and Kerosene, 2002".
84 Emission Factors from AP-42 Tables 1.3-1 and 1.3-3133 lbs/Kgal lbs/Kgal lbs/Kgal lbs/ Kgal lbs/Kgal lbs/Kgal lbs/Kgal PM10 1.080 1.080 13.494 1.000 18.714 7.703 10.683 PM2.5 0.830 0.830 5.011 0.250 12.189 2.861 6.958

SOx 43.200 43.200 318.000 43.200 318.000 159.000 159.000 NOx 18.000 20.000 55.000 20.000 55.000 55.000 55.000 CO 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 VOC 0.713 0.340 1.130 0.200 0.280 1.130 0.280

Point Source Adjustments
No subtration of emissions fr om point sources is necessary.

Adjustments for Controls No controls are available for this source category.

Spatial and Temporal Allocations Spatial This information on total sales of kerosene, di stillate oil and residual oil was broken down to the county level using a spatial allocation factor documented and recommended by EIIP 85 in an Area Source Method Abstract for Residential and Comm ercial/Institutional Fuel Oil and Kerosene combustion.

MDE developed an allocation factor from local and state totals of annual heating-degree days and population with fuel oil to spatially allocate fuel oil consumption. The method is

A “heating-degree day” is a unit of measure us ed to indicate how cold it has been over a 24-hour period. Daily heating-degree days ar e calculated as the di fference between the base value of 65°F and the mean temperature for the day (mean of the high and low temperatures for the day).

Annual heating degree days are the sum of the daily heating degree days. Heating degree data is available from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 86

85 Emissions Inventory Improvement Program (EIIP) Area Source Method Abstract – Residential and Commercial/Institutional Fuel Oil and Kerosene Combustion, dated April 2002
86 http://www.noaa.gov (home page) or http://www.ncdc.noaa. gov/ol/climate/climateproduc ts.html#PUBS (for a list of available data)134 4.1.6.4 Coal Combustion SCC: 21 04 002 000 (Residential Coal) SCC: 21 03 002 000 (Commercial/Institutional Coal)

Description Residential Coal This source category covers air emissions from coal combustion in the residential sector. Bituminous coal, mined here in Maryland, represen ts the bulk of the coal used residentially for space heating in the State. Although mined n earby in Pennsylvania, readily available, and cleaner burning, anthracite coal is not used much in Maryland because of its expense.

Pollutants

PM 10 , PM 2.5 , SOx, NOx, CO, VOC

Method and Data Sources

Activity The following assumptions were made in th e computation of emissions from coal combustion from the residential sources.

(i) Number of Dwelling Units using Coal

The number of dwelling units using coal fo r space heating for 2002 was obtained from 1990 Census Profile Series, Social and Economic Characteristics of Population and Housing. The number of new housing units authorized for construction between 1990 and 2002 was obtained from the Maryland Office of Planni ng – New Residential Units Authorized for Construction by Building Permits ( http://www.op.state.md.us) . MDE estimated that no new housing units would be equipped to burn coal as a home heating fuel.

COMAR 26.11.09.04 prohibits the use of solid fu el-burning equipment that has a rated heat input of less than 35 million BTU per hour.

(ii) Residential Coal Activity Consumption Data

The State Energy Data Report, Consump tion Estimates, by the Energy Information Administration, provided information on estimated coal consumption. The report indicates that in Maryland mostly bituminous coal was used in 2002. It was assumed, therefore, that bituminous coal was consumed by most of the ha nd-fired residential coal sources in the State of Maryland.135 Emission Factors

Emission factors were obtained from AP-42 , Tables 1.1-3 and 1.1-19 (hand-fed units).

Coal Emission Factors NOx (lbs./kgal) CO (lbs./kgal) VOC (lbs./kgal) PM 10 (lbs./kgal) SOx 87 (lbs./kgal) Residential 9.10 275.00 10.00 6.20 62.00

Point Source Adjustments
No subtration of emissions fr om point sources is necessary.

Adjustments for Controls No controls are available for this source category.

Spatial and Temporal Allocations Spatial MDE developed an allocation factor from local and state totals of annual heating-degree days and housing units heating with coal to spatially allocated coal consumption. The method is documented and recommended by EIIP 88 in an Area Source Method Abstract for natural gas and LPG combustion. Because th e emission factor was specifically adjusted to reflect seasonal emissions through heating degree days, no further seasonal adjustment factor is necessary.

A “heating-degree day” is a unit of measure us ed to indicate how cold it has been over a 24-hour period. Daily heating-degree days ar e calculated as the di fference between the base value of 65°F and the mean temperature for the day (mean of the high and low temperatures for the day).

Annual heating-degree days are the sum of th e daily heating-degree days. Heating degree data is available from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 89

87 MDE assumed an average sulfur content in coal of 2%
88 Emissions Inventory Improvement Program (EIIP) Area Source Method Abstract – Natural Gas and LPG Combustion, dated April 2002
89 http://www.noaa.gov (home page) or http://www.ncdc.noaa. gov/ol/climate/climateproduc ts.html#PUBS (for a list of available data)136 

## ∑ =

sInState AllCountie County County ounty InventoryC ounty InventoryC ounty InventoryC CHU HDD CHU HDD SAF )*( *

Where: SAF INVENTORY COUNTY = Spatial apportioning factor for inventory county HDD INVENTORY COUNTY = Annual heating degree days for inventory county CHU INVENTORY COUNTY = Housing units using coal in inventory county HDD COUNTY = Annual heating degree days for each county in the state CHU COUNTY = Housing units using coal for each county in the state

The spatial apportioning factor is used to allocate the state fuel total to the county level using the following equation:

Coal INVENTORY COUNTY = SAF INVENTORY COUNTY x Coal TOTAL STATE

Where: Coal INVENTORY COUNTY = Total Coal fuel consum ed in the inventory county Coal TOTAL STATE = Total Coal fuel consum ed in the inventory county

Temporal MDE assumed that all residential coal combus tion is used for space heating purposes. The total coal consumed in the county can be a llocated by month or peri od using proportions of annual and monthly (or period) heating-degree days.

HDD MONTH Residential Fuel MONTH = Residential Fuel ANNUAL x HDD ANNUAL

where: Residential Fuel MONTH = Space heating fuel use for inventory month Residential Fuel ANNUAL = Space heating fuel use for inventory year HDD MONTH = Heating degree da ys for inventory month HDD ANNUAL = Heating degree days for inventory year

Emissions Calculation Ozone Season Daily Emissions Equation:

(EF COAL i x Coal Space Heat - J ) HDD Co Oz Season 2000 x HDD Co Annual E COAL = Ozone DAYS137 E COALG = Ozone Season Daily emissions from residential coal combustion EF COAL i = Emission factor for coal combustion for pollutant i Coal Space Heat - J = Coal consumed for space heating in county j HDD Co Oz Season = Number of heating degree da ys in county for ozone season HDD Co Annual = Number of heating degree da ys in county in the calendar year 2002 Ozone DAYS = Number of days in the ozone season: 214 Residential; 168 Commercial

Residential Coal Combustion Sample Calcula tion (Allegany County) (tons / ozone season day)

Total Residential Coal Consumpti on – State of Maryland 8,360 tons

To calculate spatial apportioni ng factor for Allegany County:

HDD INVENTORY COUNTY x CHU INVENTORY COUNTY SAF ALLEGANY COUNTY = ∑ ALL COUNTIES IN STATE (HDD COUNTY x CHU COUNTY )

SAF ALLEGANY COUNTY = 0.045531138 To calculate tons of coal used in Allegany County:

Residential Coal ALLEGANY COUNTY = SAF ALLEGANY COUNTY x Coal TOTAL STATE Residential Coal ALLEGANY COUNTY = 0.045531 x 8,360 Residential Coal ALLEGANY COUNTY = 380.6408 tons

Coal used for space heating in ozone season in Allegany County

HDD PERIOD Residential Space Heating Fuel PERIOD = Space Heating Fuel ANNUAL x HDD ANNUAL 1093 Residential Space Heating Fuel PERIOD = 380.6408 x 5234
Residential Space Heating Fuel PERIOD = 79.48804 tons

Equation:

Residential Coal VOC Ozone Season Day Emission Calculation for Allegany County

(EF COAL i x Coal Space Heat - J ) (2000 x 214) E COAL =

(10.0 x 79.48804 ) E COAL = (2000 x 214)

E COAL = 0.0019 tons VOC / Ozone season day139 Description – Commercial and Institutional Coal

Commercial and Institutional sources of coal combustion above the point source threshold are included in the point source portion of the i nventory. The following table lists area source emissions from commercial and institutional sources smaller than the threshold values.

Methods and Data Sources

The following assumptions were made in the co mputation of emissions from coal combustion from the commercial and institutional sources not included in the point source inventory.

Activity (i) Coal Consumption Data

The State Energy Data Report (SEDR) estimated that approximately 68, 000 tons/year of total coal was used commerically by Maryland in 2002.

(ii) Number of Dwelling Units using Coal

The number of dwelling units using coal fo r space heating for 2002 was obtained from 1990 Census Profile Series, Social and Economic Characteristics of Population and Housing. The number of new housing units authorized for construction between 1990 and 2002 was obtained from the Maryland Office of Planni ng – New Residential Units Authorized for Construction by Building Permits ( http://www.op.state.md.us) . MDE estimated that no new housing units would be equipped to burn coal as a home heating fuel.

COMAR 26.11.09.04 prohibits the use of solid fu el-burning equipment that has a rated heat input of less than 35 million BTU per hour. Emission Factors

Emission factors were obtained from AP-42 , Tables 1.1-3 and 1.1-19 (average of overfeed and underfeed stoker).

Coal Emission Factors NOx (lbs./kgal) CO (lbs./kgal) VOC (lbs./kgal) PM 10 (lbs./kgal) SOx 90 (lbs./kgal) Commercial / Institutional 8.50 8.50 0.675 6.10 69

90 MDE assumed an average sulfur content in coal of 2%140 Point Source Adjustments
No subtration of emissions fr om point sources is necessary.

Adjustments for Controls No controls are available for this source category.

Spatial and Temporal Allocations Spatial Spatial and temporal allocation to this source category were calculated in the same manner as the residential coal combustion category.

Temporal Spatial and temporal allocation to this source category were calculated in the same manner as the residential coal combustion category.

Emissions Calculation141 4.1.6.5 Natural Gas Combustion SCC: 21 04 060 000 (Residential Natural Gas) SCC: 21 03 060 000 (Commercial/Institutional Natural Gas)

Description

This source category covers air emissions from natural gas combustion in the residential and commercial/institutional sectors for space heating, water heating, and cooking. This category includes small boilers, furnaces, heaters and other h eating units that are not inventoried as point sources. Residential and commercial sectors co mprise housing units; wholesale and retail businesses; health institutions; social and educat ional institutions; and Federal, state and local government institutions (e.g., military installations , prisons, office buildings). Natural gas is one of the major fuels used throughout the country. It is used mainly for power generation, for industrial process steam and heat production, and for domestic and commercial space heating. It is also used for domestic c ooking and hot water heating.

Pollutants

PM 10 , PM 2.5 , SOx, NOx, CO, VOC

Method and Data Sources

The following assumptions were made in the com putation of the emissions from natural gas combustion.

Activity (i) Number of Dwelling Units using Natural Gas

The number of dwelling units using natura l gas for space heating for 2002 was obtained from 1990 Census Profile Series, Social and Economic Characteristics of Population and Housing. The number of new housing units au thorized for construction between 1990 and 2002 was obtained from the Maryland Offi ce of Planning – New Residential Units Authorized for Construction by Building Permits ( http://www.op.state.md.us) . The total number of additional housing units constructe d in the county was apportioned to type of home heating fuel by the same ratio as the 1990 Census figures.

(ii) Residential and Commerci al/Institutional Natural Gas Consumption Data

Total residential and commercial/institutional na tural gas consumption data in the State of Maryland for 2002 was obtained from surveying the following companies: Baltimore Gas and Electric ( Constellation Energy Group ), Washington Gas Ener gy Services (Maryland142 Division), Chesapeake Utilities Corporation, Columbia Gas of Maryland, Easton Utility Commission, and Elkton Gas Co mpany. The companies provided natural gas sales statistics for the year 2002 in therms or cubi c feet for all counties in their service area for the residential, commercial, and industrial cate gories. These statistics were then converted into million cubic feet using a conversion factor of 1 therm equals 100 cubic feet.

Emission Factors (iii) Emission Factors – Natural Gas

Emission factors for combustion of natural gas in commercia l boilers are presented in Table 1.4-1 and 1.4-2 of Section 1.4 of AP-42 . The emission factors for PM are assumed to be less than 1.0 micrometers in diameter. Therefore the PM emisson facotrs preseneted may be used to estimate PM10, PM2.5 or PM1. Total PM is the sum of filterable and condensable PM. AP-42 Tables 1.4-1 - 1.4-2.

Natural Gas Emission Factors Nox (lbs./10 6 scf) CO (lbs./10 6 scf) VOC (lbs./10 6 scf) PM 10 (lbs./10 6 scf) PM 2.5 (lbs./10 6 scf) SOx (lbs./10 6 scf) Residential 94 40 5.50 1.90 1.90 0.60 Commercial 94 84 5.50 1.90 1.90 0.60

Point Source Adjustments
No subtration of emissions fr om point sources is necessary.

Adjustments for Controls No controls are available for this source category.

Spatial and Temporal Allocations Spatial The natural gas survey of suppliers provide d MDE with county totals for natural gas consumption. Therefore MDE did not have to use an allocation factor derived from local and state totals of annual heating degree days and housing units heating with natural gas to spatially allocated natural gas c onsumption to the county level.

1 The VOC emission factor is 11.0 with 34% methane. The number listed is the nonmethane emission factor.
2 The VOC emission factor is 5.80 with 52% methane. The number listed is the nonmethane emission factor.143 Temporal In addition to space heating, natural gas is of ten used for cooking and water heating. For ozone and other seasonal inventories, cons umption for cooking and water heating may be assumed to be constant through the year, but fuel used for space heating must be apportioned according to heating needs.

To separate residential space heating natura l gas usage from cooking and water heating, MDE used data from the State Energy Da ta Report, Consumption Estimates, Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, U.S. Department of Energy. Specifically data was collected fr om Table 15 – Natural Gas Deliveries to Residential Customers, by State, 1998-2002. Th e residential deliveries for the month with the lowest deliveries can be assumed to be only for cooking and water heating. The percentage of residential na tural gas consumption for cooking and water heating may then be calculated:

12 * Lowest Monthly Fuel Use Annual Non-Space Heating Percent = Annual Fuel Use * 100

12 * 1635 Annual Non-Space Heating Percent = 80,447 * 100 Annual Non-Space Heating Percent = 24.389 %

The annual non-space heating percent can be calculated in a similar manner for commercial/institutional natural gas usage. The percentage of commercial/institutional natural gas consumption for non-space heating may then be calculated:

12 * Lowest Monthly Fuel Use Annual Non-Space Heating Percent = Annual Fuel Use * 100

12 * 2440 Annual Non-Space Heating Percent = 65323 * 100 Annual Non-Space Heating Percent = 44.823 %

This percentage may be applied to the i nventory area’s total residential and/or commercial/institutional natural gas consumpti on to calculate the non-space heating portion of usage. This portion can be subtracted from the annual total, and the remaining consumption, which is being used for space h eating, can be allocated by month or period using proportions of annual and mont hly or period heating degree days.

HDD MONTH Space Heat Fuel MONTH = Space Heat Fuel ANNUAL x HDD ANNUAL

Where:144 Space Heat Fuel MONTH = Space heating fuel use for inventory month Space Heat Fuel ANNUAL = Space heating fuel use for inventory year HDD MONTH = Heating degree days for inventory month HDD ANNUAL = Heating degree days for inventory year

Emissions Calculation

Emission Calculation – Resident ial Ozone Season Daily Emissions

Equation:

Days Jp HotWaterAp iNatGas

CoAnnual CoOzSeason J SpaceHeat iNatGas

NatGas Ozone NG EF
HDD HDD NG EF

E ⎥ ⎦ ⎤ ⎢ ⎣ ⎡ + ⎥ ⎦ ⎤ ⎢ ⎣ ⎡

= − − − − 2000 * * 2000 ) *(

E NatGas = Ozone Season Daily emissions from natural gas combustion EF NatGas-i = Emission factor for natu ral gas combustion for pollutant i NG Space Heat - J = Natural gas consumed for space heating in county j HDD Co Oz Season = Number of heating degree days in county for ozone season HDD Co Annual = Number of heating degree da ys in county in the calendar year 2002 NG Hot water/App - J = Natural gas consumed for dur ing ozone season by hot water and appliances in county j Ozone DAYS = Number of days in the ozone season: 214 Residential; 168 Commercial

Total Residential Natural Gas Consumption – Baltimore City 91 14,483 M ft 3

Percent natural gas used for cooking & appliances in the State of Maryland 92

Total Natural Gas Delivered Lowest Monthly Delivery of Natural Gas Percent of Natural Gas used for Cooking & Water Heating Res Comm Res Comm Res Comm State of Maryland 80,447 65323 1635 2440 24.389 % 44.823 %

Percent natural gas used for cooking & appliances in Baltimore City

Residential NG Hot water/App - J = 24.389 % x NG BALTIOMORE COUNTY Residential NG Hot water/App - J = 24.389 % x 14,483

3 Natural gas consumption data gathered from MDE survey – Baltimore County data from BGE
4 Lowest summer monthly total is assumed to be for cooking and appliances.145 Residential NG Hot water/App - J = 3,532.130 M ft 3

Natural gas used for space heating in Baltimore County

Residential NG Space Heat - J = 14,483 – 3,532.130 M ft 3 Residential NG Space Heat - J = 10,951 M ft 3

Natural gas used for space heating in ozone season in Baltimore City

HDD PERIOD Residential Space Heating Fuel PERIOD = Space Heating Fuel ANNUAL x HDD ANNUAL 605 Residential Space Heating Fuel PERIOD = 10,951 x 3884
Residential Space Heating Fuel PERIOD = 1,705.807 M ft 3

Natural gas used for hot water and applia nces in ozone season in Baltimore City

Months ozone season Residential Hot Water Fuel PERIOD = Hot Water Fuel ANNUAL x Months Year 7 Residential Hot Water Fuel PERIOD = 3532.130 x 12

Residential Hot Water Fuel PERIOD = 2,060.409 M ft 3

Equation:

VOC Ozone Season Day Emission Calculation

(EF NG i x NG Space Heat - J ) + (EF NG i x N Hot water/App - J ) (2000 x 214) E NatGas =

(5.5 x 1,705.807) + (5.5 x 2,060.409) E NatGas = (2000 x 214)

E NatGas = 0.0484 tons VOC / Ozone season day

The same equation and methodology can be used to estimate emission of various pollutants.146 4.1.6.6 Liquified Petroleum Gas Combustion SCC: 21 04 007 000 (Residential LPG) SCC: 21 03 007 000 (Commercial/Institutional LPG)

Description

This source category covers air emissions from liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) combustion in the residential and commercial sectors for space heating, water heating, or cooking. LPG includes propane, propylene, butane, and butylenes. The product used for domestic heating is composed primarily of propane. This category includes sm all boilers, furnaces, heaters and other heating units that are not inventoried as point sources. Residential a nd commercial sectors comprise housing units; wholesale and retail businesses; health institutions; so cial and educational institutions; and Federal, state and local government institutions (e.g., military installations, prisons, office buildings).

Pollutants

PM 10 , PM 2.5 , SOx, NOx, CO, VOC

Method and Data Sources

The following assumptions were made in the co mputation of the emissions from liquified petroleum gas (LPG) combustion.

Activity 1. Number of Dwelling Units using LPG

The number of dwelling units using LPG fo r space heating for 2002 was obtained from 1990 Census Profile Series, Social and Ec onomic Characteristics of Population and Housing. The number of new housing units au thorized for construc tion between 1990 and 2002 was obtained from the Maryland Offi ce of Planning – New Residential Units Authorized for Construction by Building Permits ( http://www.op.state.md.us) . The total number of additional housing units constructe d in the county was apportioned to type of home heating fuel by the same ratio as the 1990 Census figures.

2. Residential and Commercial LPG Activity Consumption Data

Total residential and commercial LPG consump tion data for space heating in the State of Maryland (LPG ST ) for 2002 were obtained from State Energy Data Report, Consumption Estimates, Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, U.S.Department of Energy.147 Emission Factors Emission factors for combustion of LPG in comm ercial boilers are presented in Table 1.5- 1 of Section 1.5 of AP-42 (EPA, 1998a). The LPG emission f actor for PM may be assumed to represent PM 10 emissions. Because no emission factors were located for the combustion of LPG for residential consumption, emission factors for commercial boilers may be used for residential emissions. PM 10 and SOx emission factors listed below are averages of the commercial emission factors for boilers that use propane and butane. The SOx emission factors reported below were calculated usi ng the AP-42 emission factor and multiplied by the sulfur content of th e fuel (S = 0.18).

LPG Emission Factors NOx (lbs./kgal) CO (lbs./kgal) VOC (lbs./kgal) PM 10 (lbs./kgal) PM 2.5 (lbs./kgal) SOx (lbs./kgal) Residential 14 1.9 0.5 0.45 0.0 0.0171 Commercial 14 1.9 0.5 0.45 0.0 0.0171

Point Source Adjustments
No subtration of emissions fr om point sources is necessary.

Adjustments for Controls No controls are available for this source category.

Spatial and Temporal Allocations Spatial MDE developed an allocation factor from local and state totals of annual heating degree days and housing units heating with liquid propane ga s to spatially alloca ted liquid propane gas consumption. The method is documented and recommended by EIIP 93 in an Area Source Method Abstract for natura l gas and LPG combustion.

A “heating degree day” is a unit of measure us ed to indicate how cold it has been over a 24- hour period. Daily heating degree days are calc ulated as the difference between the base value of 65°F and the mean temperature for th e day (mean of the high and low temperatures for the day).

93 Emissions Inventory Improvement Program (EIIP) Area Source Method Abstract – Natural Gas and LPG Combustion, dated April 2002148 Annual heating degree days are the sum of the daily heating degree days. Heating degree data is available from the National Oceanographi c and Atmospheric Ad ministration (NOAA). 94

HDD INVENTORY COUNTY x LP-HU INVENTORY COUNTY SAF INVENTORY COUNTY = ∑ ALL COUNTIES IN STATE (HDD COUNTY x LP-HU COUNTY )

Where: SAF INVENTORY COUNTY = Spatial apportioning factor for inventory county HDD INVENTORY COUNTY = Annual heating degree days for inventory county LP-HU INVENTORY COUNTY = Housing units using LP gas for inventory county HDD COUNTY = Annual heating degree da ys for each county in the state LP-HU COUNTY = Housing units using LP gas for each county in the state

The spatial apportioning factor is used to allocate the state fu el total to the county level using the following equation:

LPG INVENTORY COUNTY = SAF INVENTORY COUNTY x LPG TOTAL STATE

Where: LPG INVENTORY COUNTY = Total LPG fuel consumed in the inventory county LPG TOTAL STATE = Total LPG fuel consumed in the inventory county

Temporal In addition to space heating, liquid propane gas is often used for cooking and water heating. For ozone and other seasonal inventories, cons umption for cooking and water heating may be assumed to be constant through the year, but fu el used for space heating must be apportioned according to heating needs.

To separate residential space heating usage fr om cooking and water heating, MDE used data from the State Energy Data Report, Consumption Estimates, Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and En d Use, U.S. Department of Energy. Data was obtained from the follow reports:

1. Water-Heating Energy Consumption in U.S. Households by South Census Region 2000 2. Appliances Energy Consumption in U.S. Households by South Census Region 2000 3. Total Energy Consumption in U.S. H ouseholds by South Census Region 2000 4. Data from Maryland Office of Planning - New Residential Units Authorized for Construction by Building Permits

The percentage of liquid propane gas consum ption for cooking and water heating may then be calculated by developing a ratio between the amount of LPG used for hot water, appliances, and the total amount of LPG consumed (space heating + hot water + appliances).

94 http://www.noaa.gov (home page) or http://www.ncdc.noaa. gov/ol/climate/climateproduc ts.html#PUBS (for a list of available data)149 Also, 2002 residential LPG usage was estimate d by taking the percent of new housing units constructed in 2000 and applying it to 2001 and 2002 new housing construction data from the Maryland Department of Planning.

amount of LPG used for hot water and appliances Percent of LPG used for cooking & appliances = total amount of LPG consumed (100 + 43)
= 572

= 0.25

Therefore 25 percent of the annual LPG cons umed is used for non-space heating and an individual county’s residential LPG consump tion total for hot water and appliances can be calculated as follows:

LPG Hot water/App - J = 25% x LPG INVENTORY COUNTY

Where: LPG Hot water/App - J = LPG consumed for hot wate r and appliances in county j

This percentage may be applied to the invent ory area’s total reside ntial liquid propane gas consumption to calculate the cook ing and water heating portion of usage. This portion can be subtracted from the annual total, and the remain ing consumption, which is being used for space heating, can be allocated by m onth or period using proportions of annual and monthly or period heating degree days.

HDD MONTH Residential Fuel MONTH = Residential Fuel ANNUAL x HDD ANNUAL

where: Residential Fuel MONTH = Space heating fuel use for inventory month Residential Fuel ANNUAL = Space heating fuel use for inventory year HDD MONTH = Heating degree da ys for inventory month HDD ANNUAL = Heating degree days for inventory year

Emissions Calculation

Emission Calculation

Ozone Season Daily Emissions

Equation:150 (EF LPG i x LPG Space Heat - J ) HDD Co Oz Season (EF LPG i x LPG Hot water/App -

J ) 2000 x HDD Co Annual + 2000 E LPG =

Ozone DAYS

E LPG = Ozone Season Daily emissions from liquid propane gas combustion EF LPG i = Emission factor for LPG combustion for pollutant i LPG Space Heat - J = LPG consumed for space heating in county j HDD Co Oz Season = Number of heating degree da ys in county for ozone season HDD Co Annual = Number of heating degree days in county in the calendar year 2002 LPG Hot water/App - J = LPG consumed for during ozone se ason by hot water and appliances in county j Ozone DAYS = Number of days in the ozone season: 214 Residential; 168 Commercial

Residential LPG Combustion Sample Calculation (Baltimore City) (tons / ozone season day)

Total Residential LPG Consumption – State of Maryland 56,532 kgal

To calculate spatial apportioning factor for Baltimore City:

HDD INVENTORY COUNTY x NHU INVENTORY COUNTY SAF BALTIMORE CITY = ∑ ALL COUNTIES IN STATE (HDD COUNTY x NHU COUNTY )

SAF BALTIMORE CITY = 0.07543338

To calculate kilogallons of liquified petroleum gas (LPG) used in Baltimore County:

Residential LPG BALTIMORE CITY = SAF BALTIMORE COUNTY x LPG TOTAL STATE Residential LPG BALTIMORE CITY = 0.07543338 x 56,532 Residential LPG BALTIMORE CITY = 4,264.4 kilogallons

LPG used for cooking & appliances in Baltimore City Residential LPG Hot water/App - J = 25% x LPG BALTIOMORE COUNTY Residential LPG Hot water/App - J = 25% x 4,264.4 Residential LPG Hot water/App - J = 1,066.1 kilogallons

LPG used for space heating in Baltimore County Residential LPG Space Heat - J = 4,264.4 – 1,066.1 Residential LPG Space Heat - J = 3,198.3151 LPG used for space heating in ozone season in Baltimore City

HDD PERIOD Residential Space Heating Fuel PERIOD = Space Heating Fuel

ANNUAL x HDD ANNUAL 0.00 Residential Space Heating Fuel PERIOD = 3,198.3 x 3884
Residential Space Heating Fuel PERIOD = 0.00 kgal

LPG used for hot water and appliances in ozone season in Baltimore County

Months ozone season Residential Hot Water Fuel PERIOD = Hot Water Fuel ANNUAL x Months Year 7 Residential Hot Water Fuel PERIOD = 1,066.1 x 12

Residential Hot Water Fuel PERIOD = 621.89 kgal

Equation:

VOC Ozone Season Day Emission Calculation

(EF LPG i x LPG Space Heat - J ) + (EF LPG i x LPG Hot water/App - J ) (2000 x 214) E LPG =

(0.5 x 0.00 ) + (0.5 x 621.89) E LPG = (2000 x 214)

E LPG = 0.00073 tons VOC / Ozone season day152 4.1.6.7 Wood Combustion SCC: 21 04 008 000 (Residential Wood Combustion)

Description

This source category covers air emissions from wood combustion in th e residential sectors primarily for space heating and aesthetics. This MANE-VU RWC inve ntory includes emission estimates for indoor wood-burning equipment (e.g . fireplaces, woodstoves, pellet stoves,furnaces/boilers) and outdoor woodburning equipment (e.g. outdoor fireplaces, fire pits, woodfired barbecues, chimineas).

Pollutants

PM 10 , SOx, NOx, CO, VOC, and Toxics

Method and Data Sources

The method used to calculate emissions is pres ented in a study/survey conducted by the MidAtlantic Regional Air Management Associ ation (MARAMA), titled “Residential Wood Combustion Emission Inventory.” 95

Activity In order to improve the RWC inventory fo r MANE-VU, a survey was developed and implemented in the region. The data sources used to construct the inventory include census tract-level housing data from the 2000 census. At the census tract-level, housing units are broken out into two categories: singlefamily units (including both detached and attached units up to two units ) and multi-family units (all other housing un its, including mobile homes). In previous technical memora nda, Pechan described the development of these data and the methods used to designate MANE-VU census tracts into one of three categories: urban, suburban, and rural. The rural category was furt her broken out into forested and non-forested categories.

The survey results were converted to emissions per survey response, and were then used to develop an emissions model for the source ca tegory. For indoor wood burning equipment, the survey was designed to obtain inform ation on equipment type. Indoor equipment includes fireplaces, woodstoves (both conventio nal and certified), furnace/boilers and pellet stoves. However, due to concerns re garding the loss of statistical precision in estimating equipment level emissions, estimates at the equipment level were not made.

95 Residential Wood Combustion Emission Inventory, Preparted by E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc. for the MidAtlantic Regional Air Management Association, dated June 22, 2004.153 Emissions were estimated at a more genera l level: outdoor and indoor equipment. Outdoor equipment includes barbeques, fireplaces, fire pits, and chimineas.

During this project, Pechan prepared six te chnical memoranda (TM) to document different phases of the project. The reader should consult these documents, located on the MidAtlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU) website www.mane-vu.org or on the Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association’s (MARAMA’s) website
www.marama.org for details on each component of the project. The technical memoranda and important follow-up notes are as follows:

• TM#1- MANE-VU Residential Wood Combus tion EI Project: Sample Frame Development – this TM described the development of the sample frame to be used during the project. Note that the sample fr ame had incorrect values of the number of homes in the MANE-VU Region. This issue was resolved prior to data analysis and inventory development. The correct values are shown in Table 1 below. The total number of MANE-VU single- family households was 12,660,767 and the total number of multi-family units was 12,265,129;

• TM#2 - MANE-VU Residential Wood Combustion EI Project: Format for Activity Data in the Wood Consumption Model – This TM described the data formats for developing the wood consumption model from the survey data, including temporal profiles. Note that for indoor equipment, most of the me thods were not used si nce equipment-specific consumption estimates were not used to develop emission estimates (instead, the general linear model presented in TM#5 was used);

• TM#3 - MANE-VU Residential Wood Combustion EI Project: Pilot Survey and Final Survey Instrument – This TM provided the results of the pilot survey and the final survey instrument (questionnaire) for the survey);

• TM#4 - Results of MANE-VU Residentia l Wood Combustion Activity Survey – This TM provided statistical summaries of the survey results;

• TM#5 - MANE-VU Residential Wood Combusti on Survey Data Analysis and Emission Inventory Inputs – this TM provided a description of the methods used to analyze the survey data, the development of activity va riables to estimate emissions from indoor and outdoor equipment, and the emission fact ors to be applied. It was during the review of this TM that a different met hod was developed to estimate emissions for indoor equipment based on emission estimates constructed from each survey response (instead of estimating equipment level activ ity, which was originally envisioned for this project). This new method avoided the lo wering of statistical precision (error) in the extrapolation of survey data, since i ndividual responses were not divided into multiple equipment types. A description of the development of the general linear model for estimating emissions from indoor equipm ent was incorporated into the final TM. Outdoor equipment emissions were estimated using a user fraction (UF) and annual consumption (AC) estimate developed from the survey data; and

• TM#6 - MANE-VU Residential Wood Combustion Emission Inventory – this TM provided the results of the emission inve ntory constructed from the number of households in the 2000 Census (no adjustme nts to reflect 2002 housing changes were made) and the activity variables and emi ssion factors documented in TM#5. During a154 review of the draft TM#6, reviewers que stioned the wood density value used by Pechan to construct the activity variables in TM#5 (2.1 tons/cord; based on the high end of the range reported for oak species). Pe chan reviewed the primary types of wood reported by the survey respondents. Oak/hic kory was the most popular choice provided in the survey and very little softwood (e.g., pine, hemlock) was reported. The next most popular choice was “other hardwood”. Pechan developed a weighted estimate of wood density from the survey responses of 1.8 tons/cord that was used to scale the emission estimates by a factor of 0.86 (1.8/2.1).

Emission Factors Emission factors for wood combustion in residen tial fireplaces are presented in Table 1.9-1 Section 1.9 of AP-42 . The wood combustion emission factor for PM may be assumed to represent PM 10 emissions. Because no emission factor s were located for the combustion of wood for commercial consumption, emission factor s for residential fireplaces were used to estimate commercial emissions.

Residential Wood Combusti on Emission Factors NOx (lbs./ton) CO (lbs./ton) VOC (lbs./ton) PM 10 (lbs./ton) SOx (lbs./ton) Residential 2.6 252.6 229 34.6 0.4

Point Source Adjustments
No subtration of emissions fr om point sources is necessary.

Adjustments for Controls No controls are available for this source category.

Spatial and Temporal Allocations Spatial To produce county-level temporal profiles, the same process used to go from response level profiles to group-level prof iles was used to go from gr oup profiles to county profiles. Activity or emissions for each census tract we re assigned to each temporal unit based on the tract level temporal profiles. These values were then summed across all tracts in the county and normalized to gi ve activity fractions.155 Temporal Temporal allocation profiles were also devel oped for this project using the residential wood survey data. Profiles were first deve loped for each sample group. Activity (for outdoor equipment) or emissions (for indoor equipment) for each respondent was divided among the different temporal units (e.g., di urnal, weekly, monthly), based on their response to the temporal survey questions. For example, if a respondent reported only burning wood on weekdays, the activity value di vided by 5 was assigned to each weekday, with zero activity assigned to Saturday and Sunday. For the diurnal profiles, the survey data indicated whether respondents burned wood in the morning, evening, or both. Since it is unlikely that emissions take place only in the morning and evening hours, activity was allocated to the entire 24-hour period by assigning 75% of mo rning activity to the hours of 6 a.m. to 12 p.m. and 25% of the morning ac tivity to the hours 12 midnight to 6 p.m. The hours of 6 p.m. to 12 noon were assigned 75% of the evening activ ity; and 25% of the evening activity went to the hours 12 midnight to 6 a.m.

Once a fraction of the total activity was assi gned to each temporal unit for each survey response, the temporal unit activity was summed across all respondents in that sample group. (i.e., survey frame cell; sample groups used for the temporal profiles are the same as those use to develop model parameters.) Th e resulting activity values were used to calculate activity fractions (i.e., activity for Monday was divided by the sum of activity for Monday through Sunday). The resulting profiles were then assigned to each census tract based on the sample group (survey frame cell).

Monthly Temporal Allocation Files

FIPS ST FIPS CNTY May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb March April

INDOOR EQUIPMENT

24 001 0.0201 0.0061 0.0053 0.0059 0.0330 0.0703 0.1329 0.1895 0.2107 0.1835 0.1018 0.0408

24 003 0.0300 0.0079 0.0004 0.0004 0.0155 0.0679 0.1351 0.2086 0.2263 0.1826 0.0954 0.0299

24 005 0.0192 0.0051 0.0004 0.0004 0.0154 0.0676 0.1330 0.2111 0.2343 0.1868 0.0997 0.0269

24 009 0.0302 0.0069 0.0003 0.0003 0.0196 0.0821 0.1376 0.1881 0.2271 0.1751 0.0992 0.0336

24 011 0.0411 0.0108 0.0049 0.0049 0.0213 0.0747 0.1464 0.1912 0.1869 0.1594 0.1101 0.0483

24 013 0.0381 0.0096 0.0015 0.0015 0.0197 0.0801 0.1412 0.1878 0.2108 0.1688 0.1021 0.0388

24 015 0.0272 0.0063 0.0012 0.0012 0.0201 0.0792 0.1387 0.1913 0.2234 0.1748 0.1015 0.0349

24 017 0.0264 0.0059 0.0004 0.0004 0.0192 0.0798 0.1365 0.1922 0.2298 0.1773 0.0995 0.0324

24 019 0.0396 0.0104 0.0052 0.0052 0.0214 0.0739 0.1464 0.1923 0.1866 0.1596 0.1109 0.0485

24 021 0.0270 0.0062 0.0003 0.0003 0.0192 0.0807 0.1367 0.1908 0.2296 0.1770 0.0999 0.0324

24 023 0.0135 0.0028 0.0001 0.0001 0.0308 0.0830 0.1328 0.1922 0.2346 0.1795 0.0992 0.0315

24 025 0.0258 0.0059 0.0002 0.0002 0.0186 0.0785 0.1361 0.1942 0.2311 0.1790 0.0991 0.0313

24 027 0.0171 0.0037 0.0002 0.0002 0.0171 0.0728 0.1326 0.2046 0.2397 0.1855 0.0988 0.0275

24 029 0.0354 0.0091 0.0062 0.0062 0.0220 0.0718 0.1465 0.1953 0.1853 0.1591 0.1130 0.0500

24 031 0.0283 0.0084 0.0005 0.0005 0.0132 0.0612 0.1342 0.2179 0.2238 0.1861 0.0978 0.0278

24 033 0.0288 0.0084 0.0005 0.0005 0.0141 0.0642 0.1351 0.2134 0.2234 0.1845 0.0985 0.0286

24 035 0.0420 0.0110 0.0048 0.0048 0.0213 0.0751 0.1465 0.1905 0.1870 0.1592 0.1095 0.0483

24 037 0.0232 0.0050 0.0016 0.0016 0.0203 0.0787 0.1377 0.1930 0.2259 0.1755 0.1026 0.0349156 Monthly Temporal Allocation Files

FIPS ST FIPS CNTY May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb March April

24 039 0.0388 0.0102 0.0053 0.0053 0.0214 0.0735 0.1464 0.1929 0.1865 0.1598 0.1115 0.0485

24 041 0.0405 0.0106 0.0050 0.0050 0.0214 0.0744 0.1464 0.1917 0.1867 0.1594 0.1104 0.0485

24 043 0.0282 0.0067 0.0007 0.0007 0.0192 0.0793 0.1377 0.1918 0.2257 0.1761 0.1006 0.0334

24 045 0.0454 0.0122 0.0035 0.0035 0.0200 0.0758 0.1455 0.1900 0.1908 0.1616 0.1063 0.0454

24 047 0.0454 0.0127 0.0016 0.0016 0.0189 0.0790 0.1444 0.1864 0.1981 0.1655 0.1059 0.0405

24 510 0.0155 0.0090 0.0017 0.0017 0.0106 0.0548 0.1384 0.2232 0.2074 0.1892 0.1241 0.0245
OUTDOOR EQUIPMENT

24 001 0.11361 0.16657 0.20437 0.18379 0.12888 0.05809 0.02881 0.02123 0.01978 0.00000 0.02695 0.02802

24 003 0.13179 0.16662 0.19877 0.17039 0.12977 0.04442 0.02922 0.01872 0.01575 0.00000 0.04004 0.03449

24 005 0.12837 0.16509 0.19193 0.16790 0.12382 0.05275 0.03363 0.02165 0.01721 0.00000 0.03996 0.03403

24 009 0.11321 0.16773 0.21049 0.18790 0.13325 0.05402 0.02540 0.01941 0.01934 0.00000 0.02486 0.02731

24 011 0.10593 0.16687 0.20836 0.19049 0.12970 0.06266 0.02771 0.02177 0.02134 0.00000 0.02094 0.02514

24 013 0.11553 0.16720 0.20701 0.18443 0.13134 0.05428 0.02702 0.01995 0.01907 0.00000 0.02736 0.02840

24 015 0.11000 0.16659 0.20563 0.18655 0.12881 0.06069 0.02865 0.02168 0.02057 0.00000 0.02431 0.02673

24 017 0.11655 0.16681 0.20465 0.18238 0.12990 0.05500 0.02820 0.02045 0.01902 0.00000 0.02871 0.02896

24 019 0.10548 0.16661 0.20714 0.18996 0.12868 0.06400 0.02848 0.02226 0.02157 0.00000 0.02102 0.02511

24 021 0.11607 0.16641 0.20270 0.18141 0.12834 0.05690 0.02938 0.02117 0.01932 0.00000 0.02900 0.02899

24 023 0.10116 0.16661 0.20852 0.19317 0.12850 0.06721 0.02835 0.02284 0.02252 0.00000 0.01790 0.02357

24 025 0.12098 0.16625 0.20030 0.17722 0.12792 0.05386 0.03000 0.02077 0.01831 0.00000 0.03280 0.03082

24 027 0.12475 0.16568 0.19613 0.17253 0.12590 0.05323 0.03180 0.02119 0.01774 0.00000 0.03642 0.03245

24 029 0.10113 0.16672 0.20914 0.19358 0.12895 0.06678 0.02800 0.02265 0.02247 0.00000 0.01770 0.02350

24 031 0.13241 0.16548 0.19262 0.16615 0.12544 0.04830 0.03262 0.02049 0.01614 0.00000 0.04228 0.03528

24 033 0.13175 0.16539 0.19237 0.16636 0.12508 0.04913 0.03286 0.02073 0.01633 0.00000 0.04194 0.03509

24 035 0.10592 0.16713 0.20975 0.19138 0.13071 0.06167 0.02693 0.02135 0.02122 0.00000 0.02051 0.02500

24 037 0.10505 0.16657 0.20711 0.19017 0.12854 0.06444 0.02856 0.02237 0.02168 0.00000 0.02076 0.02497

24 039 0.10571 0.16636 0.20580 0.18898 0.12776 0.06475 0.02920 0.02262 0.02163 0.00000 0.02157 0.02531

24 041 0.10549 0.16682 0.20825 0.19066 0.12950 0.06317 0.02784 0.02191 0.02146 0.00000 0.02069 0.02501

24 043 0.11722 0.16613 0.20092 0.17965 0.12735 0.05707 0.03022 0.02146 0.01919 0.00000 0.03026 0.02953

24 045 0.11599 0.16691 0.20535 0.18312 0.13025 0.05505 0.02790 0.02036 0.01910 0.00000 0.02815 0.02871

24 047 0.12227 0.16445 0.19054 0.17033 0.12113 0.05972 0.03535 0.02351 0.01886 0.00000 0.03655 0.03217

24 510 0.12772 0.16163 0.17411 0.15695 0.11060 0.06637 0.04384 0.02736 0.01896 0.00000 0.04492 0.03553

Weekly Temporal Allocation Files

FIPS ST FIPS CNTY Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday

INDOOR EQUIPMENT

24 001 0.13598 0.13598 0.13598 0.13598 0.13598 0.16005 0.16005

24 003 0.11604 0.11604 0.11604 0.11604 0.11604 0.20989 0.20989

24 005 0.12313 0.12313 0.12313 0.12313 0.12313 0.19219 0.19219

24 009 0.12450 0.12450 0.12450 0.12450 0.12450 0.18875 0.18875

24 011 0.12238 0.12238 0.12238 0.12238 0.12238 0.19406 0.19406157 Weekly Temporal Allocation Files

FIPS ST FIPS CNTY Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday

24 013 0.12112 0.12112 0.12112 0.12112 0.12112 0.19719 0.19719

24 015 0.12648 0.12648 0.12648 0.12648 0.12648 0.18380 0.18380

24 017 0.12558 0.12558 0.12558 0.12558 0.12558 0.18605 0.18605

24 019 0.12332 0.12332 0.12332 0.12332 0.12332 0.19169 0.19169

24 021 0.12565 0.12565 0.12565 0.12565 0.12565 0.18588 0.18588

24 023 0.13346 0.13346 0.13346 0.13346 0.13346 0.16634 0.16634

24 025 0.12496 0.12496 0.12496 0.12496 0.12496 0.18760 0.18760

24 027 0.12650 0.12650 0.12650 0.12650 0.12650 0.18374 0.18374

24 029 0.12617 0.12617 0.12617 0.12617 0.12617 0.18458 0.18458

24 031 0.11428 0.11428 0.11428 0.11428 0.11428 0.21429 0.21429

24 033 0.11579 0.11579 0.11579 0.11579 0.11579 0.21053 0.21053

24 035 0.12180 0.12180 0.12180 0.12180 0.12180 0.19549 0.19549

24 037 0.12892 0.12892 0.12892 0.12892 0.12892 0.17769 0.17769

24 039 0.12380 0.12380 0.12380 0.12380 0.12380 0.19051 0.19051

24 041 0.12278 0.12278 0.12278 0.12278 0.12278 0.19305 0.19305

24 043 0.12502 0.12502 0.12502 0.12502 0.12502 0.18744 0.18744

24 045 0.11804 0.11804 0.11804 0.11804 0.11804 0.20490 0.20490

24 047 0.11800 0.11800 0.11800 0.11800 0.11800 0.20500 0.20500

24 510 0.12785 0.12785 0.12785 0.12785 0.12785 0.18038 0.18038
OUTDOOR EQUIPMENT

24 001 0.05066 0.05066 0.05066 0.05066 0.05066 0.37335 0.37335

24 003 0.05127 0.05127 0.05127 0.05127 0.05127 0.37182 0.37182

24 005 0.05036 0.05036 0.05036 0.05036 0.05036 0.37410 0.37410

24 009 0.05125 0.05125 0.05125 0.05125 0.05125 0.37187 0.37187

24 011 0.05056 0.05056 0.05056 0.05056 0.05056 0.37359 0.37359

24 013 0.05105 0.05105 0.05105 0.05105 0.05105 0.37237 0.37237

24 015 0.05055 0.05055 0.05055 0.05055 0.05055 0.37362 0.37362

24 017 0.05088 0.05088 0.05088 0.05088 0.05088 0.37280 0.37280

24 019 0.05041 0.05041 0.05041 0.05041 0.05041 0.37397 0.37397

24 021 0.05065 0.05065 0.05065 0.05065 0.05065 0.37337 0.37337

24 023 0.05027 0.05027 0.05027 0.05027 0.05027 0.37432 0.37432

24 025 0.05073 0.05073 0.05073 0.05073 0.05073 0.37318 0.37318

24 027 0.05055 0.05055 0.05055 0.05055 0.05055 0.37363 0.37363

24 029 0.05033 0.05033 0.05033 0.05033 0.05033 0.37417 0.37417

24 031 0.05069 0.05069 0.05069 0.05069 0.05069 0.37327 0.37327

24 033 0.05062 0.05062 0.05062 0.05062 0.05062 0.37344 0.37344

24 035 0.05070 0.05070 0.05070 0.05070 0.05070 0.37324 0.37324

24 037 0.05038 0.05038 0.05038 0.05038 0.05038 0.37405 0.37405

24 039 0.05029 0.05029 0.05029 0.05029 0.05029 0.37427 0.37427

24 041 0.05053 0.05053 0.05053 0.05053 0.05053 0.37369 0.37369

24 043 0.05054 0.05054 0.05054 0.05054 0.05054 0.37364 0.37364

24 045 0.05091 0.05091 0.05091 0.05091 0.05091 0.37272 0.37272
24 047 0.04982 0.04982 0.04982 0.04982 0.04982 0.37544 0.37544
24 510 0.04852 0.04852 0.04852 0.04852 0.04852 0.37871 0.37871158 Emissions Calculation

A sample calculation for annual activity is provi ded below for a specified census tract and SCC:

Activity (tons/yr) = (HUs x UFs x As ) + (HUo x UFo x A0) (equation 1)

Where: HUs = single-family housing units; UFs = single-family housing units user fraction for equipment type (SCC); As = single-family housing units annual activity (tons/yr); HUo = other housing units; UFo = other housing units user fract ion for equipment type (SCC); and Ao = other housing units annual activity (tons/yr).

For each SCC, the annual activity can be aggregated from the census tract to the county or state levels using the FIPS code in Table 3a. If, durin g the analysis of survey data, Pechan finds a good correlation between wood consumption and a nnual HDD, the activity variable will take the form of tons/HDD-yr (where HDD are annual he ating-degree days). Th e calculation of annual activity for a specified census tract and SCC woul d take the form shown in equation 2 below:

Activity (tons/yr) = [HUs x UFs x (As x HDD )] + [HUo x UFo x (A0 x HDD)] (equation 2)

Where: HUs = single-family housing units; UFs = single-family housing units user fraction for equipment type (SCC); As = single-family housing units annual activity (tons/HDD-yr); HDD = annual heating-degree da ys for the census tract; HUo = other housing units; UFo = other housing units user fract ion for equipment type (SCC); and Ao = other housing units an nual activity (tons/HDD-yr).159 4.1.7 FUGITIVE SOURCES

Other area sources include forest fires, slash and prescribed burning, agricultural burning, structure fires, orchard heaters, leaking underground storage tanks and natural organic sources. Although often intermittent in nature, many of these sources can produce large quantities of air pollutant emissions.

4.1.7.1 Residential Construction Activity SCC: 23 11 010 000

Description This source category covers fugiti ve dust emissions from resident ial construction activities.

Pollutants

PM 10 and PM 2.5

Method and Data Sources Activity For residential construction, housing permit da ta for single-family units, two-family units, and apartments were obtained at the count y level from the U.S. Department of Commerce’s (DOC) Bureau of the Census. Adju sted county permit data to equal regional housing start data that was also obtain ed from the Bureau of the Census.

Estimated the number of buildings in each ca tegory, and then estimated the total acres disturbed by construction by applying conversio n factors to the housing start data for each category as follows:

• Single-family 1⁄4 acre/building • Two-family 1⁄3 acre/building • Apartment 1⁄2 acre/building

Housing construction PM10 emissions are calc ulated using an emission factor of 0.032 tons PM10/acre/month, the number of housing units created, a units-to-acres conversion factor, and the duration of construction activ ity. The duration of c onstruction activity for houses is assumed to be 6 months.

Apartment construction emissions are calculate d separately using an emission factor of 0.11 tons PM10/acre/month. A duration of 12 months was assumed for apartment construction.160 For areas in which basements are constructed to estimate the cubic yards of dirt moved per house, an average value of 2000 square feet is assumed for both single family and twofamily homes. Multiplying the average total s quare feet by an average basement depth of 8 feet and adding in 10 percent of the cubic f eet calculated for peripheral dirt removed produces an estimate of the cubic yards of ear th moved during resident ial construction. The percentage of one-family houses with ba sements was obtained from the DOC. The percentage of houses per Census region (Nor theast, Midwest, South, and West) that contain full or partial baseme nts is applied to the housing start estimates for each of these respective regions. The best available c ontrol measures (BACM) Level 2 equation (emission factor of 0.011 tons PM10/acre/m onth plus 0.059 tons PM10/1000 cubic yards of on-site cut/fill) is applied once the numb er of acres disturbed due to the estimated number of houses built with basements is determined.

Emission Factors

Single-family Construction Two-family Construction Multi-family Construction
ton PM 10 /acre/month ton PM 10 /acre/month ton PM 10 /acre/month PM 10 Emission Factor 0.032 0.032 0.11

Duration of Activity 6 months 6 months 12 months

Point Source Adjustments
No subtration of emissions fr om point sources is necessary.

Adjustments for Controls No controls are available for this source category.

Spatial and Temporal Allocations Spatial Data for spatial allocation is not available for this source.

Temporal Data for temporal allocation is not available for this source.161 Emissions Calculation

E RC I = E RC – SFH + E RC – 2FAM + E RC – MF

where: E RC i = Emissions of pollutant i in tons per year from residentia l construction activity

E RC - SFH = Emissions of pollutant i in tons pe r year from residential single-family home construction activity E RC – 2FAM = Emissions of pollutant i in tons per year from residential two-family home construction activity E RC – MF = Emissions of pollutant i in tons per year from residential multi-family construction activity

and:

E RC – SFH = E RC – SFH, w BM + E RC – SFH , w/o BM

where: E RC – SFH, w BM = Emissions of pollutant i in tons per year from resi dential single-family home construction activity of homes with basements E RC – SFH, w/o BM = Emissions of pollutant i in tons pe r year from residential single-family home construction activity of homes without basements

HS SFH x (1- HS SFH,w BM ) x (AD RC – SFH ) x (PD RC – SFH ) x EF RC – SFH E RC – SFH, w/o BM = 2000

where: E RC – SFH, w/o BM = Emissions of pollutant i in tons pe r year from residential single-family home construction activity HS SFH = Residential single-family housing starts HS SFH, w BM = Percent of residential single-f amily housing starts with basements AD RC - SFH = Acres disturbed per housing t ype (residential single-family) PD RC - SFH = Average project duration in months EF RC – SFH i = Emissions factor in tons PM10/acre/month for pollutant i162 E RC – SFH, w BM = Emissions from residential construction + Emissions from basement excavation

[HS SFH x HS SFH,w BM x (AD RC – SFH ) x (PD RC – SFH ) x EF RC – SFH ] + [HS SFH x HS SFH,w BM x AHS RC – SFH x ABD RC – SFH x PDE RC – SFH x EF Acres-Disturb ] E RC – SFH, w BM = 2000

where: E RC – SFH, w BM = Emissions of pollutant i in tons pe r year from residential single-family home construction activity HS SFH = Residential single-family housing starts HS SFH, w BM = Percent of residential single-f amily housing starts with basements AD RC - SFH = Acres disturbed per housing t ype (residential single-family) PD RC - SFH = Average project duration in months EF RC – SFH i = Emissions factor in tons PM10/acre/month for pollutant i AHS RC - SFH = Average residential single-family house size (national default = 2000 ft 2 ) ABD RC - SFH = Average basement depth for re sidential single-family homes (national default = 8 ft) PDE RC – SFH = Peripheral dirt excavated for residential single-family homes (national default = 10 percent) EF Acres-Disturb = Emissions factor for the acres disturbed during basement excavation activities during residential single-fa mily home construction in tons PM 10 /1000 cubic yards163 4.1.7.2 Heavy Construction Activity SCC: 28 10 001 000

Description

Emissions produced from the construction of nonr esidential buildings are estimated using the value of construction put in place. The nationa l value of construction put in place is obtained from the Bureau of the Census 96 . The national value of construc tion put in place is allocated to the state level using non-resid ential building construction em ployment data within NAIC 2333 obtained from 2002 County Business Patterns 97 . The state value of construction put in place is allocated to the county level usi ng non-residential building constr uction employment data within NAIC 2333 obtained from the 2002 County Business Patterns 98 for the State of Maryland.

Pollutants

PM 10 and PM 2.5

Method and Data Sources Activity

ARMA used data from the U.S. Census Bureau on the national value of construction put in place. The national value of construction put in place is allocated to the state level and then to the county level us ing non-residential building c onstruction employment data within NAIC 2333 obtained from 2002 County Business Patterns.

A conversion factor of 1.6 acres/10 6 dollars ($) is applied to the construction valuation data. This conversion factor is developed by adjusting the1992 value of 2 acres/$10 6 to 2002 and 2000 constant dollars using the Price and Cost Indices for Construction. The duration of construction activity for nonresidential construc tion is estimated to be 11 months.

Employee numbers were taken from County Business Patterns 2002 - Maryland , NAIC 2333, Non-residential Building Construction. Some county employment data is represented by a letter code i ndicating a range for the number of employees for that SIC. In this case the arithmetic average number of employees per letter code per county was

96 Bureau of Census, Table 1. Annual Value of Construction Put in Place in the United States : 1997 – 2001; http://www.census.gov/const/c30/tab101.txt
97 U.S. Census Bureau, County Business Patterns, 2002 http://censtats.census. gov/cbpnaic/cbpnaic.shtml Select U.S. then 2002 then Compare fo r the “Construction” Industry then Compary NAIC 2333
98 U.S. Census Bureau, County Business Patterns, 2002 http://quickfacts.census. gov/qfd/states/24000.html Select county then “Browse more data sets” then County Business Patte rns Economic Profile for 2002 – Repeat for each county.164 adjusted so that the state to tal employment in a NAIC matc hed the sum of the number of employees reported per county.

Emission Factors

PM 10 PM 2.5 (tons/acre/month) (tons/acre/month) Emissions 0.11 20% of PM 10 Duration of Project 11 months

Point Source Adjustments
No subtration of emissions fr om point sources is necessary.

Adjustments for Controls No controls are available for this source category.

Spatial and Temporal Allocations Spatial Data for spatial allocation is not available for this source.

Temporal Data for temporal allocation is not available for this source.

Emissions Calculation

Number of Employees within NAIC 2333 in Maryland Value of Construction Work in Maryland = Value of Construction Work in the U.S. x Number of Employees within NAIC 2333 in the U.S.

Value of Construction Work in the U.S. $167,084,000,000.00 Number of Employees within NAIC 2333 in the U.S. 855,483165 Number of Employees within NAIC 2333 in Maryland 19,267

19,267 Value of Construction Work in Maryland = $167,084,000,000.00 x 855,483 Value of Construction Work in Maryland = $3,763,029,105

HC j x CF HC x EF HC i x DC HC E HC i = 365

where: E HC,i = Emissions of pollutant i in t ons per day from heavy construction HC J = Value of heavy construction (million dollars) in county j in 2002 CF HC = Conversion factor (acres/million dollars) for heavy construction (1.6 ) EF HC i = Emissions factor in tons pe r acre per month for pollutant i DC HC = Duration of construc tion activity (11 months)

2002 Sample Calculation Heavy C onstruction (Anne Arundel County)

HC j x CF HC x EF HC i x DC HC E HC i = 365 196.68 x 1.6 x 0.11(PM 10) x 11 E HC i = 365

E HC i = 1.04 tons/day PM 10166 4.1.7.3 Road Construction Activity SCC: 28 10 001 000

Description This source category covers fugitive dust em issions from road c onstruction activity. PM 10 emissions produced by road construction are estimated using an emission factor for heavy construction and the State capital ou tlay for new road construction.

Pollutants

PM 10 and PM 25

Method and Data Sources Activity To estimate the acres disturbed by road cons truction, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) State expenditure data for capit al outlay according to the following six classifications was obtained: • Interstate, urban; • Interstate, rural; • Other arterial, urban; • Other arterial, rural; • Collectors, urban; and • Collectors, rural

Dollar expenditures are converted to miles contructed using data obtained from the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NC DOT) on the $/mile sp ent on various road construction projects. For interstate expenditu res, used an average of $4 million/mile corresponding to freeways and interstate projec ts listed for: 1) new location; 2) widen existing 2-lane shoulder section; and 3) widen existing 4-lane w/ median. For expenditures on other arterial and collectors, used an average of $1.9 million/mile corresponding to all other projects (excluding fr eeways and interstate pr ojects) listed for: 1) new location; 2) widen existing 2-lane shou lder section; and 3) widen existing 4-lane w/ median.

Miles are converted to acres fo r each of the 6 road types us ing the following estimates of acres disturbed per mile: • Interstate, urban and rural; Othe r arterial, urban - 15.2 acres/mile • Other arterial, rural - 12.7 acres/mile • Collectors, urban - 9.8 acres/mile • Collectors, rural - 7.9 acres/mile167 Emission Factors

An PM 10 emission factor of 0.42 tons/acre/month is used to account for the large amount of dirt moved during the construction of ro adways. The duration of construction activity for road construction is estimated to be 12 months.

PM 25 emissions are estimated by applying a particle size multiplier of 0.20 to PM 10 emissions.

Soil Moisture Level To account for the soil moisture level, base emissions were multiplied by 24 divided by the precipitation-evaporation (PE) value. Precipitation-Evaporation (PE) values were obtained from Thornthwaite’s PE Index. Average PE values for each State were estimated based on PE values for specific climatic divisions within a State.

Silt Content To account for the silt content, base emissions were multiplied by percent dry silt content in soil divided by 9 percent. County-leve l dry silt values were applied to PM 10 emissions for each county

. .

Point Source Adjustments
No subtration of emissions fr om point sources is necessary.

Adjustments for Controls For construction emissions, a control efficiency of 50 percent is used for both PM 10 and PM 2.5 for PM nonattainment areas.

Spatial and Temporal Allocations Spatial

State-level estimates of acres disturbed ar e distributed to counties according to the housing starts per county, estimated for the residential construction category.

Temporal Data for temporal allocation is not available for this source.168 Emissions Calculation

Exp x MC i x ADi x EF RC i x DUR

E RC, i = 2000 x 365

where: E RC,i = Emissions of pollutant i in t ons per day from road construction Exp RC,i = Expenditures per road type i MC RC,i = Miles contructed per road type i AD i = Acres disturbed per road type i EF RC i = Emissions factor (tons per acre per month for pollutant i) DUR = Duration of project (months)169 4.1.7.4 Agricultural Land Preparation SCC: 28 01 000 003

Description

The land preparation source category includes estimates of the airborne soil particulate emissions produced during the preparation of agricultural lands for planting and after harvest activities. Operations included in this met hodology are discing, tilling, leve ling, chiseling, plowing, and other mechanical operations used to prepar e the soil. Dust emissions are produced by the mechanical disturbance of the soil by the im plement used and the tractor pulling it. Soil preparation activities tend to be performed in the early spring and fall months.

Particulate emissions from land preparation ope rations are computed by multiplying an emission factor (EF) by an activity fact or. The agricultural tilling emi ssion factor provided in the 4th edition of U.S. EPA’s AP-42 document is used to estimate soil preparation emissions. The activity factor is based on the number of acres of each crop in production for each county in the State. Because different crops n eed different operations to prepar e the soil, each crop also has its own acre-pass value. Acre-passes ar e the number of passes, per acre, that are typically needed to prepare a field for planting a particular crop. By combining the crop acre age, crop specific acrepass data, and the agricultural ti lling emission factor, we estimate the particulate matter produced by agricultural land pr eparation operations.

Agricultural soil preparation partic ulate dust emissions are estimated for each crop in each county in Maryland using the following equation:

Emissions CROP = Emission Factor x Acres CROP x Acre-passes/acre CROP
The crop emissions for each county are su mmed to produce the county and statewide particulate matter (PM) and PM emission estimates.

Pollutants

PM 10 and PM 2.5

Method and Data Sources Activity

The acreages used for estimating soil preparation emissions were collected from the Maryland Cooperative Extension Service and the Maryland Agricultural Statistics Service. A summary of crop acreage harvested in 2002 from individual county agricultural commissioner reports was used to calculate emissions.170 In computing land preparation PM emissi ons, acre-passes are the number of passes typically performed to prepare a crop for planting. These operations may occur following harvest, or closer to planting, and can incl ude discing, tilling, land leveling, and other operations. Each crop is different in the type of soil operati ons performed and when they occur. MDE used acre-pass estimates compiled by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). For the crops that were not explici tly updated, we either applied an updated crop profile from a similar crop, or used one of the existing CARB profiles. Table 3.4-a Summary of Crop Acre-Passes , presented in Section 3.4, provides a listing of the crop acre-passes used in California.

Emission Factors

The emission factor used to estimate the dust emissions from agricultu ral land preparations is from U.S. EPA’s AP-42 99 . This emission factor was de veloped in 1981 based on test data measured in California and Kansas by Midw est Research Institute. Because of a lack of more detailed estimates, this single emissi on factor is used for all land preparation operations, all locations, and all seasons. The form of the emission factor is:

Emission Factor (lbs PM/acre-pass) = k (4.8) (s) 0.6

Where:

k = particle size fraction of inte rest (EPA default = 0.042 for PM 2.5 or 0.21 for PM 10 ) s = average percent soil silt content (EPA default = 18%)

For PM the value of ‘k’ used in California is 0.148. This is based on the EPA estimate that 33% of the total particulate entrained to the air during agricultural operations is 30 microns or less. Of this, analysis of California soil samples indicates that about 45% of the 30 micron or less sized particles are 10 microns or less in aerodynamic size (i.e., PM ). So, the California PM particle size multiplier is 0.148 (i.e., 0.33 x 0.45 = 0.148). Maryland decided to use the EPA default values listed ab ove for the particle size fraction. For the percent soil silt value, the EPA default value of 18% soil silt is used for most counties.

PM 2.5 PM 10 (Lbs. PM 2.5 /acre-pass) (Lbs. PM 10 /acre-pass) Emission Factor 1.141968254 5.709841268

The EPA emission factor does not include an association between soil moisture and emissions. Because it is known that dust emi ssions are reduced when soil moisture is higher, California ARB staff has incorporat ed an emission correction during the wettest months of the year. The correction was based on some limited agricultural dust source test data, as well as the control factor used fo r watering at constructi on sites and their best judgement. During December and March, Califo rnia ARB reduced the emission factor by

99 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, AP-42, Section 11.2.2, Fourth Edition. September 1985.171 25% from the standard uncorrected value. In January and February, often the wettest months, the emission factor is reduced by 50% . This produces a seasonal emissions profile that is more consistent with California’s actual ambient air dust levels, and also better reflects that soil preparation ope rations typically do not occur while the soil is excessively wet or muddy.

Precipitation data for calendar year 2002 in Maryland is presented in Section 3.4, Table 3.4-b 2002 Precipitation Data , since Maryland does not have a correlation between soil moisture and emissions, the emission factors were not redacted.

Point Source Adjustments
No subtration of emissions fr om point sources is necessary.

Adjustments for Controls No controls are available for this source category.

Spatial and Temporal Allocations Spatial Crop acreages are collected on a county basis.

Temporal Data for temporal allocation is not available for this source in Maryland.

In collecting updated acre-pass data, Californi a also collected detailed information on when agricultural operations occur. Using thes e data, it was possible to create detailed temporal profiles that help to indicate when PM emissions from land preparations may be highest. The more detailed background documen t includes detailed crop calendars for each crop with updated information. For all of th e acre-pass and crop calendar information, the farmers and other agricultural experts of the San Joaquin Valley were instrumental in helping us to update our crop information.172 Emissions Calculation

EF ALP i x A I x AP I

E ALP i = 2000

where: E ALP = Annual PM emissions of pollutant i in tons per day from agricultural land preparations. EF ALP i = Emissions factor in pounds per acre-pass for pollutant i A i = Acres of crop I harvested in county j in 2002 AP i = Acre-passes per acres for crop i

2002 Sample Calculation Agricultural Land Preparation (Anne Arundel County)

EF ALP PM2.5 x [(A wheat x AP wheat ) + (A corn-gr x AP corn-gr ) + (A corn-silage x AP corn-silage ) + (A

hay x AP hay ) + (A soy x AP soy ) + (A barley x AP barley ) + (A tobacco x AP tobacco )] E ALP PM2.5 = 2000 1.141968254 x [(2500 x 1) + (5700 x 4) + (0 x 4) + (3100 x 1) + (5200 x 6) + (175 x 1) + (100 x 0)] E ALP PM2.5 = 2000 1.141968254 x 60475 E ALP PM2.5 = 2000

E ALP PM2.5 = 34.530 tons per year of PM 2.5173 4.1.7.5 Paved Roads SCC: 22 94 000 000

Description This source category covers fugitive dust em issions from activity on paved roads.

Pollutants

PM 10 and PM 2.5

Method and Data Sources ActivityThe basis for the activity data for fugitive dust emissions from paved roads is the statelevel vehicle miles traveled per paved road t ype and the state-level vehicle miles traveled per unpaved road per road type.

Emission Factors

The emission factor for paved roads is calcul ated from an empirical formula from AP-42 and then is adjusted for precipitation.

AP-42 Paved Roads Emission Factor Formula

EF PAVED RD = PSDPVD x (PVSILT/2) 0.65 x (WEIGHT/3) 1.5

where: EF PAVED RD Paved road dust emission factor for all vehicle classes combined (grams per mile) PSDPVD Base emission factor for particles of less than 10 microns in diameter from paved road dust (default va lue = 7.3 grams PM 10 per mile) PVSILT Road surface silt loading factor in grams per square mile WEIGHT Average weight of all ve hicle types combined in tons

And where: PVSILT varies by road type and the average daily traffic volume (ADTV) that has been assigned the default values presented below:174 Road Surface Silt Loading Constants ADTV < 500 ADTV 500 - 5,000 ADTV 5,000 – 10,000 ADTV > 10,000 gram/mile 2 gram/mile 2 gram/mile 2 gram/mile 2
PVSILT 0.60 0.20 0.06 0.03

WEIGHT An average default value of 6,360 pounds (3.19 tons) has been assigned for all vehicles.

Calculate Paved Roads Emission Factors

EF PAVED-LOCAL < 500 = [PSDPVD x (PVSILT/2) 0.65 x (WEIGHT/3) 1.5 ] - C

EF PAVED-LOCAL < 500 = [7.3 x (0.60 / 2) 0.65 x (3.18 / 3) 1.5 ] – 0.2119

EF PAVED-LOCAL < 500 = 3.430692 gram/mile 2

EF PAVED_ADTV 500 – 5000 = [PSDPVD x (PVSILT/2) 0.65 x (WEIGHT/3) 1.5 ] - C

EF PAVED_ADTV 500 – 5000 = [7.3 x (0.2 / 2) 0.65 x (3.18 / 3) 1.5 ] – 0.2119

EF PAVED_ADTV 500 – 5000 = 1.571635 gram/mile 2

EF PAVED_ADTV 5000 – 10,000 = [PSDPVD x (PVSILT/2) 0.65 x (WEIGHT/3) 1.5 ] - C

EF PAVED_ADTV 5000 – 10,000 = [7.3 x (0.06 / 2) 0.65 x (3.18 / 3) 1.5 ] – 0.2119

EF PAVED_ADTV 5000 – 10,000 = 0.603575 gram/mile 2

EF PAVED_ADTV >10000 = [PSDPVD x (PVSILT/2) 0.65 x (WEIGHT/3) 1.5 ] - C

EF PAVED_ADTV >10000 = [7.3 x (0.03 / 2) 0.65 x (3.18 / 3) 1.5 ] – 0.2119

EF PAVED_ADTV >10000 = 0.307786 gram/mile 2

Adjust Emission Factor for Precipitation

EF PAVED ADJ = EF PAVED x CF RAIN

Where: EF PAVED ADJ = Adjusted Paved Road Emission Factor (grams/mile) EF PAVED = PM size-specific emission fact or (grams/mile) for paved roads CF RAIN = Correction Factor for Rain/Precipitation

And Where:175 CF RAIN = 1 - (P / 4 N )

Where: CF RAIN = Correction Factor for Rain/Precipitation p = number of days in a given month w ith greater than 0.01 inches of rainfall (data collected from mo nthly climatological data files from National Weather Service stations near or in the county of reference.) N

= number of days in the averaging period (e.g., 365 for annual, 91 for seasonal, 30 for monthly).

MDE altered the precipitation adjustment equati on by collecting data on the number of days in a given year that greater than 0.01 inches of rainfall fell and removing the x 12 from the equation.

CF RAIN = 1 – (104 / (4 x 365))

CF RAIN = 0.928767

Calculate Paved Roads Emission Factors Adjusted for Precipitation

EF PAVED-LOCAL < 500 ADJ = EF PAVED_LOCAL x CF RAIN
EF PAVED-LOCAL < 500 ADJ = 3.430692 x 0.928767

EF PAVED-LOCAL < 500 ADJ = 3.186314 gram/mile 2

EF PAVED_ADTV 500 - 5000 ADJ = EF PAVED_LOCAL x CF RAIN
EF PAVED_ADTV 500 - 5000 ADJ = 1.571635 x 0.928767

EF PAVED_ADTV 500 - 5000 ADJ = 1.459683 gram/mile 2

EF PAVED_ADTV 5000- 10,000 ADJ = EF PAVED_LOCAL x CF RAIN
EF PAVED_ADTV 5000- 10,000 ADJ = 0.603575 x 0.928767

EF PAVED_ADTV 5000- 10,000 ADJ = 0.560581 gram/mile 2

EF PAVED_ADTV >10,000 ADJ = EF PAVED_LOCAL x CF RAIN
EF PAVED_ADTV >10,000 ADJ = 0.310239 x 0.928767

EF PAVED_ADTV >10,000 ADJ = 0.285861 gram/mile 2176 Equation:

EM PAVED RD, i = ∑ ( VMT ADTV, i x EF PAVED_ADTV ADJ, i x ( 1- CE x RE x RP) x 1.10231E-06 )

where:

EM PAVED RD ,i = Sum of PM 10 emissions in tons per year for paved roads in county i VMT ,i = VMT ( million miles of Vehicle Miles Traveled for county i ) EF PAVED_ADTV ADJ, i = Paved road emission factor adjusted for precipitation in county I (grams/mile)

CE = Control efficiency of 0% applied to Urban and Rural roads RE = Rule effectiveness of 100% applied to Urban and Rural roads RP = Rule penetration of 100% a pplied to Urban and Rural roads 1 gram = 1.10231E-06 tons

2002 Sample Calculation Paved Roads (Anne Arundel County)

EM PAVED RD, i = [( VMT _ADTV < 500, i x EF PAVED-LOCAL < 500 ADJ ) + ( VMT _ADTV 500 - 5000,i x EF

PAVED_ADTV 500 - 5000 ADJ ) + ( VMT _ADTV 5000 – 10,000, i x EF PAVED_ADTV 5000- 10,000 ADJ )

+ ( VMT _ADTV >10,000,i x EF PAVED_ADTV >10,000 ADJ )] x ( 1- CE x RE x RP) x 1.10231E-06

EM PAVED RD, i = [(355524175 x 3.186314) + (167099106 x 1.459683) + (279697255 x 0.560581) + (4.64E+09 x 0.285861)] x (1 – 0 x 1 x 1) x 1.10231E-06

EM PAVED RD, i = 3,152.509 tons per year of PM 10 or (3,152.509 / 365) = 8.64 tons per day of PM

10177 4.1.7.6 Unpaved Roads SCC: 22 96 000 000

Description

This source category covers fugitive dust em issions from activity on unpaved roads. The activity data needed to cal culate emissions from unpaved ro ads was not available. Methods are still being researched as to how to properly gather this data. MDE cannot submit any emissions for this source categ ory at the present time.178 4.1.8 FIRE SOURCES

Other area sources include forest fires, slash and prescribed burning, agricultural burning, structure fires, orchard heaters, leaking underground storage tanks and natural organic sources. Although often intermittent in nature, many of these sources can produce large quantities of air pollutant emissions.

4.1.8.1 Vehicle Fires SCC: 28 10 001 000

Description

This emission guidance report covers air emission s from accidental vehicle fires. Vehicles included are any commercial or private mode of transportation that is authorized for use on public roads.

Pollutants

PM 10 , NOx, CO, VOC

Method and Data Sources

Activity Local data was collected from state or local fire marshals and public safety departments. See the spatial apportioning sect ion for available information

sources.

Emission Factors Emission factors are available for open burning of automobile components including upholstery, belts, hoses, and tires (AP-42, Section 2.5 Open Burning) (EPA, 1996) 100 . The amount of vehicle material burned (the fuel loading) in a vehicle fire must be estimated to use these factors. A conserva tive assumption is that an average vehicle has 500 pounds of components that can burn in a fire, ba sed on a 3,700 pound average vehicle weight (CARB, 1995) 101 . Maryland used a more conservative assumption based on a 2,000 pound average vehicle weight.

Pollutant Lbs/ton burned

100 EPA. 1996. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors--Vol ume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources. Fifth Edition, AP-42. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. (GPO 055- 000-00251-7). Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
101 CARB. 1995. Emission Inventory Procedural Manual, Vol. III: Methods for Assessing Area Source Emissions. California Environmental Protection Agency: Air Resources Board.179 VOC 32 NOx 4 CO 125 PM10-PRI 100

Point Source Adjustments
No subtraction of emissions from point sources is necessary.

Adjustment for Controls No controls are available for this source category.

Spatial and Temporal Allocations Spatial The activity data for vehicle fi res was collected at a county- level. No other method to spatially profile the vehicle fire source category was used.

Temporal Data for temporal allocation is not available for this source.

Emissions Calculation

VB j x FLF VF x EF VF i

E VF, i = 2000 x 365

where: E VF,i = Emissions of pollutant i in tons per day from vehicle fires VB J = Vehicles burned in county j in 2002 FLF VF = Fuel loading factor (tons/vehicle bur ned) for vehicle fire s (500 lbs/2000 lb auto) EF VF i = Emissions factor in pounds per ton burned for pollutant i

2002 Sample Calculation Forest Fires (Anne Arundel County)

VB j x FLF VF x EF VF, I E VF, i = 2000 x 365 500 x (500/2000) x 4 E VF, i = 2000 x 365

E VF, i = 0.0007 tons NOx per day emitted from ve hicle fires in Anne Arundel County in 20002180 4.1.8.2 Forest Fires SCC: 28 10 001 000

Description

Forest fires in certain rural areas can produ ce very large, short term organic emissions.

Pollutants

PM 10 and PM 2.5

Method and Data Sources Activity ARMA used data from the Maryland Forest, Park and Wildlife Service 102 on the number of fires and acreage burned per county. Emission factors were obtained from AP-42, Tabl 13.1-2. A fuel loading factor (tons of growth burned per acre ) of 11 tons/acre was obtained from Table 13.1-1 (Eastern Region) of e

AP-42 Wildfires and Prescribed Burning, October 1996. An activity level of 7 days a week from Procedures , Table 5.8-1 was used. The 2002 fire data from the Forest, Park and Wildlife Service showed no apparent increase in number or size of forest fires in the ozone season, thus no seasonal adjustment was used.

Emission Factors

VOC NOx CO PM TOT (Lbs./ton) (Lbs./ton) (Lbs./ton) (Lbs./ton) Emissions 24.0 4.0 140.0 17.0 Fuel loading factor: 11.0 Tons/acre burned

Point Source Adjustments
No subtration of emissions fr om point sources is necessary.

Adjustments for Controls No controls are available for this source category.

102 Forest fire data collected from Mr. Bob Hartlove, Acting Fire Supervisor for the Maryland Forest Service181 Spatial and Temporal Allocations Spatial The activity data for forest fi res was collected at a county- level. No other method to spatially profile the forest fire source category was used.

Temporal Data for temporal allocation is not available for this source.

Emissions Calculation

AB j x EF FF i x FLF FF

E FF I = 2000 x 365

where: E FF,i = Emissions of pollutant i in tons per day from forest fires FLF FF = Fuel loading factor (tons/acre burned) for forest fires (11.0) AB J = Acres burned by wildfire in county j in 2002 EF FF i = Emissions factor in pounds per acre or pounds per ton for pollutant i

2002 Sample Calculation Forest Fires (Anne Arundel County)

AB E FF i = j x EF f,i x FLF FF 2000 x 365

where:182 E FF i = (0.3 acres burned 103 x 11 tons per acre 104 x 24.0 lbs. VOC per ton) / (2000 x 365)
105
E FF i = 0.0001 tons per day of VOC emitted from forest fires in Anne Arundel County in 2002

103 Number of acres burned by wildfire in Anne Arundel County in 2002 from Maryland Forest, Parks and Wildlife Service .

104 Fuel loading factor from AP-42 , Table 13.1-1.
105 Emission factor from AP-42 , Table 13.1-2.183 4.1.8.3 Slash/Prescribed Burning SCC: 28 10 015 000 (prescribed burn) SCC: 28 10 005 000 (slash burn)

Description

Waste from logging operations is often burned under controll ed conditions to reduce the potential fire hazard in forests and to remove brush that can serve as a host for destructive insects. Prescribed burning is used as a fo rest management practice to establish favorable seedbeds, remove competing unde rbrush, accelerate nut rient cycling, control tree pests and contribute other ecological benefits.

Pollutants

PM 10 and PM 2.5

Method and Data Sources Activity

Emissions from this source were calculated using data from the Maryland Forest Service for prescribed burning by county and type of material burned. Emission and fuel loading factors for marsh grass was assumed to be the same as that for unspecified field crops in AP-42 , Table 2.5-5, and the factor for pine wa s supplied by staff at the Maryland Forest Service.

Emission Factor

VOC CO NOx PM TOT (Lbs./ton) (Lbs./ton) (Lbs./ton) (Lbs./ton)

Marsh Grass Emissions Factors 18.0 117.0 NA 21.0 Fuel loading factor 2.0 tons/acre

Pine Slash Emission factor 19.0 140.0 4.0 17.0 Fuel loading factor: 30.0 tons/acre184 Point Source Adjustments
No subtration of emissions fr om point sources is necessary.

Adjustments for Controls No controls are available for this source category.

Spatial and Temporal Allocations Spatial The activity data for prescribed burning was collected at a county-level. No other method to spatially profile the prescribed burning source category was used.

Temporal Because prescribed burning is done at differe nt times of the year, ARMA used no seasonal adjustment factor. The activity level is seven days per week.

Emissions Calculation

AB j x EF PB i x FLF J

E PB i = 2000 x 365

where: E PB,i = Emissions of pollutant i in t ons per day from prescribed burning FLF J = Fuel loading factor for type of materi al burned j (for marsh grass the factor is 2 tons per acre and for pine slash it is 30 tons per acre burned) AB J = Acres burned in county j in 2002 EF PB,i = Emission factor for pollutant k

2002 Sample Calculation Slash/Pres cribed Burning (Worcester County)

AB j x EF PB i x FLF J E PB i = 2000 x 365

(20 acres of pine slash burned x 19 lbs. VOC per ton x 30 tons per acre burned) E PB i = 2000 x 365

E PB i = 0.016 tons VOC /day

Slash burning calculations ar e done in a similar manner.185 4.1.8.4 Agricultural Burning SCC: 21 01 500 000

Description

This source category covers agricultural burning practices used to clear and/or prepare land for planting. Operations included under this category are stubble bur ning, burning of agricultural crop residues, and burning of standing field crop s as part of harvesting (e.g., sugar cane).

Pollutants

PM 10 and PM 2.5

Method and Data Sources

Emissions from this source were assigned to the open burning category because the county permits issued in 2002 did not require informa tion distinguishing the amount of agricultural waste to be burned versus other materials.

4.1.8.5 Structure Fires SCC: 28 10 030 000

Description Building fires produce short-term emissions of organic compounds.

Pollutants

PM 10 and PM 2.5

Method and Data Sources MDE staff used emission factors, fuel lo ading factors and methodology documented in EIIP 106

, Structure Fires, dated July 1999.

Activity The Maryland State Fire Marshal's office provide d the number of structure fires by county.

106 Emission Inventory Improvement Program186 Emission Factors

VOC NOx CO PM TOT (Lbs./ton) (Lbs./ton) (Lbs./ton) (Lbs./ton) Emissions 11.0 1.4 60.0 10.8 Fuel loading factor: 1.15 Tons/fire

Point Source Adjustments
No subtration of emissions fr om point sources is necessary.

Adjustments for Controls No controls are available for this source category.

Spatial and Temporal Allocations Spatial The activity data for structure fires was collected at a county -level. No other method to spatially profile the prescribed burning source category was used.

Temporal Because structure fires occur at different times of the year, ARMA used no seasonal adjustment factor. The activity level is seven days per week.

Emissions Calculation

SF j x EF SF i x FLF SF E SF i = 2000 x 365

where:

E FF,i = Emissions of pollutant i in tons per day from structure fires

FLF FF = Fuel loading factor (tons/acre burned) for structure fires

SF J = Structure fires in county j in 2002187 EF SF,i = Emission factor for pollutant i in tons per day from structure fires

ARMA used an activity level of 7 days a week with no seasonal va riation as given in Table 5.8-1 in the EIIP document.

2002 Sample Calculation Struct ure Fires (Baltimore City)

Equation:

SF j x EF SF i x FLF SF E SF i = 2000 x 365 2386 107 x 11 108 x 1.15
109 E SF i = 2000 x 365

E SF i = 0.0413 tons VOC / day

107 Number of structure fires in Baltimore City in 2002 from Maryland State Fire Marshal's Office .

108 Emission factor from EIIP Structure Fires.

109 Fuel loading factor from EIIP Structure Fires4.1.8.6 Orchard Heaters SCC: 28 01 520 000

Description In areas of the country where frost threatens orchar ds, heaters may be used in cold portions of the growing season.

Pollutants

PM 10 and PM 2.5

Method and Data Sources

Calls to several orchards in Washington and Fred erick Counties (where most of the orchards in Maryland are located), revealed th at no heaters were used. One orch ard used fans to move air on still nights when there would be danger of frost to fruit tree blo ssoms. Therefore, orchard heaters are not included in Maryland' s 2002 baseline inventory.

188189 ons. 4.1.9 AMMONIA SOURCES

Ammonia (NH 3 ) is a pungent colorless gaseous compound of nitrogen and hydrogen that is very soluble in water and can be conde nsed into a liquid by cold and pr essure. Ammonia gas reacts in the atmosphere with NOx or SOx to produce am monium nitrate or ammonium sulfate, major PM 2.5 components in the United States.

In preparing an ammonia inventor y, it is worthwhile to priori tize which of the many potential ammonia sources should receive attention. Previous studies conducted by Battye 110 and the State of California Air Resources Bureau (CARB) , provide lists of ammoni a sources that can be used to evaluate which sources are present within a region. These sources may then be ranked in terms of priority for estimating emissi

Currently, there is a significant amount of un certainty concerning the contribution of soil to ammonia emission levels. High quality emission fact ors for this category do not exist, and even the physics of ammonia-surface exchange is no t well understood. Soils emit and uptake ammonia so it is difficult to evaluate the net contribution, emissions may be potentia lly significant in some regions if the uptake is not subs tantial. Indeed, th e literature shows th at a soil-plant canopy system can be a source of ammonia emissions under certain conditions and a sink under other conditions. Because of this uncertainty, the St ate of Maryland has decided not to include emissions from soils.

This section contains the a mmonia emission inventory for

• Agricultural Livestoc k Production Operations

• Agricultural Fertilizer Application,

• Human activity.

110 Battye, R., Battye, W., C. Ov ercash, C., Fudge, S., 1994. Development and Selection of Ammonia Emission Factors, Final Report. EC/R Incorporated for U.S. EPA, EPA/ 600/R-94/190 (Prepared for William Benjey).4.1.9.1 Cows (Milk Cows, Beef Cows, Heifers, and Steers) SCC: 28 05 020 000 (Cows Composite)

Description

These animals, and all livestock, are sources of ammonia emissions due to the biological decomposition of their waste products

Pollutants

NH 3

Method and Data Sources Conceptually, the method for estimating emissions from cattle is simple: count the number of animals, then multiply this by the average emissi ons per animal, and the resulting value provides the emissions. The CMU-NH3 Inventory (ver sion 2.0) program utilizes this approach, a methodology approved by the EPA for developing th e emissions inventory for other categories

Activity Activity levels were collected from the USDA Census of Agriculture data for 1997.

Emission Factors

Emission factors were collected from a paper published by Battye, 110 et al. in 1994 and are presented in the table below:

Emission Factors and Source Livestock Category Emission Factor Source of Emission Factor Milk cows 39.72 Kg/ cow/ year Battye, et al. (1994) Beef cows 39.72 Kg/ cow/ year Battye, et al. (1994) Heifers 9.67 Kg/ heifer/ yea r Battye, et al. (1994) Steers 11.65 Kg/ steer/ yea r Battye, et al. (1994)

Point Source Adjustments
No subtraction of emissions from point sources is necessary.

Adjustment for Controls No controls are available for this source category.

Spatial and Temporal Allocations

190Spatial The activity data was collected at a county-level. No other method to spatially profile the source category was used.

Temporal Data for temporal allocation is not available for this source.

Emissions Calculation Equation:

1999 TPY ammonia emissions for cows in an individual county

EM COWS-99 Total = 1999 EM BC + 1999 EM MC + 1999 EM HF + 1999 EM ST

Where: EM COWS-99 Total = Total NH3 emissions from cows, all categories EM BC = 1999 Uncontrolled emissions from beef cows EM MC = 1999 Uncontrolled emissions from milk cows EM HF = 1999 Uncontrolled emissions from heifers EM ST = 1999 Uncontrolled emissions from steers

Where: EM BC = (AC BC * EF BC ) EM MC = (AC BC * EF MC ) EM HF = (AC BC * EF HF ) EM ST = (AC BC * EF ST )

Where: AC BC = Activity level (number) of beef cows AC MC = Activity level (number) of milk cows AC HF = Activity level (number) of heifers AC ST = Activity level (number) of steers EF BC = Emission factor for beef cows EF MC = Emission factor for milk cows EF HF = Emission factor for heifers EF ST = Emission factor for steers

1914.1.9.2 Hogs and Pigs SCC: 28 05 025 000 (Swine Composite)

Description

These animals, and all livestock, are sources of ammonia emissions due to the biological decomposition of their waste products.

Pollutants

NH 3

Method and Data Sources Conceptually, the method for estimating emissions from cattle is simple: count the number of animals, then multiply this by the average emissi ons per animal, and the resulting value provides the emissions. The CMU-NH3 Inventory (ver sion 2.0) program utilizes this approach, a methodology approved by the EPA for developing th e emissions inventory for other categories

Activity Activity levels were collected from the USDA Census of Agriculture data for 1997.

Emission Factors

Emission factors were collected from a paper published by Battye, 110 et al. in 1994 and are presented in the table below:

Emission Factors and Source Livestock Category Emission Factor Source of Emission Factor Hogs 9.2 Kg/ hog/ year Battye, et al. (1994) Pigs 9.2 Kg/ pig/ year Battye, et al. (1994)

Steers 11.65 Kg/ steer/ yea r Battye, et al. (1994)

Point Source Adjustments
No subtraction of emissions from point sources is necessary.

Adjustment for Controls No controls are available for this source category.

192Spatial and Temporal Allocations Spatial The activity data was collected at a county-level. No other method to spatially profile the source category was used.

Temporal Data for temporal allocation is not available for this source.

Emissions Calculation Equation:

1999 TPY ammonia emissions for swine in an individual county

EM SWINE-99 Total = 1999 EM HOGS + 1999 EM PIGS

Where: EM SWINE-99 Total = Total NH3 emissions from swine, all categories EM HOGS = 1999 Uncontrolled emissions from hogs EM PIGS = 1999 Uncontrolled emissions from pigs

Where: EM HOGS = (AC HOGS * EF HOGS ) EM PIGS = (AC PIGS * EF PIGS )

Where: AC HOGS = Activity level (number) of hogs AC PIGS = Activity level (number) of pigs EF HOGS = Emission factor for hogs EF PIGS = Emission factor for pigs

1934.1.9.3 Chickens (Pullets, Layers, and Broilers) SCC: 28 05 030 000 (Chickens Composite)

Description

These animals, and all livestock, are sources of ammonia emissions due to the biological decomposition of their waste products.

Pollutants

NH 3

Method and Data Sources Conceptually, the method for estimating emissions from cattle is simple: count the number of animals, then multiply this by the average emissi ons per animal, and the resulting value provides the emissions. The CMU-NH3 Inventory (ver sion 2.0) program utilizes this approach, a methodology approved by the EPA for developing th e emissions inventory for other categories

Activity Activity levels were collected from the USDA Census of Agriculture data for 1997.

Emission Factors

Emission factors were collected from a paper published by Battye, 110 et al. in 1994 and are presented in the table below:

Emission Factors and Source Livestock Category Emission Factor Source of Emission Factor Pullets 0.269 Kg/ pullet/ year Battye, et al. (1994) Layers 0.598 Kg/ layer/ year Battye, et al. (1994) Broilers 0.167 Kg/ broiler/ yea r Battye, et al. (1994)

Point Source Adjustments
No subtraction of emissions from point sources is necessary.

Adjustment for Controls No controls are available for this source category.

194Spatial and Temporal Allocations Spatial The activity data was collected at a county-level. No other method to spatially profile the source category was used.

Temporal Data for temporal allocation is not available for this source.

Emissions Calculation Equation:

1999 TPY ammonia emissions for chic kens in an individual county

EM CHICKENS-99 Total

= 1999 EM PULLET + 1999 EM LAYER + 1999 EM BROILER

Where: EM CHICKENS-99 Total = Total NH3 emissions from chickens, all categories EM PULLET = 1999 Uncontrolled emissions from pullets EM LAYER = 1999 Uncontrolled emissions from layers EM BROILER = 1999 Uncontrolled emissions from broilers

Where: EM PULLET = (AC PULLET * EF PULLET ) EM LAYER = (AC LAYER * EF LAYER ) EM BROILER

= (AC BROILER * EF BROILER )

Where: AC PULLET = Activity level (number) of pullet chickens AC LAYER = Activity level (number) of layer chickens AC BROILER = Activity level (number) of broiler chickens EF PULLET = Emission factor for pullet chickens EF LAYER = Emission factor for layer chickens EF BROILER = Emission factor fo r broiler chickens

1954.1.9.4 Sheep SCC: 28 05 040 000 (Sheep Composite)

Description

These animals, and all livestock, are sources of ammonia emissions due to the biological decomposition of their waste products.

Pollutants

NH 3

Method and Data Sources Conceptually, the method for estimating emissions from cattle is simple: count the number of animals, then multiply this by the average emissi ons per animal, and the resulting value provides the emissions. The CMU-NH3 Inventory (ver sion 2.0) program utilizes this approach, a methodology approved by the EPA for developing th e emissions inventory for other categories

Activity Activity levels were collected from the USDA Census of Agriculture data for 1997.

Emission Factors

Emission factors were collected from a paper published by Battye, 110 et al. in 1994 and are presented in the table below:

Emission Factors and Source Livestock Category Emission Factor Source of Emission Factor Sheep 3.37 Kg/ sheep/ year Battye, et al. (1994)

Point Source Adjustments
No subtraction of emissions from point sources is necessary.

Adjustment for Controls No controls are available for this source category.

196197 Spatial and Temporal Allocations Spatial The activity data was collected at a county-level. No other method to spatially profile the source category was used.

Temporal Data for temporal allocation is not available for this source.

Emissions Calculation Equation:

1999 TPY ammonia emissions for sh eep in an individual county

EM SHEEP

= AC SHEEP * EF SHEEP

Where: EM SHEEP = Total NH3 emissions from sheep, all categories AC SHEEP = Activity level (number) of sheep EF SHEEP = Emission factor for sheep4.1.9.5 Goats (Angora and Milk) SCC: 28 05 045 001(Goats Composite)

Description

These animals, and all livestock, are sources of ammonia emissions due to the biological decomposition of their waste products.

Pollutants

NH 3

Method and Data Sources Conceptually, the method for estimating emissions from cattle is simple: count the number of animals, then multiply this by the average emissi ons per animal, and the resulting value provides the emissions. The CMU-NH3 Inventory (ver sion 2.0) program utilizes this approach, a methodology approved by the EPA for developing th e emissions inventory for other categories

Activity Activity levels were collected from the USDA Census of Agriculture data for 1997.

Emission Factors

Emission factors were collected from a paper published by Battye, 110 et al. in 1994 and are presented in the table below:

Emission Factors and Source Livestock Category Emission Factor Source of Emission Factor Angora goats 2.2 Kg/ goat/ year Battye, et al. (1994) Milk goats 2.2 Kg/ goat/ year Battye, et al. (1994)

Point Source Adjustments
No subtraction of emissions from point sources is necessary.

Adjustment for Controls No controls are available for this source category.

198Spatial and Temporal Allocations Spatial The activity data was collected at a county-level. No other method to spatially profile the source category was used.

Temporal Data for temporal allocation is not available for this source.

Emissions Calculation Equation:

1999 TPY ammonia emissions for go ats in an individual county

EM GOATS-99 Total

= 1999 EM AG + 1999 EM MG

Where: EM GOATS-99 Total = Total NH3 emissions from goats, all categories EM AG = 1999 Uncontrolled emissions from angora goats EM MG = 1999 Uncontrolled emissions from milk goats

Where: EM AG = (AC AG * EF AG ) EM MG

= (AC AG * EF AG )

Where: AC AG = Activity level (number) of angora goats AC MG = Activity level (number) of milk goats EF AG = Emission factor for angora goats EF MG = Emission factor for milk goats

1994 .1.9.6 Horses SCC: 28 05 035 000 (Horses)

Description

These animals, and all livestock, are sources of ammonia emissions due to the biological decomposition of their waste products.

Pollutants

NH 3

Method and Data Sources Conceptually, the method for estimating emissions from cattle is simple: count the number of animals, then multiply this by the average emissi ons per animal, and the resulting value provides the emissions. The CMU-NH3 Inventory (ver sion 2.0) program utilizes this approach, a methodology approved by the EPA for developing th e emissions inventory for other categories

Activity Activity levels were collected from the USDA Census of Agriculture data for 1997.

Emission Factors

Emission factors were collected from a paper published by Battye, 110 et al. in 1994 and are presented in the table below:

Emission Factors and Source Livestock Category Emission Factor Source of Emission Factor
Horses 12.2 Kg/ horse/ year Battye, et al. (1994)

Point Source Adjustments
No subtraction of emissions from point sources is necessary.

Adjustment for Controls No controls are available for this source category.

Spatial and Temporal Allocations Spatial The activity data was collected at a county-level. No other method to spatially profile the source category was used.

200Temporal Data for temporal allocation is not available for this source.

Emissions Calculation Equation:

1999 TPY ammonia emissions for ho rses in an individual county

EM HORSE = AC HORSE * EF HORSE

Where: EM HORSE = Total NH3 emissions from horses, all categories AC HORSE = Activity level (number) of horses EF HORSE = Emission factor for horses

2014 .1.9.7 Ducks, Geese and Turkeys SCC: 28 05 035 001 (Ducks) SCC: 28 05 035 002 (Turkeys) SCC: 28 05 035 003 (Geese)

Description

These animals, and all livestock, are sources of ammonia emissions due to the biological decomposition of their waste products.

Pollutants

NH 3

Method and Data Sources Conceptually, the method for estimating emissions from cattle is simple: count the number of animals, then multiply this by the average emissi ons per animal, and the resulting value provides the emissions. The CMU-NH3 Inventory (ver sion 2.0) program utilizes this approach, a methodology approved by the EPA for developing th e emissions inventory for other categories

Activity Activity levels were collected from the USDA Census of Agriculture data for 1997.

Emission Factors

Emission factors were collected from a paper published by Battye, 110 et al. in 1994 and are presented in the table below:

Emission Factors and Source Livestock Category Emission Factor Source of Emission Factor Ducks 0.117 Kg/ duck/ year Battye, et al. (1994) Geese 0.890 Kg/ duck/ yea r Battye, et al. (1994) Turkeys 0.858 Kg/ duck/ year Battye, et al. (1994)

Point Source Adjustments
No subtraction of emissions from point sources is necessary.

Adjustment for Controls No controls are available for this source category.

202Spatial and Temporal Allocations Spatial The activity data was collected at a county-level. No other method to spatially profile the source category was used.

Temporal Data for temporal allocation is not available for this source.

Emissions Calculation Equation:

1999 TPY ammonia emissions for du cks in an individual county

EM DUCKS = AC DUCKS * EF DUCKS

Where: EM DUCKS = Total NH3 emissions from ducks, all categories AC DUCKS = Activity level (number) of ducks EF DUCKS = Emission factor for ducks

2034.1.9.8 Agricultural Fertilizer Application SCC: 28 01 700 001 (Fertilizer Composite)

Description:

Fertilizer applicati on is typically considered to be the s econd or third most important source on a national level, depending on whether the inventor y includes soil emissions. Existing inventories usually estimate the contribution from fertilizer a pplication to be 10-20% of the national total. Substantial progress was made in improving spatial and temporal resolution of emissions in this category.

Activity level data for fertilizer application ar e for 1995 from the Associat ion of American Plant and Food Control Officials (AAPFCO), which reports fertilizer sales to farmers at the county level. This is an improvement on some existing i nventories, which are based on sales of fertilizer to dealers rather than to farmer s. The dealers may subsequently sell the fertilizer to farmers in other locations, resulting in an inaccurate sp atial distribution of activity levels. A better approximation (in the absence of act ual application data) is to use sales from dealers to farmers. The AAPFCO datasets contain county-level reso lution for the top producing states for each crop (usually about 30 states), and st ate-level resolution for the othe r states. USGS also has countylevel records of fertilizer application for y ears up until 1991. For states where the AAPFCO dataset only contained state-level resolution, the USGS dataset was used to allocate the AAPFCO state-level data to county-level.

Although there are almost 200 different commercial fertilizers used in th e United States, roughly 13 of them account for the majority of fertilizer use. Emission factors for these 13 were obtained from Battye et al. (1994) and Asma n et al. (1992). Quantities of the rest of the fertilizers have been combined into a ‘miscellaneous’ category, and assigned an emission factor equal to the average emission factor for all major fertilizers. The amount of fertilizer in the ‘miscellaneous’ category is typically less th an 3-4% of the total.

Finally, ammonia emissions from fertilizer application have a strong temporal component that has previously been ignored; yearly averages have been used in existing inventories. Significantly more fertilizer is applied in th e spring and fall than in the summer and winter, corresponding to crop cycles. To improve tem poral allocation, USDA data on crop planting times and fertilizer application times and rates we re used to generate a monthly distribution of fertilizer application (U SDA, 1997; USDA-ERS, 1991; US DA-ERS, 1996; USDA-ERS, 1996- 1997; USDA-NASS, 1992-1997a; USDA- NASS, 1992-1997b; USDA-NASS, 1992-1997c; USDA-NASS, 1992-1997d; USDA-NASS, 1992- 1997a; USDA-NASS, 1995; USDA-NASS, 1997). Results show that assuming a yearly average for this category results in a substantial error for most months of the year.

Pollutants

NH 3

204Method and Data Sources Conceptually, the method for estimating emissions fr om mobile sources is simple: collect data on the amount of fertilizer sold to farmers in a spec ific county, then multiply this by the per cent of ammonia released per fertilizer application, and the resulting va lue provides the emissions. The CMU-NH3 Inventory (version 2.0) program utilizes this approach, a methodology approved by the EPA for developing the emissions inventory for other categories.

Activity Activity levels, amount of fertilizer sold to farmers per county, were collected from the Association of American Plant a nd Food Control Offi cials (AAPFCO).

Emission Factors

Emission factors were collected from a paper published by Battye, 110 et al. in 1994 and are presented in the table below:

Emission Factors and Source

Fertilizer Type Per Cent NH 3 Released to the Atmosphere Source of Emission Factor
Ammonium nitrate 0.01 Battye, et al. (1994) Ammonium sulfate 0.01 Battye, et al. (1994) Ammonium thiosulfate 0.02 Battye, et al. (1994) Calcium ammonium nitrate 0.08 Battye, et al. (1994) Nitrogen solutions 0.025 Battye, et al. (1994) Urea 0.02 Battye, et al. (1994) Diammonium phosphate 0.08 Battye, et al. (1994) Monoammonium phosphate 0.15 Battye, et al. (1994) Liquid ammonium polyphosphate 0.04 Battye, et al. (1994) Potassium nitrate 0.04 Battye, et al. (1994) Miscellaneous 0.04 Battye, et al. (1994) Potassium nitrate 0.02 Battye, et al. (1994) Miscellaneous 0.15 Battye, et al. (1994) Mix 0.04 Battye, et al. (1994)

Point Source Adjustments
No subtraction of emissions from point sources is necessary.

Adjustment for Controls No controls are available for this source category.

Spatial and Temporal Allocations

205Spatial The activity data was collected at a county-level. No other method to spatially profile the source category was used.

Temporal Finally, ammonia emissions from fertilizer application have a strong temporal component that has previously been ignored; yearly averages have been used in existing inventories. Significantly more fertilizer is applied in th e spring and fall than in the summer and winter, corresponding to crop cycles. To improve tem poral allocation, USDA data on crop planting times and fertilizer application times and rates we re used to generate a monthly distribution of fertilizer application (U SDA, 1997; USDA-ERS, 1991; US DA-ERS, 1996; USDA-ERS, 1996-1997; USDA-NASS, 1992-1997a; USDA- NASS, 1992-1997b; USDA-NASS, 1992- 1997c; USDA-NASS, 1992-1997d; USDA-NASS , 1992-1997a; USDA-NASS, 1995; USDANASS, 1997). Results show that assuming a yearly average fo r this category results in a substantial error for most months of the year.

Emissions Calculation Equation:

1999 TPY ammonia emissions for agricultural fe rtilizer sources in an individual county

EM FERT-99 Total = EM AmmNit + EM AmmSul + EM AmmThio + EM CalAmmNit + EM NitSol + EM Urea + EM DiAmmPhos + EM MonoAmmPhos + EM LiqAmmPhos + EM PotNit + EM Misc + EM Mix

Where: EM MOBILE-99 Total = Total NH3 emissions from agricultural fertilizer application, all categories EM AmmNit = Emissions from Ammonium Nitrate fertilizer EM AmmSul = Emissions from Ammonium Sulfate fertilizer EM AmmThio = Emissions from Ammonium Thiosulfate fertilizer EM CalAmmNit = Emissions from Calcium Ammonium Nitrate fertilizer EM NitSol = Emissions from Nitrogen Solutions fertilizer EM Urea = Emissions from Urea fertilizer EM DiAmmPhos = Emissions from Diammonium Phosphate fertilizer EM MonAmmPhos = Emissions from Monoammonium Phosphate fertilizer EM LiqAmmPhos = Emissions from Liquid Ammonium Polyphosphate fertilizer EM PotNit = Emissions from Potassium Nitrate fertilizer EM Misc = Emissions from Miscellaneous fertilizer EM Mix = Emissions from Mixed fertilizer

Where: EM AmmNit = (AC AmmNit * Per Cent Released AmmNit ) EM AmmSul = (AC AmmSul * Per Cent Released AmmSul ) EM AmmThio (AC AmmThio * Per Cent Released AmmThio ) EM CalAmmNit = (AC CalAmmNit * Per Cent Released CalAmmNit ) EM NitSol = (AC NitSol * Per Cent Released NitSol ) EM Urea (AC Urea * Per Cent Released Urea )

206EM DiAmmPhos = (AC DiAmmPhos * Per Cent Released DiAmmPhos )

EM MonAmmPhos = (AC MonAmmPhos * Per Cent Released

MonAmmPhos ) EM LiqAmmPhos = (AC LiqAmmPhos * Per Cent Released LiqAmmPhos ) EM PotNit = (AC PotNit * Per Cent Released PotNit ) EM Misc (AC Misc * Per Cent Released Misc ) EM Mix = (AC Mix * Per Cent Released Mix )

Where: AC AmmNit = Activity level (amount of Ammonium Nitrat e fertilizer applied per county) Per Cent Released AmmNit = Per Cent of NH3 released during fertilizer application

2074.1.9.9 Human Breath and Perspiration SCC: 28 10 010 000 (Human Perspiration)

Description
Ammonia emissions from human br eath and perspiration comprise a few percent of the national ammonia emission inventory.

Pollutants

NH 3

Method and Data Sources Conceptually, the method for estimating emissions from human breathe and perspiration is simple: count the number of people, then multiply this by the average emissions per person, and the resulting value provides the emissions. The CMU-NH3 Inventory (version 1.2) program utilizes this approach, a methodology approve d by the EPA for developing the emissions inventory for other categories.

Activity The US Census (U.S. Census Bureau, 1999) was used to obtain activity level data for this category.

Emission Factors Emission factors were collected from a paper published by Battye, 110 et al. in 1994 and are presented in the table below:

Emission Factors and Source

Emission Category Emission Factor Source of Emission Factor Human Breathe and Perspiration 0.44 Kg / person/ year Battye, et al. (1994)

Point Source Adjustments
No subtraction of emissions from point sources is necessary.

Adjustment for Controls No controls are available for this source category.

Spatial and Temporal Allocations Spatial The activity data was collected at a county-level. No other method to spatially profile the source category was used.

208209 Temporal Data for temporal allocation is not available for this source.

Emissions Calculation Equation:

1999 TPY ammonia emissions from human breathe and perspirati on in an individual county

EM HUMAN B&P = AC HUMAN * EF HUMAN B&P

Where: EM HUMAN B&P = Total NH3 emissions from human breathe and perspiration AC HUMAN = Activity level (number) of people per county EF HUMAN B&P = Emission factor for human breathe and perspiration

## 5.0 NONROAD SOURCES

5.1 NONROAD VEHICL ES/ENGINES

This section contains the nonroad source emi ssion inventory for vol atile organic compounds (VOCs), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and carbon mon oxide (CO) and if po ssible carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), sulfur oxides (SO X ), particulate matter (PM), ammonia (NH3), and toxic air pollutants. Nonroad mobile sources include motorized ve hicles and equipment that are normally not operated on public roadways to provide transporta tion. For nonroad mobile sources, the source categories of interest are aircraft, locomotives, marine vessels and the source types included in EPA’s NONROAD model. Nonroad mobile sources are broken up into the following categories:

• lawn and garden equipment

• airport service equipment

• logging equipment

• recreational marine equipment

• light commercial equipment

• industrial equipment

• construction equipment

• agricultural or farm equipment

• recreational land vehicles or equipment

• railroads

• commercial aviation

• air taxis

• general aviation

• military aviation

• commercial marine vessels

The Department used two methodologies a pproved by the EPA for developing the 2002 emissions inventory for nonroad categories. One of the methodologies used consisted of employing EPA’s NONROAD Emission Inventory Model 111 . In a memorandum 112 , dated June 16, 2003, EPA allowed the use of the draft NONRO AD Model and associated default inputs in the development of inventories supporting St ate Implementation Plans (SIPs). The second methodology entailed the use of EPA emission factors.

Sample calculations presented below are for illust rative purposes only and may not reflect actual emissions.

210 111 NONROAD2005
112 USEPA Memorandum , dated June 16, 2003, from Gene Tierney or the Air Quality and Modeling Centery and Leila H. Cook of the Transportation and Regional Programs Division; to Regional Mobile Source Program Manages and Staff.5.2 NONROAD MODEL

As stated previously, the 2002 emissions estim ate for all nonroad equipment categories listed above except commercial marine, railroad locomotives, and aviation emissions were determined by running EPA’s NONROAD MOBILE Model, as suggested by EPA guidance. The model includes more than 80 basic and 260 specific types of nonroad equipment, and further stratifies equipment t ypes by horsepower rating. Fuel t ypes include gasoline, diesel, compressed natural gas (CNG), and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG).

The NONROAD model consists of three separa te components: a graphical user interface written in Visual Basic, the core model written in Fortran, and a reporting utility written in Microsoft ACCESS. The install utility supplie d with the model easily installs all three components of the model onto a personal computer.

The primary purpose of the user interface is to provide the user with an easy method to specify the options for a model run. With simple Windows-type screens and pull-down menus, the user can quickly set up, execute, and view a modeling sc enario. Once the model options are specified, the user can then run th e Fortran core model from within the interface, and then can move directly to the reporti ng utility to view and summarize the modeling results.

The core model of NONROAD, written in Fortran, contains all of the algorithms used by the model for calculating emissions estimates. The co re model can be operated as a stand-alone application; however, as a st and-alone application it require s some basic knowledge of the DOS operating system. Also, note that while the user interface runs the core model for one specified set of conditions, it cannot run multiple runs in batch mode. Multiple runs can be performed by creating and running a batch file in DOS or in a DOS window in a Windows 3.1 or 95 environment.

The reporting utility, written usi ng Microsoft’s ACCESS database so ftware, is used to create standardized reports using output data generated in the core m odel. Like the graphical user interface, the reporting utility is a fully operational Windows program, with pull-down menus, designed as a separate module in order to take advantage of the many reporting and formatting options available when using a databa se application. Although the reporting utility is written in ACCESS, it is a st and-alone application, and you do not need to know how to use ACCESS to generate reports.

The NONROAD model estimates emissions for si x exhaust pollutants: hydrocarbons (HC), NOx, carbon monoxide (CO) , carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), sulfur oxides (SO X ), and PM. The user selects among five different types for reporti ng HC — as total hydroc arbons (THC), total organic gases (TOG), non-methane organi c gases (NMOG), non-methane hydrocarbons (NMHC), or volatile organic compounds (VOC). Pa rticulate matter can be reported as PM of 10 microns or less (PM 10 ) or PM of 2.5 microns or less (PM 2.5 ). The model also estimates emissions of non-exhaust HC for four mode s — diurnal, refue ling spillage, vapor displacement, and crankcase emissions. All emi ssions are reported as short tons (i.e., 2000 lbs). Ammonia (NH3) emissions from NONR OAD Model equipment were post-processed outside of the actual model.

211The NONROAD model estimates emissions for each specific type of nonroad equipment by multiplying the following input data estimates:

• Equipment population for base year (or base year population grown to a future year), distributed by age, power, fu el type, and application;

• Average load factor expressed as average fraction of available power;

• Available power in horsepower;

• Activity in hours of use per year; and

• Emission factor with deteriorat ion and/or new standards.

The emissions are then temporally and geograp hically allocated using appropriate allocation factors.

There are several input files that provide nece ssary information to cal culate and allocate emissions estimates. These input files correspond to the basic data n eeded to provide the calculations: emission factors, base year equi pment population, activity, load factor, average lifetime, scrappage function, growth estimat es, and geographic and temporal allocation. Default values are provided for all input files. The user can replace the default data files when better information becomes available, either from EPA for national defaults or from local sources for locality-specific data. The input files are also modifiable to test control strategies. MDE input files that differ from the EPA na tional defaults are pres ented in Section 4.7 – NONROAD Model Appendices.’

Input parameters for the NONRO AD Model are listed below:

2002 NONROAD MODEL INPUTS

Winter Spring Fall All Maryland Counties All Maryl and Counties All Maryland Counties Temp MIN 28.29 43.87 47.68 Temp MAX 48.29 67.25 66.72 Temp AVG 38.70 55.83 58.03 RVP 12.6 9.6 9.3 Diesel S % 0.2318 0.2318 0.2318 Gas Sulfur % 0.0162 0.0162 0.0162 CNG/LPG Sulfur % 0.003 0.003 0.003 Marine Dsl sulfur % 0.2637 0.2637 0.2637 O2 Weight % 2.1 2.1 2.1 State II Control % 0 0 0

2122002 NONROAD MODEL SUMMER INPUTS

Summer Summer Summer (Transport Region) (MWCOG Counties) (BNNA Counties) Temp MIN 65.55 69.80 65.55 Temp MAX 87.60 92.50 87.60 Temp AVG 76,80 81.40 76,80 RVP 6.6 6.9 6.6 Diesel S % 0.2318 0.2283 0.2318 Gas Sulfur % 0.0162 0.0129 0.0162 CNG/LPG Sulfur % 0.003 0.003 0.003 Marine Dsl sulfur % 0.2637 0.2638 0.2637 O2 Weight % 2.1 2.1 2.1 State II Control % 0 0 0

The transport region includes the following counties: Allegany, Caroline, Dorchester, Garrett, Kent, Queen Anne’s, St Mary’s, Somerset, Talbot, Washington, Wicomico, Worcester The MWCOG region includes the following counties: Calver t, Charles, Frederick, M ontgomery, Prince Georges The BNAA region includes the following count ies: Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Carroll, Harford, Howard, Baltimore City, Cecil

Details of this model can be found in its user guide named “User’s Guide for the EPA Nonroad Emissions Model Draft NONROAD 2002” (EPA420-P-02-013; December 2002) available from the EPA.

Ammonia emissions from NONR OAD Model equipment were estimated by running the NR Model Reporting Tool for one county (Anne Ar undel). The reporting t ool provided the total fuel used per source classificati on code (SCC). Seasonal reports were used to ensure that all SCC were captured. EPA-supplied NH3 emission factors for gasoline and diesel fuel were used to estimate emissions on the SCC level for the county. A ratio of NH3 to CO2 emissions was obtained per SCC for the county. This ra tio was then applied to all the counties in Maryland to estimate ammonia emissions for the state.

2135.2.1 NONROAD Model Equipment SCC: 22 60 004 000 (2-Stroke) 22 65 004 000 (4-Stroke) 22 67 004 000 (LPG) 22 70 004 000 (Diesel)

Description NONROAD Model equipment includes a variety of types of machinery used in the maintenance of lawns and gardens. Examples of the type s of equipment included in this category are trimmers/edgers/brush cutters, lawn mowers, leaf blowers, rear engine riding mowers, front mowers, chainsaws (<4HP), shredders (<5HP), t illers (<5HP), lawn and garden tractors, wood splitters, snow blowers, chippers /stump grinders, commercial turf equipment, and other lawn and garden equipment. Emissions result from opera tion of the internal combustion engines that power the equipment.

Pollutants

PM 10 , PM 2.5 , SOx, NOx, CO, VOC, NH3

Method and Data Sources

Data sources

A. " User’s Guide for the EPA Nonroad Emissions Model Draft NONROAD 2002" prepared for EPA by ENVIRON Internationa l Corporation under EPA Contract No. DW47926801 dated December 2002. This report, EPA420-P-02-013, constitutes the User’s Guide to the NONROAD model. Th e report contains an overview of the model, equipment types, pollutants reporte d, geographic an temporal coverage, the model components, model inputs, and output options. The guide documents how to install and run the model and the associated reporting utility.

B. http://www.epa.gov/oms/nonrdmdl.htm

Methods sources

Based upon EPA's requirements for determini ng nonroad emissions, the Department ran the NONROAD model to determine the emissi on estimate for 2002. MDE-ARMA opted to choose seasonal (Spring, Summer, Fall, Wint er) period totals as th e output files from the model. These period totals were divide d by the number of days in a season to reflect an average daily emission level for each season.

Point Source Adjustments
No subtration of emissions fr om point sources is necessary.

Adjustments for Controls The NONROAD model automatically applies cont rols, when applicable , for a given year.

214Spatial and Temporal Allocations Spatial The NONROAD model spatially allocates equipment popula tions through the REGION data packet and the emissions th rough the ALLOC data packet.

The REGION input file specifies the state or county to model. When you initially install the NONROAD model, you are prompted to iden tify the state where you are located. This step sets up the population and allocati on factor data files for your state.

The ALLOC input file defines the spatia l allocation files read by the model.

Temporal The NONROAD model temporally allocates activity to the differenent seasons through the SEASONALITY, MONTHLY, and DAILY data packets.

The first temporal allocation, identified by the packet identifier /MONTHLY/, provides the monthly adjustment factors used by the model to calculate the frac tion of annual activity occurring in the given month. For periods l onger than a single m onth (e.g. season), the factors from each month spanned by the peri od are summed. The second, identified as /DAILY/, provides the day-of-the-week ad justments. The weekend and weekday allocations should sum to one for an entire week (i.e. 1 = 5 × weekday fraction + 2 × weekend fraction).

The seasonal and monthly activity allocation fractions for th e NONROAD engine emissions modeling is further documented in Report No. NR-004, dated December 9, 1997. The weekday and weekend day tempor atl allocation of activity in the NONROAD model is further documented in Report No. NR-015 113 , dated March 31, 1999.

Emissions Calculation The NONROAD calculations rely on emission factors--estimates of the amount of pollution emitted by a particular type of equipment during a unit of use. Typically, emission factors for nonroad sources are reported in grams per horsepower-hour (g/hp-hr), but they also may be reported in grams per mile, grams per hour, and grams per gallon. These emission factors are stored in NONROAD’s data inpu t files. NONROAD adjusts these emission factors as necessary to account for the effects of fuel sulfur. Emission changes with the age of the engine, often called ‘deterioration,’are also applied by the model. The core model of NONROAD, written in Fortran, contains all of the algorithms used by the m odel for calculating emissions estimates using the input file listed above.

215 113 Nonroad Engine Emission Modeling Team, Assessment and Modeling Division, EPA, Office of Mobile Sources5.3 RAILROADS SCC: 22 85 002 005 (Line Haul) SCC: 22 85 002 010 (Yard Engines)

Description
Railroad locomotives used in the United States ar e primarily of two types: electric and dieselelectric. Electric locomotives are powered by elec tricity generated at sta tionary power plants. Emissions are produced only at the electrical generation plant, whic h is considered a point source and therefore not included here. Diesel-elect ric locomotives, on the other hand, use a diesel engine and an alternator or ge nerator to produce the electricity required to power its traction motors. Emissions produced by these diesel e ngines are of interest in emission inventory development. Other sources of emissions from railroad operations include the small gasoline and diesel engines used on refriger ated and heated rail cars. Th ese engines are thermostatically controlled, working independent ly of train motive power, and fall in the category of nonroad equipment, addressed elsewhere in this document.

Locomotives can perform two different types of operations: Line Ha ul (SCC: 2285002005) and Yard (SCC: 2285002010). Line haul locomotives, which perform the line haul operations, generally travel between distant locations, such as from one city to another. Yard locomotives, which perform yard operations, are primarily res ponsible for moving railcars within a particular railway yard.

Pollutants PM, SOx, NOx, CO, VOC

Method and Data Sources: The following thirteen railroad companies operate in Maryland and were asked to provide the amount of fuel used in 2002, and the distribut ion of the company's track mileage by Maryland County: 1. AMTRAK (National Railr oad Passenger Corporation) 2. Canton Railroad Company 3. Wheeling & Lake Erie Railway Company 4. CSX Transportation, Incorporated 5. Eastern Shore Railroad, Incorporated 6. Maryland & Delaware Railroad Company 7. Maryland Midland Railway, Incorporated 8. Norfolk and Southern Railway Company 9. Patapsco & Back Rivers Railroad Company 10. Western Maryland Scenic Railroad 11. Winchester and Western Railroad Company 12. MARC (Under the Maryland Transit Administration) 13. Walkersville Southern Railroad

For CSX and Norfolk railroad operating statistics contained in R-1 reports obtained from the Surface Transportation Board under the Office of Economics, Environmental Analysis and Administration were used to add in estimating the amount of fuel used within the state.

216MDE received fuel usage and track mileage data from all the railroads. Fuel usage was proportioned to each county by the amount of track miles each company util ized in a county.

Activity A survey of railroad petroleum consum ption and track mileage was conducted.

Emission Factor Emission factors were obtained from the EPA's Procedures for Emission Inventory Preparation, Volume IV: Mobile Sources , 1992.

Line Haul Yard

VOC 0.0213 lbs/gal VOC 0.0509 lbs/gal

NOx 0.4931 lbs/gal NOx 0.5044 lbs/gal

CO 0.0626 lbs/gal CO 0.0894 lbs/gal

SO2 0.0360 lbs/gal SO2 0.0360 lbs/gal

PM10 0.0148 lbs/gal PM10 0.0203 lbs/gal

PM25 0.0133 lbs/gal PM25 0.0183 lbs/gal

SO 2 emissions were calculated based on a sulfur content of 0.25% by weight.

EPA estimates that yard locomotives operate 365 days per year (assuming that when a yard engine is taken in for repairs it is replaced dur ing this period) and consumes an average of 228 gallons per day.

Point Source Adjustments
No subtration of emissions fr om point sources is necessary.

Adjustments for Controls No controls are available for this source category.

Spatial and Temporal Allocations Spatial Emission estimates are based on fuel consump tion. Company supplied state total fuel usage was allocated to the county level by the pr opotion of track miles used in a particular county.

Temporal Data for temporal allocation is not available for this source.

217Emissions Calculation

When specific county information was not provi ded, the following equations were used to compute the amount of fuel consumed by each railroad in each Maryland County.

M CTY G CTY = M ST * G ST

Where:

M CTY = mileage of company tracks in the county M ST = mileage of company tracks in the state G ST = amount of total fuel used in gallons by the company in the state G CTY = amount of total fuel used in gallons by the company in the county

The following equation was used to calculate the emissions for line haul locomotives from each railroad company operating in a county.

Fuel CTY x EF LH E LH – i – CTY j = 2000 x 365

Where:

E LH – i – CTY j = Emissions from line haul railroad locomotives for pollutant i in County j Fuel CTY j = Total amount of fuel consum ed by every railroad operating in the calculated county Fuel CTY j = (G cty1 + G cty2 + ... + G cty12 ) EF LH = line haul locomotive emi ssion factor for a given pollutant

The following equation was used to calculate th e emissions for yard locomotives from each railroad company operating in a county.

N YL – i – CTY j x 228 x EF YL E YL – i – CTY j = 2000 Where:

E YL – i – CTY j = Emissions from yard locomo tives for pollutant i in County j N YL – i – CTY j = number of yard locomotives operated by each railroad company in county j N YL – i – CTY j = (N cty1 + N cty2 + ... + N cty12 ) EF YL = Yard locomotive emission factor for a given pollutant

218219 Sample Calculations:

2002 Montgomery County Emissions

Line Haul Emission Estimate

AMTRAK, CSX, and MARC operated line haul lo comotives in the county. AMTRAK also operated one yard (switcher) locomotive in the county.

Amount of fuel used in gallons by AMTRAK’s line haul locomotives in Montgomery County:

G cty1 = 25,463.8 gallons used in Montgomery Co. per year by AMTRAK (information provided by AMTRAK)

Amount of fuel used in gallons used by CS X Transportation line haul locomotives in Montgomery County:

36.37 track miles in Montgomery Co. for CSX G cty4 = 514.97 track miles in the state for CSX x 10,512,431.53 gallons used in state per
year

G cty4 = 742,445.45 gallons used in Montgomery Co. per year by CSX

Amount of fuel in gallons used by MARC line haul locomotives in Montgomery county:

28 track miles in Montgomery Co. for MARC G cty12 = 156 track miles in the state for MARC x 1,782,750 gallons used in state per year

G cty12 = 319980.77 gallons used in Montgomery Co. per year by MARC

VOC Emissions from line haul lo comotives in Montgomery County:

(25,463.8 gal / yr + 742,445.45 gal / yr + 319980.77 gal / yr ) * 0.0213 lbs. VOC /gal EM VOC = (2000 lbs. per ton) * (365 days per year)

EM VOC = 0.0316 tons VOC / day

NOx Emissions from line haul lo comotives in Montgomery County:

(25,463.8 gal / yr + 742,445.45 gal / yr + 319980.77 gal / yr ) * 0.4931 lbs. NOX /gal EM NOX = (2000 lbs. per ton) * (365 days per year)

EM NOX = 0.7348 tons NOX / day

CO Emissions from line haul lo comotives in Montgomery County:

(25,463.8 gal / yr + 742,445.45 gal / yr + 319980.77 gal / yr ) * 0.0626 lbs. CO / gal EM CO = (2000 lbs. per ton) * (365 days per year)

EM CO = 0.0933 tons CO / dayYard Locomotives Emission Estimate

CSX operated 2 yard locomotives in Montgomery County:

VOC Emissions from yard locomotives in Montgomery County:

(2 engine * 228 gallons per e ngine per day * 0.0509 lbs. VOC / gallon) EM VOC = (2000 lbs. per ton)

EM VOC = 0.0116 tons VOC / day

NOx Emissions from yard locomotives in Montgomery County:

(2 engine * 228 gallons per e ngine per day * 0.5044 lbs. NOX / gallon) EM NOX = (2000 lbs. per ton)

EM NOX = 0.1150 tons NOX / day

CO Emissions from yard locomotives in Montgomery County:

(2 engine * 228 gallons per e ngine per day * 0.0894 lbs. CO / gallon) EM CO = (2000 lbs. per ton) EM CO = 0.0204 tons CO / day

Total Emissions

Emissions from maintenance equipment used in the switching yards was calculated using the EPA’s Non-Road Model and then adde d for the appropriate county. Example emissions for Montgomery county: 0.0013 tons VOC / day, 0.0005 tons NOx / day, 0.0518 tons CO / day

Total VOC Emissions for Montgomery county: Emis VOC = 0.0316 tons / day from line haul + 0.0116 tons / day from yard + 0.0013 tons VOC / day from EPA Non-Road Model. Emis VOC = 0.0445 tons VOC / day

Total NOx Emissions for Montgomery county: Emis NOx = 0.7348 tons / day from line haul + 0.1150 tons / day from yard + 0.0005 tons NOx / day from EPA Non-Road Model. Emis NOx = 0.8503 tons NOx / day

Total CO Emissions for Montgomery county: Emis CO = 0.0933 tons / day from line haul + 0.0204 tons / day from yard + 0.0518 tons CO / day from EPA Non-Road Model. Emis CO = 0.1655 tons CO / day

2205.4 AIRCRAFT SCC: 22 75 020 000 (Commercial Aircraft) SCC: 22 75 050 000 (General Aviation) SCC: 22 75 001 000 (Military Aviation)

Description: This category includes three sub- categories identified as: commercial aircraft, general aviation, and military aircraft. Commercial aircraft are used in regularly scheduled flights transporting passengers, freight, or both. General aviation, wh ich includes air taxis and commuter aviation, is used for recreational flying, business travel, persona l transportation, and vari ous other activities. Military aviation is the operation and activities of military aircraft at airports in Maryland.

Pollutants

PM 10 , PM 2.5 , SOx, NOx, CO, VOC

Method and Data Sources ARMA used a variety of sources for data and emission calculation methods as follows:

Data sources

1) Airport Activity Statistics of Certificated Route Air Carriers published by Federal Aviation Administration for the 12 months ending December 31,2002, pp 7-314 to 7- 320. 2) This report lists total depart ures performed for commercial air carriers and individual types of commercial aircraft.

3) Landing and takeoff cycle information by airport for 1995/2002 from the Maryland

4) Aviation Administration and the Federal Aviation Administration Airport License Renewal Applications. The applications li sts LTO cycles by airc raft operation type from all general aviation airports, Martin State Airport which has general, and Baltimore/Washington International Airport for the past 12 months.

Methods sources

1) For general aviation ARMA used emission factors supplied in Procedures for Emission Inventory Preparation, Volume IV: Mobile Sources , EPA’s Office of Mobile Sources, 1992. This source pr ovided emission factors for specific commercial engine types, and alternative flee t average factors for general aviation, air taxis, and commuter aircraft.

2) For military aircraft ARMA used a composite factor from section 5.2.5, Table 5-7 of Procedures for Emission Inventory Preparation, Volume IV: Mobile Sources , 1988. This method required ARMA to collect LTO data rather than specifi c aircraft data. ARMA also used this com posite factor method in its 1990 baseline inventory. For the final 2002inventory ARMA has requested op eration data from military aircraft by operation type from Maryland Army, Navy, and Air Force base environmental support offices.

2213) For commercial aviation ARMA used FAA’s EDMS 114 emissions model and databases. EDMS is designed to assess th e air quality impacts of airport emission sources, particularly aviation sources, which consist of aircraft, auxiliary power units, and ground support equipment. EDMS features the latest aircra ft engine emission factors from the International Civil Avia tion Organization (ICAO) Engine Exhaust Emissions Data Bank, vehicle emissi on factors from EPA MOBILE 5a, and EPAvalidated dispersion algorithms. Aircraft activity includes landside and airside operations. EDMS defines f our distinct modes of aircraft operation based upon EPA and FAA guidance: approach, taxi/idle, takeoff, and climb out. Together, these four modes constitute one Landing and Takeoff ( LTO) cycle. EDMS calculates aircraft emissions based on these four modes.

4) For all aircraft types, ARMA used a defa ult mixing height value of 3,000 feet above ground level. The mixing height is the laye r of air where airplane emission affect ground level emission concentrations. A bove the mixing level, pollutants are transported away according to sections 5.2. 2 of the 1992 Procedures. Because of the mixing height, ARMA assigned all aircraft em issions from a particular airport to the county where that airport was located. We assumed no seasonal va riation and a seven day per week activity level.

Point Source Adjustments
No subtraction of emissions from point sources is necessary.

Adjustment for Controls No controls are available for this source category.

Spatial and Temporal Allocations Spatial Data for spatial allocation is not available for this source.

Temporal Data for temporal allocation is not available for this source.

222 114 Emissions & Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS) Version 3.2 for Windows from CSSI, Inc.5.4.1 Commercial Aircraft (SCC: 22 75 020 000)

Steps in Creating and Airport Emission Inventory in EDMS:

1) Open the EDMS model and create a new study for the airport in question. Enter the parameters (name, mixing height, average yearly temperature, and units of measurement) that are specific to each airport into the study. 2) Provide EDMS with information to compute the emissions inventory. Begin by matching engines with aircraft and assigning them to the study. Select the aircraft to be used in the study (data that is collected from the airport) by picking the aircraft name from the menus. EDMS automatically associates specific aircraft with certain engine types. 3) For each aircraft fill in the yearly LTO cy cles provided by surveying the airport. 4) For each aircraft fill in the average annual taxi time and queue time specific to the airport or use the EDMS provide default values. 5) Continue to add each aircraft/engine type, LTO cycle, taxi time and queue time to the study. 6) EDMS has tables built into the model that associat e aircraft type with the number of engines, auxiliary power units and ground support equipment. The model also a ssigns default values for Takeoff Time (typically 0.3 minutes), Climbout Time (typically 5 minutes), and Approach Time (typically 6 minutes). 7) If emissions from parking lots, roadways, stat ionary sources, and training fires are also required, complete the dialog boxes associated with each of these subcategories. 8) Run the EDMS emission inventory program and view the results.

Emissions Calculation

The following calculation aircraft operating at Baltimore/Washington International Airport in Anne Arundel County during 1998. Tabled below is the aircraft, engine a ssigned to the aircraft, time for each mode of operation, annual LTO ope rations, average annual taxi time, and the average annual queue time.

Aircraft Name Aircraft Type Engine Assigned Approach Time (min) Climbout Time (min) Takeoff Time (min) Annual LTO Taxi Time (min) Queue Time (min) Falcon 100 GA TFE731-3 1.60 0.50 0.40 1825 10.50 3.00 P-337P Skymaster GA TSIO-360C 4.50 2.50 0.50 9490 10.50 3.00 550 Citation GA JT15D-4 (B,C,D) 1.60 0.50 0.40 2190 10.50 3.00 A320 Comm CFM56-5B4 4.00 2.20 0.70 2555 10.50 3.00 AH-1 Military T53-L-11D 6.80 6.80 0.00 1825 10.50 3.00 ATR42 Comm PW120 4.50 2.50 0.50 2190 10.50 3.00 B727-100 Comm JT8D-7A 4.00 2.20 0.70 8030 10.50 3.00 B737-200 Comm JT8D-15A 4.00 2.20 0.70 21900 10.50 3.00 B737-300 Comm CFM56-3B 4.00 2.20 0.70 13140 10.50 3.00 B737-400 Comm CFM56-3B 4.00 2.20 0.70 3650 10.50 3.00 B737-500 Comm CFM56-3B 4.00 2.20 0.70 8030 10.50 3.00 B737-700 Comm CFM56-3C-1 4.00 2.20 0.70 730 10.50 3.00 B747-100 Comm JT9D-7A 4.00 2.20 0.70 183 10.50 3.00 B757-200 Comm PW2037 4.00 2.20 0.70 7665 10.50 3.00

223B767-200 Comm CF6-80A (A1) 4.00 2.20 0.70 1095 10.50 3.00 BAE ATP Comm PT6A-45 4.00 2.20 0.70 2555 10.50 3.00 BH-1900 Comm PT6A-65B 1.60 0.50 0.40 3285 10.50 3.00 C-12A/B/C Military PT6A-41 3.50 0.80 0.40 730 10.50 3.00 C-130 Hercules Military T56-A-16 5.10 1.20 0.40 365 10.50 3.00 C-9A Military JT8D-9 5.10 1.20 0.40 365 10.50 3.00 Canadair Reg-100 Comm CF34-3A1 4.00 2.20 0.70 730 10.50 3.00 Cessna 150 GA O-200 6.00 5.00 0.30 5110 10.50 3.00 Convair liner Comm RDA10 4.50 2.50 0.50 365 10.50 3.00 DC10-10 Comm CF6-50C 4.00 2.20 0.70 730 10.50 3.00 DC9-10 Comm JT8D-7A 4.00 2.20 0.70 4380 10.50 3.00 DHC-8 Comm PW120 4.50 2.50 0.50 3650 10.50 3.00 DHC-8-400 Comm PW123 4.50 2.50 0.50 18250 10.50 3.00 F-16 Military F100-PW-100 3.50 0.80 0.40 183 10.50 3.00 F-27 Series Military RDa7 4.50 2.50 0.50 365 10.50 3.00 Fokker 100 GA TAY650 4.00 2.20 0.70 365 10.50 3.00 H-46 Sea Knight Military T58-GE-8F 6.80 6.80 0.00 183 10.50 3.00 Kingair B200 GA PT6A-41 1.60 0.50 0.40 5840 10.50 3.00 Learjet 25B GA CJ610-6 1.60 0.50 0.40 1460 10.50 3.00 MD-11 Comm CF6-80C2D1F 4.00 2.20 0.70 730 10.50 3.00 MD-80 Comm JT8D-209 4.00 2.20 0.70 4563 10.50 3.00 MD-80-88 Comm JT8D-217 4.00 2.20 0.70 1825 10.50 3.00 MD-90-10 Comm V2525-D5 4.00 2.20 0.70 365 10.50 3.00 Porter PC6/B2 Military PT6A-27 4.50 2.50 0.50 730 10.50 3.00 SF-340-A Comm CT7-5 4.50 2.50 0.50 730 10.50 3.00 Swearingen Merlin Comm TPE331-3 4.50 2.50 0.50 2920 10.50 3.00 Swearingen Merlin Comm TPE331-3 4.50 2.50 0.50 365 10.50 3.00 Once all of the data is entered into the model, the model produces an emission inventory. Annual emission inventory results are listed in th e table below:

NAME CO Tons/year HC 115 Tons/year NOX Tons/year SOX Tons/year PM10 Tons/year Aircraft 767.886 128.821 905.493 41.586 GSE/AGE/APU 2810.992 71.658 221.278 6.027 7.871 Total 3578.878 200.476 1126.771 47.613 7.871

The model will also produce an inventory specific to each aircraft type, which allows the data to be separated into types (commercial, general aviation, and military) of operation. For BWI the separation results in the following:

NAME CO Tons/year HC Tons/year NOX Tons/year SOX Tons/year PM10 Tons/year Commercial Aircraft 546.030 84.833 890.956 40.399 0.000 General Aviation 202.667 34.256 6.699 0.654 0.000 Military Aviation 19.189 9.732 7.838 0.533 0.000 Total 767.886 128.821 905.493 41.586 0.0

224 115 Requires a Hydrocarbon to VOC conversion factor of 1.0947.A daily emission inventory was produced assumi ng an airport activity of 365 days per year.

The model was run for all aircraft at BWI and a ll commercial aviation at Hagerstown Regional, Ocean City Municipal and military airc raft at Andrews Air Force Base.

225226 5.4.2 General Aviation SCC: 22 75 050 000

Emission Calculation

A rough estimate of emissions were calculate d after information on the LTO operations of aircraft operation type was obtaine d from Maryland’s airports. Th is method used the alternative fleet-average procedure of Section 5.2.4.2 of Procedures , 1992. The composite emission factors used are listed in the table below.

CO (lbs./LTO) HC* (lbs./LTO) NOx (lbs./LTO) SO2 (lbs./LTO) PM (lbs./LTO)

General Aviation 12.014 0.394 0.065 0.100 0.020

Air Taxis 28.130 1.234 0.158 0.015 0.020

* Requires Hydrocarbon to VOC conversion factor of 0.9708 for General Aviation and 0.9914 for Air Taxis.

1) Emiss VOC = LTO (GA) * EF (GA) VOC

Where: LTO (GA) = LTOs for General Aviation EF (GA) xx = Emission Factors for General Aviation

2) Emiss VOC = L(AT) * EF(AT) VOC

Where: L(AT) = LTOs for Air Taxis EF(AT) xx = Emission factors for Air Taxis

Sample Calculation – General Aviation:

This calculation is for Easton Airport/Newman Fi eld in Talbot County. The airport had 21,569 General Aviation LTOs over a twelve month period. Performing step 1 Equations (above) the calculations were:

Emiss VOC = [L(GA) * EF(GA) HC ]* CF (VOC/HC) Emiss VOC = [(21,569 LTOs / Year * 0.394 (lbs. HC / LTO)] * 0.9708 (lbs. VOC / lbs. HC)))) Emiss VOC = 8,250.0390 lbs. VOC / Year Emiss VOC = 0.0113 Tons VOC / Day

Emiss CO = [21,569 LTOs / Year * 12.014 (lbs. CO / LTO)] Emiss CO = 259,129.966 lbs. of CO / Year Emiss CO = 0.3550 Tons CO / Day Emiss NOx = [21,569 LTOs / Year * 0.065 (lbs. NOx / LTO)] Emiss NOx = 1,401.985 lbs. of NOx / YearEmiss NOx = 0.0019 Tons NOx / Day

Emiss SO2 = [21,569 LTOs / Year * 0.100 (lbs. SO2 / LTO)] Emiss SO2 = 2,156.900 lbs. of SO2 / Year Emiss SO2 = 0.0030 Tons SO2 / Day

Emiss PM = [21,569 LTOs / Year * 0.020 (lbs. PM / LTO)] Emiss PM = 431.380 lbs. of PM / Year Emiss PM = 0.0006 Tons PM / Day

Sample Calculation – Air Taxi:

This calculation is for Easton Airport/Newman Fi eld in Talbot County. The airport had 4,557 Air Taxi Aviation LTOs over a twelve month peri od. Performing step 1 Equations (above) the calculations were:

Emiss VOC = [L(AT) * EF(AT) HC ]* CF (VOC/HC) Emiss VOC = [(4,557 LTOs / Year * 1.234 (lbs. HC / LTO)] * 0.9914 (lbs. VOC / lbs. HC)))) Emiss VOC = 5,574.9773 lbs. VOC / Year Emiss VOC = 0.0076 Tons VOC / Day

Emiss CO = [4,557 LTOs / Year * 28.130 (lbs. CO / LTO)] Emiss CO = 128,188.410 lbs. of CO / Year Emiss CO = 0.1756 Tons CO / Day

Emiss NOx = [4,557 LTOs / Year * 0.158 (lbs. NOx / LTO)] Emiss NOx = 720.006 lbs. of NOx / Year Emiss NOx = 0.0010 Tons NOx / Day

Emiss SO2 = [4,557 LTOs / Year * 0.015 (lbs. SO2 / LTO)] Emiss SO2 = 68.355 lbs. of SO2 / Year Emiss SO2 = 0.0001 Tons SO2 / Day

Emiss PM = [4,557 LTOs / Year * 0.020 (lbs. PM / LTO)] Emiss PM = 91.14 lbs. of PM / Year Emiss PM = 0.0001 Tons PM / Day

2275.4.3 Military Aircraft SCC: 22 75 001 000

There are five military airports in Maryland. They are Andrews Air Force Base, Fort Meade/Tipton, Aberdeen, Patuxent River Naval Air Station, and Martin State Airport. ARMA received LTO information from all airports. The Aberdeen Airport reported no activity in 2002. Most of the county airports also receive a small number of military operations.

Method and Data Sources
Since ARMA asked for and received LTO inform ation by aircraft operation type, ARMA used composite emission factors from Procedures for Emission Invent ory Preparation, Volume IV: Mobile Sources, 1988 for all airports except Andrews Air Force Base. The EDMS model (version 3.2) was used to calcu late emissions from Andrews Ai r Force Base. Otherwise, the composite emission factors are listed in the table below.

CO (lbs./LTO) VOC (lbs./LTO) NOx (lbs./LTO) SO2 (lbs./LTO) PM (lbs./LTO)

Military Aircraft 48.80 27.10 9.160 1.430 15.230

1) Emiss VOC = L(MA) * EF(MA) VOC

Where: L(MA) = LTOs for Military Aircraft EF(MA) xx = Emission factors for Military Aircraft

Emissions Calculation
This calculation is for Patuxent River Naval Air Station in St. Mary’s county. The airport had 63,852 LTOs in 2002. Using step 1 from E quations (above) the calculations were:

Emiss VOC = [L(AT) * EF(MA) HC ] Emiss VOC = [(63,852 LTOs / Year * 27.10 (lbs. VOC / LTO)] Emiss VOC = 1,730,389.200 lbs. VOC / Year Emiss VOC = 2.3704 Tons VOC / Day

Emiss CO = [63,852 LTOs / Year * 48.80 (lbs. CO / LTO)] Emiss CO = 3,115,977.60 lbs. of CO / Year Emiss CO = 4.2685 Tons CO / Day

Emiss NOx = [63,852 LTOs / Year * 9.160 (lbs. NOx / LTO)] Emiss NOx = 584,884.32 lbs. of NOx / Year Emiss NOx = 0.8012 Tons NOx / Day

228229 Emiss SO2 = [63,852 LTOs / Year * 1.430 (lbs. SO2 / LTO)] Emiss SO2 = 91,308.36 lbs. of SO2 / Year Emiss SO2 = 0.1251 Tons SO2 / Day

Emiss PM = [63,852 LTOs / Year * 15.23 (lbs. PM / LTO)] Emiss PM = 972,465.96 lbs. of PM / Year Emiss PM = 1.3321 Tons PM / Day230231 5.5 Marine Vessels SCC: 22 80 002 010 (diesel marine vessels)

Description Commercial vessels include all boats and ships used either directly or indirectly for commerce or military activity. These include vessels ranging in size from 20-foot charter boats to the largest tankers and military vessels, whic h can exceed 1,000 feet in length.

Pollutants PM, SO 2 , NOx, CO, HC, CO 2

Method and Data Sources MDE used the emission inventory prepared for the Maryland Port Administration by Edwards and Kelcey (E&K). E&K analyzed the major categories of air emissions associated with ship and port operations and their relationship to air quality issues in the Ba ltimore non-attainment area.

E&K used the marine emission inventory guidance method outlined in Analysis of Commercial Marine Vessels Emissions and Fuel Consumption Data (EPA-450-R-00-002), February 2000, to calculate emissions from commerc ial marine vessels. The met hodology is based on a three-step calculation. The first step apportions the time spent by a vessel in a port area to different operating modes. The second calculates fuel consumption in each operating mode. The third step calculates emissions using fuel consumption specific emission factors, which is how ma rine engine emission factors have been historically sp ecified. All of these calculations are made by vessel type and class, with the type specifying whether th e vessel is a tanker, passenger line r, etc, and the class specifying either the weight or horsepower range.

This new methodology considers new information colle cted on marine vessels. The time-in-mode is a function of the particular port ar ea geography and was not considered in the report. The other factors used in the emission estimate computation are examined, with particular focus on the emission factors, for all pollutants of con cern. One reason for a detailed rec onsideration of the emission factors is that a number of large marine diesels have been tested for emissions and their tests results have become available in the last few years. In addi tion, both the EPA and ARB have recently sponsored studies to calculate marine vesse l emissions in the South Coast Ai r Basin and in some areas of Region IX, so that there is a body of new research available to update emission factors. Hence, the use of a larger and newer database on marine vessel emission is expected to substantially improve the quality of the derived emission factors.

Activity The computation of emissions can be performed by ship type for a given port and requires the following inputs:

• The number of calls to the port by ve ssel class and deadweight tonnage.232 • The time spent, by ship type, in each of four operating modes de fines as: normal cruise, slow cruise, maneuvering, and hoteling. Emission Factors

Emission rates were calculated per pollutant (except SO2) per vessel type per mode of operation within the guidance documen t using the following formula:

E (i) = a * (Fractional Load) –x + b

Where:

E (i) = Emission rate of pollutant i in grams per kilowatt-hour a = Coefficient x = Exponent b = Intercept

Emission rates were calculated per pollutant (S O2 only) per vessel type per mode of operation within the guidance document using the following formula:

E (SO2) = a * (Fuel Sulfur Flow in g/kW-hr) + b

The marine engine emission factor and fuel consumption algorith ms are presented in the table below:

Pollutant Exponent (x) In tercept (b) Coe fficient (a)
PM 1.5 0.2551 0.0059 NOx 1.5 10.4496 0.1255 SO2 1 0 2.3735 CO 1 0 0.8378 HC 1.5 0 0.0667 CO2 1 648.6 44.1

The marine engine emission rates in grams per k ilowatt-hour are presente d in the table below:

Vessel Type Cruise Slow Cr uise Maneuvering Hoteling
PM (gr/kw-hr) PM (gr/kw-hr) PM (gr/kw-hr) PM (gr/kw-hr)

Bulk Carriers & Tankers 0.2633 0.2784 0.3211 0.4417 General Cargo 0.2633 0.2836 0.3211 0.4417

Passenger 0.2633 0.3211 0.4417 0.7828

Container/ RORO/ Reefer/Auto Carrier 0.2633 0.291 0.3567 0.5424 All non-oceangoing 0.2633 0.2784 0.3211 0.4417 NOx (gr/kw-hr) NOx (gr/kw-hr) NOx (gr/kw-hr) NOx (gr/kw-hr)

Bulk Carriers & Tankers 10.625 10.9457 11.8527 14.4183233 Vessel Type Cruise Slow Cr uise Maneuvering Hoteling General Cargo 10.625 11.0557 11.8527 14.4183

Passenger 10.625 11.8527 14.4183 21.6747

Container/ RORO/ Reefer/Auto Carrier 10.625 11.2134 12.6099 16.5597 All non-oceangoing 10.625 10.9457 11. 8527 14.4183 SO2 (gr/kw-hr) SO2 (gr/kw-hr) SO2 (gr/kw-hr) SO2 (gr/kw-hr)

Bulk Carriers & Tankers 26.5081 28.6027 32.7919 41.1704 General Cargo 26.5081 29.2012 32.7919 41.1704

Passenger 26.5081 32.7919 41.1704 57.9273

Container/ RORO/ Reefer/Auto Carrier 26.5081 29.9991 35.5847 46.756 All non-oceangoing 26.5081 28.6027 32. 7919 41.1704 CO (gr/kw-hr) CO (gr/kw-hr) CO (gr/kw-hr) CO (gr/kw-hr)

Bulk Carriers & Tankers 1.0473 2.0945 4.189 8.378 General Cargo 1.0473 2.3937 4.189 8.378

Passenger 1.0473 4.189 8.378 16.756

Container/ RORO/ Reefer/Auto Carrier 1.0473 2.7927 5.5853 11.1707 All non-oceangoing 1.0473 2.0945 4. 189 8.378 HC (gr/kw-hr) HC (gr/kw-hr) HC (gr/kw-hr) HC (gr/kw-hr)

Bulk Carriers & Tankers 0.0932 0.2637 0.7457 2.1092 General Cargo 0.0932 0.3221 0.7457 2.1092

Passenger 0.0932 0.7457 2.1092 5.9658

Container/ RORO/ Reefer/Auto Carrier 0.0932 0.4059 1.1481 3.2474 All non-oceangoing 0.0932 0.2637 0.7457 2.1092 CO2 (gr/kw-hr) CO2 (gr/kw-hr) CO2 (gr/kw-hr) CO2 (gr/kw-hr)

Bulk Carriers & Tankers 703.725 758.85 869.1 1,089.60 General Cargo 703.725 774.6 869.1 1,089.60

Passenger 703.725 869.1 1,089.60 1,530.60

Container/ RORO/ Reefer/Auto Carrier 703.725 795.6 942.6 1,236.60 All non-oceangoing 703.725 758.85 869. 1 1,089.60

Point Source Adjustments No point source emissions were subtr acted from the area source inventory.

Adjustment for Controls No controls are available for this source category.234 Spatial and Temporal Allocations Spatial Data for spatial allocation is not available for this source. E&K emissions inventory focused on the City of Baltimore and allotted th e cruise emissions to the city.

Temporal Data for temporal allocation is not available for this source.

Emissions Calculation The equation used to estimate emissions from commercial marine vessels is:

CALLS VCC, DWT x LENGTH VCC, DWT x %TIME VCC, DWT,

MODE TIME VCC, DWT, MODE = 100

EMISSIONS VCC, DWT, MODE = (EF)(LF MODE ) x (HP) (DWT) x LF MODE x TIME VCC, DWT,

MODE Where: VCC is the vessel class (bulk carrier, tanker, container, general cargo, passenger, reefer, RORO, tug, vehicle carrier, or miscellaneous) DWT is the deadweight tons EF is the emissions factor LF is the mode specific load factor

For the calculation, the TIME equation requires port specific inputs, while the guidance method outlined in Analysis of Commercial Marine Vessel s Emissions and Fuel Consumption Data (EPA450-R-00-002), February 2000, provides the EF and HP relationships.

Data on the type of vessels, numbe r of calls per vessel type, deadwe ight tons per vessel type, and time in each mode per vessel type using Baltimor e port facilities came from the Maryland Port Administration (MPA).

In addition, the MPA provided data that translated into approximately 85 percent of the vessels arriving from the south (up the Chesapeake Bay) and 15 percent of the vessels arriving from the north (down from the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal). The data allowed MDE to allocate slow cruising emissions to the appropriate counties to the north and south of the Port of Baltimore. Emissions associated with "normal cruising" were assumed by MDE not to have occurred while in the Maryland airshed.

All of the maneuvering and hoteling emissions were assigned to the City of Baltimore.235 

## 6.0 ONROAD MOBILE SOURCES

6.1 INTRODUCTION

As detailed in the following sections, the official 2002 highway vehicle emissions estimates for the 8- hour ozone SIP submittal, have been developed base d on the highway traffic data obtained from the Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA)

The official highway vehicle em ission inventory for the Maryland portion of the Washington, D.C. Ozone Non-attainment Area (comprising the counties of Calvert, Charles, Frederick, Montgomery, and Prince George's) has been developed by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) based on the transportation demand mode ling data and has been documented by that organization under separate cover.

In accordance with the standard methodology for th e development of highway vehicle emissions inventories, all of the emissions estimates documented herein are based on emission factors developed using the United States Environmental Pr otection Agency's (U.S. EP A's) latest version of the MOBILE6 emissions factor model and using a ppropriate activity levels i.e., vehicle miles traveled (VMT) estimates developed from the highw ay traffic data obtained from the SHA of the Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT).

In its simplest form, highway vehicle emissions can be modeled by aggregating the products of emission factors of various vehicle types and vehicl e travel activity on various roadway classes, as illustrated in the following equation:

Emissions = (Emission Factors) x (Vehicle Activity)

The emission modeling computations (expressed in tons per summer weekday or tons per annum) involve application of appropriate conversion and seasonal adjustment factors on the two entities of the emission equation – emission factors in gr ams per mile and vehicle activity in VMT.

In the real world, development of highway vehicle emissions over a large network of roadways is a complicated and data intensive effort that requ ires the correct expertise and tools to produce emissions based on the federal and state requireme nts. MDE used the PPSuite system, a robust, systematic, and comprehensive software approach to develop the on-road em issions for the state.

This new post-processor, PPSUIT E was used for the first time in 2003 by MSCP for the 2005 Mobile Emission Budget effort. However this software syst em has been in use in Pennsylvania, Virginia, New Jersey, and the New York City Metropolitan Area, for previous inve ntory and conformity submissions. PPSUITE is also compatible with travel demand modeled activity data and as such used in the Baltimore Area’s for transportation confor mity analysis. The following table provides a summary of the emission proce ss and various data inputs.236 PPSUITE Emission Modeling Process
SHA Prepared Data

2002 High w a y D a ta

- UNIV02 Database

( 128, 379 Statewide Records) 2002 V e hicle Classific a tions
( S tatewide Avg. B y FC)

From SHA Traffic Monitorin g System Website

Percent of Fl eet by FH WA vehicle classes

Map to vehicle type 2002 S e asonal Facto r s (Statewide Averag e By FC Gr oup)

Based on SHA Traffic Trends System: F u nctional Class R e ports

Percent of A A DT f

o r monthly weekdays B a sed on Highway Location Reference System

County Number L anes 2002 Hourly Pa t t ern Data
( S tatewide Avg. B y FC)

Based on SHA Traffic Trends System: F unctional Class R e

ports

Percent of volume in

each hour of d a y 

## A B C D

E m i s s i o n C a l c u l a t i o n S c h e m e

PPNET N e t wo rk

MOBILE6 H i g hw ay Ne tw or k Data

POSTMOBILE

Pr ocess M 6

PEQUESTR C r e at e R epo rt s PREMOBIL E

Prepare M 6 PPSUITE

PPSUITE Driver File Ve hi cl e M i x Fi le (V ol by ve hi cl e t y pe)

SHA Statew ide P a tte r n s

(LDV , H DV, BUS
, MC )

MPO Regional Pattern

(LDV , H DV, BUS
, MC ) p r ep a r ed b y

BMC, M W COG, etc.,

Hour ly P a tter n F i le (Volume b y hou r of d a y )

Ve hi cl e F a ctor Fi le
(Veh i m pa ct on ca pacity)

Spe e d Capac i ty Lookup
Develop data set with fr ee flow speeds, lane capaci ties, def a ult signal spacing, BP R

p ara m et ers, etc. , IM Param e ter s

Vehicle Age

VMT Seasona l Adj u stm e nts 

## A

B

C

D237 6.2 EMISSION FACTORS

The heart of the highway vehicle emission’s ca lculation procedure is EPA’s highway vehicle emission factor model, MOBILE. This is a FORTRAN program that calculates average in-use fleet emission factors for specific pollutants for each of twenty-eight categories of vehicles under various conditions affecting in-use emission levels (e.g ., ambient temperatures, average traffic speeds, gasoline volatility) as specified by the model user . MOBILE6 model does not produce total emissions directly, but it generates emissi on factors as referred to in the previous section.

The first MOBILE model was developed as MOBILE1 in the late 1970s. It ha s been periodically updated to reflect the collection and analysis of add itional emission factor data over the years. It also has been upgraded to capture ch anges in vehicle/engine/emission control system technologies, and changes in applicable regulations, emission standards and test procedures, and improved understanding of in-use emission leve ls and the factors that influence them. For this inventory effort, the latest MOBILE model (MOBILE6.2 version 6.2.03 of 24-Sep-2003 - hitherto referred as MOBILE6) was utilized in generating the emission f actors and in building the emission inventories.

6.3 VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED

The traffic data source is the key data item that drives the VMT and speed calculations. This process uses highway data and volumes obtained from SHA. The objective was to utilize non-travel model data sources that will continue to be monitored and updated in the fu ture, which will facilitate future updates to the process. The proce ss utilizes the PPSUITE post proces sor that consists of a set of programs that perform the following functions:

• Analyzes highway operating conditions

• Calculates highway speeds

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

• Prepares MOBILE6 input files a nd actually runs MOBILE6 model

• Calculates emission quantities from output MOBILE6 emission rates and accumulated highway VMT.

The PPSuite process utilizes a number of programs a nd operations assembled into a chain of jobs and steps. The management of these model chains and th eir operations can be difficu lt. At the front end, an interfacing software package called CENTRAL is deployed, providing MD E with the ability to efficiently manage the emission calculation process.

6.4 KEY TRAVEL DATA INPUTS238 This section describes the SHA da ta inputs to the emission calcula tion process. The inputs were prepared based on available 2002 data and include:

• Highway Data

• Vehicle Classifications

• Seasonal Factors / HPMS VMT Reconciliation

• Hourly Pattern Data

The remaining sections provide an overview of each of the key SHA data inputs.

Highway Data Inputs

The 2002 highway data set was obtained directly from SHA and is referred to as the “Universal” highway database . The file obtained is named HMIS.MDB ; it represents 2002 traffic data and contains the following roadway variables:

• Facility type and area type classifications

• Number of travel lanes

• Speed Limits

• Average Annual Daily Traffic volumes

The PPSUITE post processor require s a network database (in “DBF ” format) to support emission calculation runs and expects specific data fields to be present. A roadway network was created using the table “ UNIV2002 ” in the SHA ACCESS database file HMIS.MDB. This table was first saved as a separate database file. Then some specific opera tions on data fields such as addition, deletion, renaming and field value modificatio ns were conducted using the ACCESS database software. This is the key vehicle activity input to the emission modeling system.

Vehicle Mix Inputs

The vehicle mix distribution file is another key input file that can have a significant impact on emissions. The data is used in combination with diesel sales fractions by MOBILE6 to develop a composite emission rate for all the 28 output vehicl e types. The vehicle mixes are input to PPSUITE as hourly distributions of vehi cles by vehicle type. The mixe s are developed using 2002 data available from the Traffic Monitoring System section, from the SHA website that has a link named

“ Vehicle Classification by Functional Class ”. That link leads to a report file in PDF format, which reflects the percent of vehi cle classifications by functi onal class for the years 1998 through 2003.

The PPSUITE input 2002 SHA vehicle mix file wa s prepared based on 4 input vehicle groups:

• Vehicle Type 1 = Motorcycle239 • Vehicle Type 2 = Light-duty vehicles

• Vehicle Type 3 = Buses

• Vehicle Type 4 = Heavy-duty vehicles

For input to the emission calculation process, all the vehicle classes were grouped into 4 categories for each functional class: Auto, Truck, Bus, and Motorcycle . Vehicle class 1 category was used for motorcycles. Classes 2 and 3 were combined to obt ain the percentage autos. Class 4 was used for buses. Truck percentages were obtained by combining classes 5 to 13. The PPSUITE postprocessor automatically sp lits the four input vehicl e categories to the requ ired 16 MOBILE6 vehicle classes by using the MOBILE6 defaults, wh ich vary by the chosen analysis year.

Hourly Pattern Inputs

Speeds and emissions vary depending on the time of day because of temperature variations and congestion. Therefore, it is important to estima te the pattern by which roadway volume varies by hour of the day. The hourly patte rn distributions are not only input directly to MOBILE6, but are also a key input file to PPSUITE fo r estimating hourly congested speeds.

Hourly mixes of vehicles for each area and facili ty type combination are input to PPSUITE. These are used to determine the proportion of the daily vol ume in each hour of the day, so separate hourly speeds can be prepared and input to MOBILE6. Hourly pattern data was obtained from the Traffic Trends System Report Module from the SHA website. The above link leads to a screen with different Traffic Trends Reports Selection options. By clicking on the Group Reports section, a criteria screen will appear with the type of group report, year, and functional class to be chosen.

To get the hourly distribution data, the report type “ Hour Percent of Traffic by Month – Weekday ” was selected. Factors for 5 functional classes are available: Rural Interstate, Rural other, Urban Interstate, Urban other and summer seasonal. One functional class can be chosen at a time. Once these options are selected and the view report button clicked, the tabl e with the factors is obtained.

For the ozone daily emission calculation proces s, 2002 hourly pattern data for the 4 primary functional classes was used to creat e the PPSUITE input files. An av erage factor was calculated for 3 months – June, July and August to derive hourly percentage of vehicl es for a summer weekday. For the annual emission computation process, average factors were calc ulated for every month in the evaluation year 2002.

VMT Adjustments

The SHA network link volumes have been adjusted using the VMT adjustment factors, to account for differences with the HPMS VMT totals (differen ces primarily related to missing local VMT). The factors were developed upon completion of a 2002 analysis run (with no VMT adjustments or seasonal factors enabled) by comparing the results to the 2002 HPMS VMT.240 The adjustment factors are obtained by divi ding the 2002 HPMS VMT by the 2002 analysis run VMT for each county functional class grouping. Th ese calculated VMT adjustment factors are provided as ASCII input files to PPSUITE and are applied to each of the roadway segment volumes (see seasonal factor section for desc ription of PPSUITE VMT adjustment file format). These factors can be applied to any future year runs. The VMT added or subtracted to the SHA database assumes the speeds calculated using the original volumes fo r each roadway segment for each hour of the day.

Seasonal Adjustments a nd Temporal Allocation

Highway vehicles contribute signif icantly to air pollution, particul arly to ground-level ozone in the summer months. Ozone is not created directly, bu t it is formed in sunlight from VOCs and NO x . Both VOCs and NO x are emitted largely from highway vehicles.

Even though other pollutants such as CO, NH 3 , SO 2 , PM 2.5 , and PM 10 contribute to air pollution during summer also, but their si gnificance is much more during th e winter months. This is in accordance with the EPA’s guidance on preparati on and submission of emission inventories.

For annual inventories, MOBILE6 input parameters such as average hourly temperature, hourly humidity and atmospheric pressure, diesel sulfur content, RVP, etc., were developed for every month in the evaluation year 2002.

The seasonal factors are used to adjust the average annual day traffic (AADT) to represent the average summer weekday, which is needed for emission anal yses. The seasonal and monthly VMT adjustment factors were develope d using the traffic flow data available by day and month from ATR Station Reports in the Traffic Trends System Report Module from the SHA website accessed. The above link leads to a screen with different Traffic Trends Reports Selection options. By clicking on the Group Reports section, a criteria screen will appear with the type of group report, year, and functional class to be chosen.

To get the monthly variation of traffic flow for the year 2002, the report type “ Traffic Flow by Day by Month by Group ” was selected. Factors are available for 5 functional classes: Rural Interstate, Rural other, Urban Interstate, Urban ot her and summer seasonal. One func tional class can be chosen at a time. Once these options are selected and the view report button clicked, the table with the traffic flow data is obtained.

The AADT percentage is available fo r each of the 7 days of the week for all the 12 months, which is divided by 100 to get a daily factor. An average monthly weekday f actor was obtained for 12 months by calculating an average factor for 3 weekda ys, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. The241 calculations were repeated for a ll the 4 functional classes. These functional class groups were then mapped to the 12 functional classes us ed within the emission process.

Average monthly adjustment factors were de veloped for every month in 2002. The summer adjustment factors were developed, by calculating the average of the monthly factors for June, July, and August.

The above factors are coded into ASCII files, which are input to PPSUITE.. A separate file is provided for each of the 12 monthly scenarios and for the summer seasons. These files are selected through the Central menu screen depending upon what season the analysis is being run for. The adjustment factors are applied by PPSUITE before the calculation of link-level speeds.

6.5 MOBILE INPUT PARAMETERS

The inputs to MOBILE that affect emissions include numerous vehicl e and environmental parameters including:

• Vehicle Mixes

• Vehicle age distributions a nd diesel sales fractions

• Fuel parameters

• Inspection/maintenance program parameters

• Other environmental variables

MOBILE model allows the user to choose default values for input parameters where data is not locally available. User supplied data is preferable in most cases.

VMT mixes, a significant piece of data with a si gnificant impact on emissi on levels, are generated on the go by the PPSuite system using from all the tra ffic related data such as highway network data, vehicle pattern file, vehi cle factor file, etc.,

The vehicle fleet age has a significant impact on regional emission estimates and these were computed by MSCP from the 2002 Maryland vehicle re gistration database. The diesel sales fractions also came out of the same source.

The fuel parameters such as , Reid Vapor Pressure diesel sulfur, etc., and environmental variables such as hourly temperatures, hourly humidity, atmo spheric pressure, etc., were also developed by MSCP tapping 2002 data from appropriate agencies.242 MOBILE modeling assumptions in clude selection of appropria te month and season and the appropriate fuel program for the modeling domain. In case of areas with reformulated gasoline requirements, fuel program ‘4’ was modeled with the gasoline sulfur matr ix supplied by U.S EPA.

North East Low Emission Vehicle (NLEV) program was selected for the state of MD and for the NOx correction, the MOBILE parameter REBUILD EFFECTS was modeled at a 11% value for 2002 for North East states, per U.S EPA.

PPSuite generates several MOBILE inputs for each county by roadway class, based on the above parameters using the PreMOBILE module. MOBILE m odel is then invoked a nd after the specific number of runs, the PostMOBILE module takes care of the emission aggregation process.

Finally the reporting routine comes in and formats th e report based on the pre- selection: summary or detailed emissions for selected pollutants by county, by roadway type, by vehicle group.

All the above input/output data has been gene rated based on the current emission inventory development guidelines issued by the U.S EPA. They are not included in this documentation due to their size and number and will be made available upon request.

6.6 OTHER DATA INPUTS

There are other files required by PP SUITE that are used for all analys is year runs. These files are illustrated in following table.

Other PPSUITE Input Files

File Name File Description EQUIV.DBF Area equivalencies used for input pattern files and output aggregation.

NAME_COUNTY.DBF Used for the output emission reports. It relates the coded facility and area type numbers to text names. Th is file is used when the countylevel totals report type option is selected.

NAME_RURURB.DBF Used for the output emission reports. It relates the coded facility and area type numbers to text names. Th is file is used when the countyrural/urban totals report type option is selected.

VEHFC2_02SHA.DAT Contains the impacts of truck percentages on roadway capacity. As a result, the amount of trucks can have an impact on calculated congested speeds.

SPEEDCAP.DBF For each facility type, area type, and lane combination, this file contains:

• Free flow speeds

• Free flow capacities

• BPR Parameters (relationship between speed and congestion)243 VEHPATT_02SHA.DAT Contains the mix of VMT among the auto, truck, bus and motorcycle vehicle groups. Files were developed utilizing SHA vehicle classes classification.

Zone/Area Equivalency

The zone/area equivalency file is a file used to provide equivalenc y between each link and the fields used for pattern (hourly and vehicl e mix) indexing and output emission indexes. The file is required by PPSUITE and relates to the equivalency ke yword in the PPSUITE driver file.

Names Database File

The names database file is used in the process of generating output emission reports. It relates the coded facility and area type numbers to text na mes. The emission process has the flexibility to generate two types of reports, one with county totals and the other with county rural/urban subtotals. To produce the reports with county totals, NAMES_COUNTY.DBF is used; for reports with county – rural/urban totals, the NAMES_RURURB.DBF file is used in the analysis.

Speed / Capacity Lookup Inform ation – Other PPSUITE Inputs

The speed-lookup table is a key file that has a signi ficant impact on calculat ed speeds and capacities for each roadway link. The file is used for the following purposes:

• Determine free-flow speeds for links without coded speed limits

• Determine link “ideal” capacity

• Determine signal densities and characteristics

• Determine speed/congestion relatio nships (BPR coefficients)

This dataset was developed through a speed calibration analysis u tilizing SHA 2002 speed monitoring data.

The remaining two databases are us ed in the VMT Mix computations.

6.7 EMISSION PROCESS OUTPUTS

After MOBILE model has been run, PPSUITE pro cesses the MOBILE output files and compiles the emission factors for each scenario. Using th e MOBILE emission factors, PPSUITE calculates emission estimates by multiplying the emission fact ors by the aggregated VMT totals. PPSUITE then produces an emissions database summari zing VMT, VHT, VOC, and NOx emissions. The output files are automatically output to individua l county subdirectori es located under the automatically created “OUT” directory. Files will have hard-coded names. The naming is done using the first four digits of the county name and the 2 -digit analysis year. In most cases, the user will not244 have to utilize these file s; however, they may be useful for i nvestigating potential errors that may occur in the process.

The summary results of all the summertime a nd annual runs for VOC, CO and NOx have been incorporated in Table 1-3 through 1-8.

6.8 CONVERSION TO NIF FORMAT

This is also an automated process through use of a NIF Conversion Program. This module basically reads the appropriate VMT and Emission databases a nd converts them into ACCESS databases in the NIF format. As such there are two tables in this submittal:

1) A database for summer day VOC , CO and NOx emissions for all counties in MD except for the MD counties under the jurisdiction of MWCOG, and 2) Another database for annual VOC, CO and NOx em issions for all counties in MD except for the MD counties under the jurisdiction of MWCOG.245 

## 7.0 BIOGENIC EMISSIONS

7.1 INTRODUCTION

Biogenic sources, a subset of natura l sources, include only those sources that result from some sort of biological activity. Biogenic emissions repres ent a significant portion of the natural source emissions, and VOC, NO x , and the greenhouse gases can be emitted from biogenic sources.

Vegetation is the predominant biogeni c source of VOC and is typically the only source that is used to estimate biogenic VOC emissions. Microbial ac tivity is responsible for the emission of NO x and the greenhouse gases of CO 2 , CH 4 , and N 2 O. Soil microbial activity is responsible for NO x and N 2 O emissions from agricultural lands and grasslands. CH 4 is emitted through microbial action in waterlogged soils or in other anaerobic microenvironments. CO 2 is released through the aerobic decay of biomass (EPA, 1993; EPA,1990a).

Biogenic emissions is one category th at MDE is unable to control dire ctly, therefore, a majority of the resources were directed towards other categories of air pollution where direct control is feasible. For this reason, MDE used the data files created and made available by EPA (2002). These emissions were computed on an hourly basis with a specially-modified version of BEIS3 116 that utilized county land use data from EPA’s land use inventory and National Weat her Service first-order station data of temperature and cloud cover. However, due to the larg e size of the hourly data files, only the monthly data files were available when MDE gathered this information.

The data files EPA generated contained county-to tal estimates of 2002 biogenic emissions based on the BEIS3.12 model. The purpose of this spreadsh eet is to provide default 2002 estimates to the states for the purpose of biogenic emissions su bmittals by county required by the Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule (CERR). These estima tes were created using the following data: 1) 2001 annual meteorology 2) BEIS3.12 model via the Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions (SMOKE) modeling system 3) Recently revised BEIS3.12 emission factors file (also provided as a separate file with this spreadsheet) 4) BELD3 land use data (1-km original data aggregated to 36-km grid). 5) Post processing summation of county-total em issions from SMOKE, calculated from 36-km gridded emissions using th e "land area" spatial surrogate. Th is means that when calculating the county-total numbers, the 36-km gridded emissions were assumed to be uniformly distributed over the grid cell for pu rposes of mapping to the counties.

Monthly emission estimates were given for each c ounty in Maryland for the following pollutants:

• CO: Carbon monoxide (a new species output by BEIS3.12 not previously included in BEIS3.09)

• NO: Nitrogen oxide

• ALD2: Aldehyde group from CB-IV chemical mechanism

116 BEIS 3.12 can be downloaded from an EPA website at: http://www.epa.gov/asmdnerl/biogen.html246 • ETH: Ethane group from CB- IV chemical mechanism

• FORM: Formaldehyde group from CB-IV chemical mechanism

• ISOP: Isoprene

• NR: Nonreactive VOC

• OLE: Olefin group from CB-IV chemical mechanism

• PAR: Parafin group from CB- IV chemical mechanism

• XYL: Xylene group from CB-IV chemical mechanism

• TOL: Toluene group from CB- IV chemical mechanism

• Total VOC: The sum of ALD2, ETH, FORM , ISOP, NR, OLE, PAR, XYL, and TOL

• TERPB: Terpenes (Note that the same ma ss accounted for by TERPB is also included in VOC

The daily emissions were calculated by summing th e monthly emissions from June, July, and August and dividing by the number of days in those three months (92).247 

## 8.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE PROCEDURES

Quality assurance activities are distinguished from QC activities in that they provide a more objective assessment of data quality. The QA checks (except th e sensitivity analysis a nd range checks) will be performed by staff not involved in the inventory calcula tions. Several quality assurance checks will be employed to address the data quality objectives: reality/peer review checks, sample calculations, sensitivity analysis, and range ch ecks. Details on each check are provided below. The product of the quality checking process will be a completed summary of items checked, summary of results, and recommended follow-up action. At the completion of the process, the inve ntory will be evaluated according to the data quality objectives (see Chapter IV).

8.1 REALITY CHECK/PEER REVIEW CHECK

Definition: Independent review by a knowledgeable expert

Benefit: Ensure data, assumptions, a nd procedures are reasonable

Objective(s) Addressed: Accuracy, completeness, comparability, representativeness

Check(s): Reasonableness of methods, assumptions, and emissions estimates will be assessed. This will be accomplished by 1) comparing data sources used in the final inventory to those specified in the Inventory Preparation Plan, 2) reliance on review er expertise, and 3) comparison of emissions estimates to other inventory effo rts, particularly the 1990 base year inventory and the 1999 PEI.

Limitations: None

8.2 SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

Definition: Verification of values by replicating calculations248 Benefit:
Ensure calculations are done correctly

Objective(s) Addressed: Accuracy

Check(s): Emissions calculations will be dupli cated to check the accuracy of the arithmetic and, therefore, the resulting emissions estimate. Priority will be give n to those categories identified as the largest PM 10 and CO contributors.

Limitations: Estimates calculated using computer models su ch as MOBILE6.2 are checked using simplified assumptions to arrive at a ”ballpark” value to us e as a comparison to the ac tual calculated value.

8.3 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

Definition Systematic study of how changes in parameters affect data

Benefit Identify the parameters that ha ve the greatest effect on data

Objective(s) Addressed Generally addresses all objectives

Check(s) A sensitivity analysis in the form of source category emissions rankings by pollutant will be performed. The ranking will help determine where efforts should be concentrated.

Limitations

None

8.4 STANDARD RANGE CHECKS

Definition Standard range checks address the data quality objective of comparability249 Benefit Identify the source categories that have the greates t change in emission levels from previous emission estimates.

Objective(s) Addressed Generally addresses all objectives

Check(s) The 2002 base year inventory will be compared to the most recent inventory (base year 1990, 1999 PEI, 2002 NEI). Any discrepancies (data outliers) greater than 20% involving sources that made up greater than 5% of the 1990 PM 10 , 1999 CO, or 2002 inventories will be corrected or justified.

The projection inventories will be compared to the 2002 base year inventory. Any discrepancies (data outliers) between the base ye ar and a given projection year great er than the population increase percentage plus 10% and involving sources that made up greater than 5% of the 2002 or projection year daily inventories will be investigated and either corrected (see Corrective Action Plan below) or justified. The justification will include whether there was a change in methodology (e.g., different emission factor, allocation method, activity data) or if there is a real an ticipation of emissions increasing or decreasing (e.g., decreases in the onroad sector due to fleet turnover).

Limitations

None.

8.5 CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN

Corrective and follow-up actions identified during th e quality checking process will be noted and referred to the appropriate staff. Both the correcti ve actions identified and re sults of actions taken in response will be documented.

8.6 QUALITY ASSURANCE FINAL REPORT

The final inventory report will include discussion s on inventory quality considerations for each major source category. It will summarize the results of the quality checking pro cedures and provide an evaluation of the inventory according to the data quality objectives. The report will include an assessment of the limitations of the inventory data.250 

## 9.0 RESPONSIBILITY

The inventory process will be a cooperative effort among MDE-ARMA Air Quality Policy and Planning Program, MDE-ARMA Air Quality Co mpliance Program, MDE-ARMA Air Quality Permits Program, MDE-ARMA Mob ile Source Control Program, Ba ltimore Metropolitan Council, Maryland State Highway Administration, and Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments Environmental Programs. A brief list of inventory responsibilities follows:

MDE-ARMA Air Quality Compliance Program (Compliance) will inventory calendar year 2002 actual emissions and provide allowable emissions from point sources under their jurisdiction. Compliance will perform a review of these data. Compliance will also provide information on local control programs that are expected to impact the base year or projection year inventories.

MDE-ARMA Mobile Source Control Program (MSCP) will provide estimates of actual 2002 and projected 2010 and 2015 emission estimates for onroad sources. MSCP will provide 2002, 2010, and 2015 VMT for both paved and unpaved roads in the NAAs . Data will be supplied to MSCP from the Baltimore Metropolitan Council (BMC), Maryla nd State Highway Administration (SHA), and Metropolitan Washington Counc il of Governments (MWCOG).

Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments will provide estimates of actual 2002 and projected 2010 and 2015 emission estimates for onr oad sources for the Maryland Counties within their jurisdiction. MWCOG will provide 2002, 2010, and 2015 VMT for both paved and unpaved roads in the NAAs.

MDE-ARMA Air Quality Policy and Planning (Planning) will inventory area and nonroad mobile sources. Planning will review the point source inventory estimates provided by Compliance. Planning will project area/nonroad mobile source emission s to 2010 and 2015. Planning will perform the final QA review of the inventories. Finally, Pla nning will prepare the inventory documentation.

MSCP, Compliance, and Planning will review all inventory products.

# Development of Emission Projections For 2009, 2012, and 2018 For NonEGU Point, Area, and Nonroad Source In the MANE-VU Region Final Report February, 2007About MARAMA

The Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Associ ation is an association of ten state and local air pollution control agencies. MARAMA's mission is to strengthen the sk ills and capabilities of member agencies and to help them work togeth er to prevent and redu ce air pollution impacts in the Mid-Atlantic Region.

MARAMA provides cost-effective a pproaches to regional collabor ation by pooling resources to develop and analyze data, share ideas, and trai n staff to implement common requirements.

The following State and Local gove rnments are MARAMA members: Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maryland, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, Philadelphia, and Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.

For copies of this report contact:

MARAMA Mid-Atlantic Regional Ai r Management Association
711 West 40 th Street
Suite 312 Baltimore, MD 21211 phone 410.467.0170
fax 410.467.1737
http://www.marama.org/

About MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc.

MACTEC, Inc. is a leader in the engineering, environmenta l and remedial construction industries. MACTEC provides premier management , technical, and professi onal services to help clients successfully manage complex businesses, projects, and facilitie s. MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. is a division of MACTEC that pr ovides these same services tailored to meet the unique needs of government agencies, including state/local agencies and federal agencies.

# Development of Emission Projections
for 2009, 2012, and 2018
for NonEGU Point, Area, and Nonroad Sources
in the MANE-VU Region

Final Technical Support Document

Prepared for:
Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Mana gement Association (MARAMA)

Prepared by:
MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc.

February 28, 2007

______________________ ______________________ Edward Sabo Douglas A. Toothman Principal Scientist Principal EngineerFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Page i

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### Table of Contents

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................. 1-1

2.0 NONEGU POINT SOURCES ............................................................................................ 2-1

2.1 INITIAL 2002 POINT SOURCE EMISSION INVENTORY ..................................... 2-1
2.2 NONEGU POINT SOURCE GROWTH FACTORS .................................................. 2-3
2.2.1 EGAS 5.0 Growth Factors ....................................................................................... 2-3
2.2.2 AEO2005 Growth Factors ....................................................................................... 2-4
2.2.3 State Specific Growth Factors .................................................................................2-5
2.2.3.1 Connecticut ...................................................................................................... 2-5
2.2.3.2 Delaware ..........................................................................................................2-5
2.2.3.3 District of Columbia ........................................................................................2-5
2.2.3.4 Maine ............................................................................................................... 2-5 2.2.3.5 Maryland..........................................................................................................2-6
2.2.3.6 Massachusetts ..................................................................................................2-6 2.2.3.7 New Hampshire ............................................................................................... 2-6 2.2.3.8 New Jersey....................................................................................................... 2-6
2.2.3.9 New York......................................................................................................... 2-6 2.2.3.10 Pennsylvania .................................................................................................... 2-6
2.2.3.11 Rhode Island .................................................................................................... 2-7
2.2.3.12 Vermont ........................................................................................................... 2-7
2.3 NONEGU POINT SOURCE CONTROL FACTORS ................................................. 2-7
2.3.1 NOx SIP Call Phase I ..............................................................................................2-8
2.3.2 NOx SIP Call Phase II .............................................................................................2-8
2.3.3 NOx RACT in 1-hour Ozone SIPs............................................................................ 2-8
2.3.4 NOx OTC 2001 Model Rule for ICI Boilers ............................................................2-9
2.3.5 2-, 4-, 7-, and 10-year MACT Standards ................................................................. 2-9
2.3.6 Combustion Turbine and RICE MACT.................................................................. 2-10
2.3.7 Industrial Boiler/Process Heater MACT ...............................................................2-10
2.3.8 Refinery Enforcement Initiative .............................................................................2-10
2.3.9 Source Shutdowns .................................................................................................. 2-12
2.3.10 State Specific Control Factors...........................................................................2-12
2.4 NONEGU POINT SOURCE QA/QC REVIEW........................................................2-12
2.5 NONEGU POINT SOURCE NIF AND SMOKE FILES........................................... 2-14
2.6 NONEGU POINT SOURCE EMISSION SUMMARIES ......................................... 2-14

3.0 AREA SOURCES ............................................................................................................... . 3-1Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Page ii

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 3.1 INITIAL 2002 AREA SOURCE EMISSION INVENTORY ...................................... 3-1
3.2 AREA SOURCE GROWTH FACTORS..................................................................... 3-2
3.2.1 EGAS 5.0 Growth Factors ....................................................................................... 3-3
3.2.2 AEO2005 Growth Factors ....................................................................................... 3-3
3.2.3 State Specific Growth Factors .................................................................................3-4
3.2.3.1 Connecticut ...................................................................................................... 3-4
3.2.3.2 Delaware ..........................................................................................................3-4
3.2.3.3 District of Columbia ........................................................................................3-5
3.2.3.4 Maine ............................................................................................................... 3-5 3.2.3.5 Maryland..........................................................................................................3-5
3.2.3.6 Massachusetts ..................................................................................................3-5 3.2.3.7 New Hampshire ............................................................................................... 3-5 3.2.3.8 New Jersey....................................................................................................... 3-5
3.2.3.9 New York......................................................................................................... 3-5 3.2.3.10 Pennsylvania .................................................................................................... 3-6
3.2.3.11 Rhode Island .................................................................................................... 3-6
3.2.3.12 Vermont ........................................................................................................... 3-6
3.3 AREA SOURCE CONTROL FACTORS.................................................................... 3-6
3.3.1 OTC 2001 VOC Model Rules................................................................................... 3-7
3.3.2 On-Board Vapor Recovery .................................................................................... 3-10
3.3.3 Post-2002 Area Source Controls in New Jersey....................................................3-11
3.3.4 Residential Wood Combustion...............................................................................3-12
3.4 AREA SOURCE QA/QC REVIEW ..........................................................................3-12
3.5 AREA SOURCE NIF, SMOKE AND SUMMARY FILES....................................... 3-13
3.6 AREA SOURCE EMISSION SUMMARIES............................................................ 3-13

4.0 NONROAD SOURCES....................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 NONROAD MODEL SOURCES................................................................................ 4-1 4.2 AIRCRAFT, COMMERCIAL MARINE, AND LOCOMOTIVES ............................ 4-2
4.2.1 Maryland Non-NONROAD Source Emissions.........................................................4-3
4.2.2 DC Locomotive Emissions ....................................................................................... 4-4
4.2.3 Logan (Boston) Airport Emissions...........................................................................4-4
4.3 NONROAD QA/QC REVIEW....................................................................................4-4
4.4 NONROAD NIF, SMOKE, AND SUMMARY FILES ............................................... 4-5
4.5 NONROAD EMISSION SUMMARIES ..................................................................... 4-5

5.0 BEYOND-ON-THE-WAY EMISSION INVENTORY.................................................... 5-1

5.1 NONEGU POINT SOURCES ..................................................................................... 5-2Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Page iii

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 5.1.1 Adhesives and Sealants Application ........................................................................5-7
5.1.2 Asphalt Production Plants .......................................................................................5-7
5.1.3 Cement Kilns............................................................................................................ 5-8
5.1.4 Glass and Fiberglass Furnaces ...............................................................................5-8
5.1.5 Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers...................................................5-8
5.1.6 Commercial and Institutional Heating Oil ............................................................ 5-10
5.1.7 BOTW NonEGU Point Source NIF, SMOKE, and Summary Files .......................5-10
5.1.8 BOTW NonEGU Point Source Emission Summaries............................................. 5-10
5.2 AREA SOURCES...................................................................................................... 5-19
5.2.1 Adhesives and Sealants..........................................................................................5-19
5.2.2 Asphalt Paving.......................................................................................................5-23
5.2.3 Consumer Products................................................................................................5-23
5.2.4 Portable Fuel Containers ...................................................................................... 5-24
5.2.5 Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Boilers..........................................................5-25
5.2.6 Residential and Commercial Heating Oil.............................................................. 5-26
5.2.7 BOTW Area Source NIF, SMOKE, and Summary Files........................................5-26
5.2.8 BOTW Area Source Emission Summaries .............................................................5-26
5.3 N ONROAD M OBILE S OURCES ...................................................................................... 5-35
5.4 E LECTRIC G ENERATING U NITS ................................................................................... 5-35
5.5 O NROAD M OBILE S OURCES ........................................................................................ 5-35

List of Appendices

Appendix A - NonEGU Point Source Growth Factors Appendix B - NonEGU Point Source Control Factors Appendix C - Area Source Growth Factors Appendix D - Area Source Control Factors Appendix E – BOTW NonEGU Point and Area Source Control FactorsFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Page iv

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. List of Tables Figure 1-1 Base Year, OTB/OTW AND BOTW Annual CO Emissions

Table 1-1 Summary of MANE-VU Area, N onEGU, and Nonroad Emission Inventory by Pollutant, Sector, and Year

Table 2-1 NonEGU Point Source NIF, IDA, and Summary File Names Table 2-2 NonEGU Point S ource OTB/OTW Annual CO Emission Projections Table 2-3 NonEGU Point S ource OTB/OTW Annual NH3 Emission Projections Table 2-4 NonEGU Point S ource OTB/OTW Annual NOx Emission Projections Table 2-5 NonEGU Point Sour ce OTB/OTW Annual PM10-PRI Emission Projections Table 2-6 NonEGU Point Sour ce OTB/OTW Annual PM25-PRI Emission Projections Table 2-7 NonEGU Point S ource OTB/OTW Annual SO2 Emission Projections Table 2-8 NonEGU Point S ource OTB/OTW Annual VOC Emission Projections

Table 3-1 Adoption Matrix for 2001 OTC Model Rules Table 3-2 Rule Penetration and Control Effi ciency Values for 2001 OTC Model Rule for PFCs Table 3-3 Area Source NIF, I DA, and Summary File Names Table 3-4 Area Source OTB/OTW Annual CO Em ission Projections Table 3-5 Area Source OTB/OTW Annual NH3 Em ission Projections Table 3-6 Area Source OTB/OTW Annual NOx Em ission Projections Table 3-7 Area Source OTB/OTW Annual PM10-PRI Emission Projections Table 3-8 Area Source OTB/OTW Annual PM25-PRI Emission Projections Table 3-9 Area Source OTB/OTW Annual SO2 Emission Projections Table 3-10 Area Source OTB/OTW Annual VOC Emission Projections

Table 4-1 Nonroad Source NIF, IDA, and Summary File Names Table 4-2a All Nonroad Sources OTB/ OTW Annual CO Emi ssion Projections Table 4-2b NONROAD Model Sources OT B/OTW Annual CO Emission Projections Table 4-2c Aircraft, Locomotive, and Co mmercial Marine Ve ssel Sources OTB/OTW Annual CO Emission Projections Table 4-3a All Nonroad Sources OTB/ OTW Annual NH3 Emi ssion Projections Table 4-3b NONROAD Model Sources OT B/OTW Annual NH3 Emission Projections Table 4-3c Aircraft, Locomotive, and Co mmercial Marine Ve ssel Sources OTB/OTW Annual NH3 Emission Projections Table 4-4a All Nonroad Sources OTB/ OTW Annual NOx Emi ssion Projections Table 4-4b NONROAD Model Sources OTB/ OTW Annual NOx Emission Projections Table 4-4c Aircraft, Locomotive, and Co mmercial Marine Ve ssel Sources OTB/OTW Annual NOx Emission ProjectionsFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Page v

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. List of Tables (cont.)

Table 4-5a All Nonroad Sources OTB/OT W Annual PM10-PRI Emission Projections Table 4-5b NONROAD Model Sources OTB/ OTW Annual PM10-PRI Emission Projections Table 4-5c Aircraft, Locomotive, and Co mmercial Marine Ve ssel Sources OTB/OTW Annual PM10-PRI Emission Projections Table 4-6a All Nonroad Sources OTB/OT W Annual PM25-PRI Emission Projections Table 4-6b NONROAD Model Sources OTB/ OTW Annual PM25-PRI Emission Projections Table 4-6c Aircraft, Locomotive, and Co mmercial Marine Ve ssel Sources OTB/OTW Annual PM25-PRI Emission Projections Table 4-7a All Nonroad Sources OTB/ OTW Annual SO2 Emi ssion Projections Table 4-7b NONROAD Model Sources OT B/OTW Annual SO2 Emission Projections Table 4-7c Aircraft, Locomotive, and Co mmercial Marine Ve ssel Sources OTB/OTW Annual SO2 Emission Projections Table 4-8a All Nonroad Sources OTB/ OTW Annual VOC Emission Projections Table 4-8b NONROAD Model Sources OT B/OTW Annual VOC Em ission Projections Table 4-8c Aircraft, Locomotive, and Co mmercial Marine Ve ssel Sources OTB/OTW Annual VOC Emission Projections

Table 5-1 State Staff Recommendations for Control Measures to Include in BOTW Regional Modeling – NOx Emissions from NonEGU Point Sources Table 5-2 State Staff Recommendations for Control Measures to Include in BOTW Regional Modeling – NOx Emissions from ICI Boilers Table 5-3 State Staff Recommendations for Control Measures to Include in BOTW Regional Modeling – SO2 Emissions from NonEGU Point Sources Table 5-4 State Staff Recommendations for Control Measures to Include in BOTW Regional Modeling – VOC Emissions from NonEGU Point Sources Table 5-5 BOTW NonEGU NIF, IDA, and Summary File Names Table 5-6 NonEGU Point Sour ces OTB/OTW and BOTW Annua l CO Emission Projections Table 5-7 NonEGU Point Sources OTB/OTW and BO TW Annual NH3 Emission Projections Table 5-8 NonEGU Point Sources OTB/OTW and BO TW Annual NOx Emission Projections Table 5-9 NonEGU Point S ources OTB/OTW and BOTW Annual PM10 Emission Projections Table 5-10 NonEGU Point Sources OTB/ OTW and BOTW Annual PM2.5 Emission Projections Table 5-11 NonEGU Point Sources OT B/OTW and BOTW Annual SO2 Emission Projections Table 5-12 NonEGU Point Sources OT B/OTW and BOTW Annual VOC Emission ProjectionsFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Page vi

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. List of Tables (cont.)

Table 5-13 State Staff Recommendations fo r Control Measures to Include in BOTW Regional Modeling – NOx Emissions from Area Sources Table 5-14 State Staff Recommendations fo r Control Measures to Include in BOTW Regional Modeling – SO2 Emissions from Area Sources Table 5-15 State Staff Recommendations fo r Control Measures to Include in BOTW Regional Modeling – VOC Emissions from Area Sources Table 5-16 BOTW Area Source NIF, IDA, and Summary File Names Table 5-17 Area Point Sources OTB/OTW a nd BOTW Annual CO Emission Projections Table 5-18 Area Point Sources OTB/OTW a nd BOTW Annual NH3 Emission Projections Table 5-19 Area Point Sources OTB/OTW a nd BOTW Annual NOx Emission Projections Table 5-20 Area Point Sources OTB/OTW a nd BOTW Annual PM10 Emission Projections Table 5-21 Area Point Sources OTB/OTW a nd BOTW Annual PM2.5 Emission Projections Table 5-22 Area Point Sources OTB/OTW a nd BOTW Annual SO2 Emission Projections Table 5-23 Area Point Sources OTB/OTW a nd BOTW Annual VOC Emission ProjectionsFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Page vii

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. List of Figures

Figure 1-1 Base Year, OTB/OTW AND BOTW Annual CO Emissions Figure 1-2 Base Year, OTB/OTW AND BOTW Annual NH3 Emissions Figure 1-3 Base Year, OTB/OTW AND BOTW Annual NOx Emissions Figure 1-4 Base Year, OTB/OTW AND BOTW Annual SO2 Emissions Figure 1-5 Base Year, OTB/OTW AND BOTW Annual PM10 Emissions Figure 1-6 Base Year, OTB/OTW AND BOTW Annual PM2.5 Emissions Figure 1-7 Base Year, OTB/OTW AND BOTW Annual VOC EmissionsFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Page viii

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### Acronyms and Abbreviations

Acronym Description AEO Annual Energy Outlook BOTW Beyond-on-the-Way emission controls

CAIR Clean Air Interstate Rule EGAS 5.0 Economic Growth Analysis System Version 5.0 EGU Electric Generating Unit EIA Energy Information Agency EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency IDA Inventory Data Analyzer (data format used by SMOKE modeling system) IPM Integrated Planning Model MANE-VU Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union MARAMA Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association

MOBILE6 U.S. EPA’s emission model for onroad sources NESCAUM Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management

NH3 Ammonia NIF3.0 National Emission Inventory Input Format Version 3.0 NMIM National Mobile Inventory Model

NONROAD U.S. EPA’s emission model for certain types of nonroad equipment NOx Oxides of nitrogen OTB/OTW On-the-Books/On-the-Way OTC Ozone Transport Commission

PM10-PRI Particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter that includes both the filterable and condensable components of particulate matter

PM25-PRI Particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter that includes both the filterable and condensable components of particulate matter

SIC Standard Industrial Classification code SIP State Implementation Plan

SCC Source Classification Code SMOKE Sparse Matrix Operator Ke rnel Emissions Modeling System

SO2 Sulfur dioxide VOC Volatile organic compoundsFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 1 – Executive Summary Page 1-1

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report was prepared for the Mid-Atla ntic Regional Air Mana gement Association (MARAMA) as part of an effort to assist stat es in developing State Implementation Plans (SIPs) for ozone, fine particles, and regional haze. It describes the data sour ces, methods, and results for emission forecasts for three years, three em ission sectors, two emission control scenarios; seven pollutants, and 11 states pl us the District of Columbia. The following is a summary of the future year inventories that were developed:

• The three projection years are 2009, 2012, and 2018.

• The three source sectors are non-Electric Generating Units (non-EGUs), area sources, and nonroad mobile sources. (Note: under se parate efforts, MANE-VU prepared EGU projections using the Integrated Planni ng Model {IPM} and onroad mobile source projections using the SMOKE emission modeling system).

• The two emission control scenarios are: a) a combined “on-the-books/on-the-way” (OTB/W) control strategy accounting for emissi on control regulations already in place as well as emission control regulations that are not yet finalized but are likely to achieve additional reductions by 2009; and b) a “b eyond-on-the-way” (BOTW) scenarios to account for controls from potential new regul ations that may be necessary to meet attainment and other regional air quality goals.

• The seven pollutants are sulfur dioxide (SO2), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOC), carbon monoxide (CO), partic ulate matter less than or equal to 10
microns in diameter that includes both the filterable and condensable components of particulate matter (PM10-PRI), particulate ma tter less than or equa l to 2.5 microns in
diameter that includes both the filterable and condensable components of particulate matter (PM25-PRI), and ammonia (NH3).

• The states are those that comprise the Mid- Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANEVU) region. In addition to the District of Columbia, the 11 MANE-VU states are Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Ma ssachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
The results of the emission projections are summa rized in Table 1-1 and Figures 1-1 to 1-7.
Section 2 of this report describes how the nonEGU OTB/W emission projections were made.
Section 3 describes the methods for the area source emission projec tions. Section 4 describes the methods for the nonroad section, including sour ces accounted for by the NONROAD model as well as aircraft, locomotives, and marine vessels . Section 5 describes the development of the BOTW emission projections.Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 1 – Executive Summary Page 1-2

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. Table 1-1 Summary of MANE- VU Area, NonEGU, and Nonroad Emission Inventory by Pollutant, Sector, and Year Annual Emissions (tons per year)

Pollutant Sector 2002 2009 OTB/W 2009 BOTW 2012 OTB/W 2012 BOTW 2018 OTB/W 2018 BOTW
CO Area 1,326,796 1,283,959 1,283,959 1,260,627 1,260,627 1,211,727 1,211,727 NonEGU 295,577 328,546 328,546 346,090 346,090 412,723 412,723 Nonroad 4,553,124 4,969,925 4,969,925 5,099,538 5,099,538 5,401,353 5,401,353 6,175,497 6,582,430 6,582,430 6,706,255 6,706,255 7,025,803 7,025,803
NH3 Area 249,795 294,934 294,934 312,419 312,419 341,746 341,746 NonEGU 3,916 4,301 4,301 4,448 4,448 4,986 4,986
Nonroad 287 317 317 337 337 369 369 253,998 299,552 299,552 317,204 317,204 347,101 347,101
NOx Area 265,400 278,038 265,925 281,659 261,057 284,535 263,030 NonEGU 207,048 210,522 185,658 218,137 184,527 237,802 199,732 Nonroad 431,631 354,850 354,850 321,935 321,935 271,185 271,185 904,079 843,410 806,433 821,731 767,519 793,522 733,947
PM10 Area 1,452,309 1,527,586 1,527,586 1,556,316 1,550,400 1,614,476 1,607,602 NonEGU 51,280 55,869 55,869 57,848 57,624 63,757 63,524 Nonroad 40,114 34,453 34,453 32,445 32,445 27,059 27,059 1,543,703 1,617,908 1,617,908 1,646,609 1,640,469 1,705,292 1,698,185
PM2.5 Area 332,521 340,049 340,049 341,875 336,779 345,419 339,461 NonEGU 33,077 36,497 36,497 37,625 37,444 41,220 41,029 Nonroad 36,084 30,791 30,791 28,922 28,922 23,938 23,938 401,682 407,337 407,337 408,422 403,145 410,577 404,428
SO2 Area 286,921 304,018 304,018 305,339 202,058 305,437 190,431 NonEGU 264,377 249,658 249,658 255,596 253,638 270,433 268,330 Nonroad 57,257 15,651 15,651 8,731 8,731 8,643 8,643 608,555 569,327 569,327 569,666 464,427 584,513 467,404
VOC Area 1,528,269 1,398,982 1,363,278 1,382,803 1,339,851 1,387,882 1,334,039 NonEGU 91,278 92,279 91,718 96,887 96,260 110,524 109,762 Nonroad 572,751 460,922 460,922 424,257 424,257 380,080 380,080 2,192,298 1,952,183 1,915,918 1,903,947 1,860,368 1,878,486 1,823,881
OTB/W – on-the-books/way scenario; BOTW – beyond-on-the-way scenarioFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 1 – Executive Summary Page 1-3

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. Figure 1-1 2002 Base Year, OTB/OT W AND BOTW Annual CO Emissions (tons per year)

0 2,000,000 4,000,000 6,000,000 8,000,000

2 0 0 2

2 0 0 9 OT

B

/ W

2 0 0 9

B OT

W 2012 O

TB

/ W

2012 B OT

W 2018 OTB/W 2018 BOTWTons/Year Nonroad
NonEGU
Area

Figure 1-2 2002 Base Year, OTB/OT W AND BOTW Annual NH3 Emissions (tons per year)

0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000

2002 2009 OTB/W 2009 BOTW 2012 OTB/W 2012 BOTW 2018 OTB/W 2018 BOTWTons/Year Nonroad
NonEGU
AreaFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 1 – Executive Summary Page 1-4

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. Figure 1-3 2002 Base Year, OTB/OT W AND BOTW Annual NOx Emissions (tons per year)

0 250,000 500,000 750,000 1,000,000

2 0 0 2

2 0 0 9 OT

B

/ W

2 0 0 9

B OT

W 2012 O

TB

/ W

2012 B OT

W 2018 OTB/W 2018 BOTWTons/Year Nonroad
NonEGU
Area

Figure 1-4 2002 Base Year, OTB/OT W AND BOTW Annual SO2 Emissions (tons per year)

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

2002 2009 OTB/W 2009 BOTW 2012 OTB/W 2012 BOTW 2018 OTB/W 2018 BOTWTons/Year Nonroad
NonEGU
AreaFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 1 – Executive Summary Page 1-5

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. Figure 1-5 2002 Base Year, OTB/OT W AND BOTW Annual PM10 Emissions (tons per year)

0 400,000 800,000 1,200,000 1,600,000 2,000,000

2 0 0 2

2 0 0 9 OT

B

/ W

2 0 0 9

B OT

W 2012 O

TB

/ W

2012 B OT

W 2018 OTB/W 2018 BOTWTons/Year Nonroad
NonEGU
Area

Figure 1-6 2002 Base Year, OTB/OT W AND BOTW Annual PM2.5 Emissions (tons per year)

0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000

2002 2009 OTB/W 2009 BOTW 2012 OTB/W 2012 BOTW 2018 OTB/W 2018 BOTWTons/Year Nonroad
NonEGU
AreaFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 1 – Executive Summary Page 1-6

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. Figure 1-7 2002 Base Year, OTB/OT W AND BOTW Annual VOC Emissions (tons per year)

0 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000

2 0 0 2

2 0 0 9 OT

B

/ W

2 0 0 9

B OT

W 2012 O

TB

/ W

2012 B OT

W 2018 OTB/W 2018 BOTWTons/Year Nonroad
NonEGU
AreaFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 2 – NonEGU Point Sources Page 2-1

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### 2.0 NONEGU POINT SOURCES

Under ideal circumstances, all stationary s ources would be considered point sources for purposes of emission inventories. In practic al applications, howeve r, only sources that emit more than a specified cutoff level of po llutant are considered point sources. In general, the MANE-VU point s ource inventory includes only major sources (i.e., those required to obtain a Title V operating permit). Some states may include additional stationary sources that emit below the major source thresholds.

For emission projection purposes, the point so urce inventory is divided into two subsectors – the Electric Generating Unit (EGU) sector and the non-EGU sector – because different projections methods are used for th ese two sectors. Fo r EGUs, MANE-VU used the Integrated Planning Model (IPM) to project future generation as well as to calculate the impact of future control program s on future emission levels.

The procedures for projecting emissions for non- EGUs are described in this section. We started with the MANE-VU 2002 point source em ission inventory, which contains data for both EGUs and nonEGUs. We implemented a procedure to split the 2002 point source inventory into two components – and EGU invent ory for those units accounted for in IPM, and a nonEGU inventory for those point sour ces not accounted for in IPM. For the nonEGU sources, we first applied growth f actors to account for changes in economic activity. Next, we applied control factors to account for future emission reductions from on-the-books (OTB) control regul ations and on-the-way (OTW) control regulations. The OTB control scenario accounts for post- 2002 emission reductions from promulgated federal, State, local, and site-specific c ontrol programs as of June 15, 2005. The OTW control scenario accounts for pr oposed (but not final) control programs that are reasonably anticipated to result in post-2002 emission reductions. We then conducted a series of quality assurance steps to ensure the devel opment of complete, accurate, and consistent emission inventories. We provided the i nventories in three formats – the National Emission Inventory Input Format (NIF), SMOKE Inventory Data Analyzer (IDA) format, and SMOKE growth/control packets. We also prepared emission summary tables by state and pollutant. Each of these activitie s is discussed in this section.

2.1 INITIAL 2002 POINT SOURCE EMISSION INVENTORY

The starting point for the nonEGU projections was Version 3 of the MANE-VU 2002 point source emission inventory (MANE-VU_2002_P t_Version 3_040706.MDB). Since this file contains both EGUs and nonEGU point sources, and EGU emissions are projected using the IPM, it was necessary to split the 2002 point source file into two components.Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 2 – NonEGU Point Sources Page 2-2

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. The first component contains those emission un its accounted for in the IPM forecasts. The second component contains all other point sources not accounted for in IPM.

The MANE-VU 2002 point source inventory cont ains a cross-reference table (xwalk {MANE-VU}) that matches IPM emission unit id entifiers (ORISPL pl ant code and BLRID emission unit code) to MANE-VU NIF emissi on unit identifiers (FIPSST state code, FIPSCNTY county code, St ate Plant ID, State Point ID). Initially, we used this crossreference table to split the point source file into the E GU and nonEGU components. When
there was a match between the IPM ORISPL /BLRID and the MANE-VU emission unit ID, the unit was assigned to the EGU inventory; all other emission units were assigned to the nonEGU inventory. The exception to this rule was for the State of New York. The crossreference table only contained matches at the pl ant level, not the emission unit level. So for New York EGUs accounted for in IPM, all emission units at a plant were assigned to the MANE-VU EGU file (includi ng ancillary emission units not accounted for in IPM).

After performing this initial splitting of the MANE-VU point source inventory into EGU and nonEGU components, we prepared several ad -hoc QA/QC queries to verify that there was no double-counting of emissions in the EGU and nonEGU inventories:

• We reviewed the IPM parsed fi les {VISTASII_PC_1f_AllUnits_2009 (To Client).xls and VISTASII_PC_1f_AllUnits_2018 (To Client).xls} to identify EGUs accounted for in IPM. We compared this list of emission units to the nonEGU inventory derived from the MANE-VU cross -reference table to verify that units accounted for in IPM were not double-counted in the nonEGU inventory. As a result of this comparison, we made a few ad justments in the cross-reference table to add emission units for four plants to ensu re these units accounted for in IPM were moved to the EGU inventory.

• We reviewed the nonEGU inventory to iden tify remaining emission units with an Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code of “4911 Electrical Services” or
Source Classification Code of “1-01-xxx-xx External Combustion Boiler, Electric Generation”. We compared the list of s ources meeting these selection criteria to the IPM parsed file to ensure that these units were not double-counted.

• We compared the number of records for each NIF table in the original 2002 point
source file to the 2002 EGU and 2002 nonEGU files. We determined that the sum
of the number of records in the EGU file and the number of records in the nonEGU file equaled the number of records in the original 2002 point source file.Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 2 – NonEGU Point Sources Page 2-3

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. • We compared the emissions by pollutant a nd state in the original 2002 point source
file to the 2002 EGU file and 2002 nonEGU files. We determined that the sum of
the emissions in the EGU file and the emissions in the nonEGU file equaled the emissions in the origin al 2002 point source file.

As a result of this procedure, we created se parate sets of NIF tables for 2002 for EGUs (i.e., units accounted for in IPM) and nonEGUs . The nonEGU set of 2002 NIF tables were used in all subsequent projections for 2009/2012/2018.

After release of Version 3 of the MANE-VU 2002 inventory, New Je rsey discovered that fugitive emissions from petroleum refineries were missing from Version 3. New Jersey supplied MACTEC with the emission unit identifiers for the fugitive releases, and the appropriate records were added to the 2002 NIF files.. MACTEC used these revised fugitive estimates for projecting emissions to 2009/2012/2018.

2.2 NONEGU POINT SOURC E GROWTH FACTORS

The nonEGU growth factors were deve loped using three sets of data:

• The U.S. EPA’s Economic Growth and An alysis System Version 5.0 (EGAS 5.0) using the default SCC configuration. EGAS 5.0 generates growth factors from REMI’s 53 Sector Policy Insight Mode l Version 5.5, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Annual Energy Outlook 2004 (A EO2004) fuel use projections, and national vehicle mile travel projections from EPA’s MOBILE 4.1 Fuel Combustion Model;

• The DOE’s Annual Energy Outlook 2005 (AEO2005) fuel consumption forecasts were used to replace the AEO2004 forecasts that are used as the default values in EGAS 5.0; and

• State-supplied population, employment, and other emission projection data.

The priority for applying these growth factor s was to first use the state-supplied projection data (if available). If no st ate-supplied data are availabl e, then we used the AEO2005 projection factors for fuel consumption sources. If data from these two sources were not available, we used the EGAS 5.0 default SCC configuration. Appendix A lists the nonEGU point source growth factors used for this study.

2.2.1 EGAS 5.0 Growth Factors
EGAS is an EPA-developed economic and activ ity forecast tool that provides credible growth factors for developing emission inve ntory projections. Growth factors areFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 2 – NonEGU Point Sources Page 2-4

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. generated using national- and regional-ec onomic forecasts. For nonEGUs, the primary economic activity data sets in EGAS 5.0 are:

• State-specific growth rates from th e Regional Economic Model, Inc. (REMI) Policy Insight® model, version 5.5. Th e REMI socioeconomic data (output by industry sector, population, farm sector value added, and gasoline and oil expenditures) are available by 4-digit SIC code at the State level.

• Energy consumption data from the DOE’s Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) Annual Energy Outlook 2004, w ith Projections through 2025 for use in generating growth factors for non-EGU fu el combustion sources. These data include regional or national fuel-use for ecast data that were mapped to specific
SCCs for the non-EGU fuel use sectors (e.g., commercial coal, industrial natural gas). Growth factors are reported at the Census divi sion level. These Census divisions represent a group of States (e.g., the South Atlantic division includes Delaware, the District of Columbia, a nd Maryland; the Middle Atlantic division includes New Jersey, New York, and Pe nnsylvania; the Ne w England division includes Connecticut, Maine, Massachuset ts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont). Although one might expect diffe rent growth rates in each of these States due to unique demogra phic and socioeconomic trends, all States within each division received the same growth rate.

EGAS uses these economic activity datasets and a set of cross-referen ce files to generate growth factors by Standard Industrial Cla ssification (SIC) code, Source Classification Code (SCC), or Maximum Achievable Cont rol Technology (MACT) codes. Growth factors for 2009, 2012, and 2018 were calculated us ing 2002 as the base year at the State and SCC level. County-specific growth factors are not available in EGAS 5.0.

There were several SCCs in the MANE-VU 200 2 inventory that are not included in the EGAS 5.0 files. As a result, EGAS did not generate growth factors for those SCCs. MACTEC assigned growth factors for the mi ssing SCCs by assigning a surrogate SCC that best represented the missing SCC.

2.2.2 AEO2005 Growth Factors

The default version of EGAS 5.0 uses the DOE ’s AEO2004 forecasts. We replaced these
data with the more recent AEO2005 forecasts to improve the emissions growth factors produced. Using ACCESS, we created a copy of the “DOE EGAS 5” dataset. The dataset
includes three tables. One table contains th e projection data values from 2001-2025. The
other two tables are th e MACT and SCC crosswalk tables. The crosswalk tables are linkedFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 2 – NonEGU Point Sources Page 2-5

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. to the projection table via a “model code”. Using the copy of AEO2004 data, we updated the corresponding projection tables with data from the AEO2005 located at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/supplement/supref.html . Using the data and descriptions from the new tables, we matched the projection data to the appropriate model codes and then
built a table identical to the DOE EGAS 5 dataset with the new 2005 AEO data. The resulting ACCESS dataset contains a projection data table with the exact same structure as the original except with the new data. The SCC and MACT crosswalks did not require any updates since the model code assignments we re not changed in the new data table.

2.2.3 State Specific Growth Factors
In addition to the growth data described a bove, we received growth projections from
several MANE-VU states to be used instea d of the default EGAS or AEO2005 growth factors. The following paragraphs describe the growth factors used for each state.

2.2.3.1 Connecticut
Connecticut provided state-level employmen t-based growth factors for various SIC categories derived from CT Department of Labor (CTDOL) projections. For many manufacturing sectors, employ ment is projected to declin e, indicating the likelihood of reduced activity levels and emissions for those sectors. Associated growth factors are less than one. To ensure consistency within a facility, CTDEP indicated that the employmentbased growth factors be used wherever possi ble, as matched by SIC. MACTEC used the growth factors by SIC code for all sources in CT, including those fuel combustion sources that would otherwise have been projected using the AEO2005 forecasts.

2.2.3.2 Delaware
Delaware provided state-level employment da ta from the Department of Labor by NAICS
codes for 2002 and 2012. We used these data to calculate the growth factor from 2002 to 2012 and interpolated these data to derive growth factors for 2009 and 2018. We matched these industry NAICS groupings to SCC codes in order to create SCC specific growth factors for non-EGU point sources.

2.2.3.3 District of Columbia
DC indicated that it preferred to use the EGAS 5.0 growth fa ctors, with the enhancement of using the DOE’s 2005 Annual Energy Ou tlook data for combustion sources.

2.2.3.4 Maine
Maine indicated that it pref erred to use the EGAS 5.0 growth factors and the DOE’s 2005 Annual Energy Outlook data for combustion sources.Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 2 – NonEGU Point Sources Page 2-6

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 2.2.3.5 Maryland
Maryland provided growth factors by SCC for all counties in the State. These growth factors were derived from a variety source sources, including the MWCOG Cooperative Forecast 7.0, the BMC Round 6A Cooperative Forecast (prepared by the MD Dept. of Planning, May 2004), and EGAS 5.0.

2.2.3.6 Massachusetts
Massachusetts also provided a link to em ployment projections for 2000-2010 for very narrow occupational categor ies that are not directly correla ted with SIC or SCC codes. Since we could not match the occupational titles in the Massachusetts employment projections with SIC or SCC codes, MACTEC used the EGAS 5.0 growth factors (with the
AEO2005 enhancement for combustion sources ) for projecting emissions from nonEGU

sources.

2.2.3.7 New Hampshire
New Hampshire indicated that it preferred to use the EGAS 5.0 growth factors, with the enhancement of using the DOE’s 2005 Annual Energy Outlook data for combustion

sources.

2.2.3.8 New Jersey
New Jersey indicated that it preferred to use the EGAS 5.0 growth factors, with the enhancement of using the DOE’s 2005 Annual Energy Outlook data for combustion

sources.

2.2.3.9 New York
New York provided county-level employment da ta for 12 counties in the New York City metro area for 2002, 2009, 2012, and 2018. The empl oyment projections are for broad industry categories not directly correlated with SIC or SCC codes. Since we could not match the 12-county employment projections with SIC or SCC codes, MACTEC used the EGAS 5.0 growth factors (w ith the AEO2005 enhancement for combustion sources) for projecting emissions from nonEGU sources for both the 12-county area and all other
counties in the state.

2.2.3.10 Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania provided total employment project ions for a subset of counties. These employment projections do not have enough detail regarding sp ecific industrial groupings
to be correlated with SIC or SCC codes. MACTEC used the EGAS 5.0 growth factorsFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 2 – NonEGU Point Sources Page 2-7

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. (with the AEO2005 enhancement for combustion sources) for projecting emissions from
nonEGU sources

2.2.3.11 Rhode Island
Rhode Island provided state-le vel employment data from th e Department of Labor and Training by 3-digit NAICS codes for 2002 and 2012. We used these data to calculate the growth factor from 2002 to 2012 and interpolated these data to derive growth factors for 2009 and 2018. We matched these industry NAICS groupings to SCC codes in order to create SCC specific growth fact ors for non-EGU point sources.

2.2.3.12 Vermont
Vermont indicated that it preferred to us e the EGAS 5.0 growth factors, with the enhancement of using the DOE’s 2005 Annual Energy Outlook data for combustion

sources.

2.3 NONEGU POINT SOURC E CONTROL FACTORS

The following sections document how the OTB/ OTW control factors were developed for the MANE-VU future year inventories. We developed control factors to estimate emission
reductions that will result from on-the-books regulations that will result in post-2002 emission reductions and proposed regulations or actions that will result in post-2002
emission reductions. Control factors were de veloped for the following national, regional,
or state control measures:

• NOx SIP Call Phase I (NOx Budget Trading Program)

• NOx SIP Call Phase II

• NOx RACT in 1-hour Ozone SIPs

• NOx OTC 2001 Model Rule for ICI Boilers

• 2-, 4-, 7-, and 10-year MACT Standards

• Combustion Turbine and RICE MACT

• Industrial Boiler/Proc ess Heater MACT

• Refinery Enforcement Initiative

• Source Shutdowns
In addition, states prov ided specific control measure inform ation about specific sources or regulatory programs in their stat e. We used the state-specif ic data to the extent it was
available.Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 2 – NonEGU Point Sources Page 2-8

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 2.3.1 NOx SIP Call Phase I
Compliance with the NOx SIP Call in the Oz one Transport Commissi on (OTC) states was scheduled for May 1, 2003. The requirements applied to all MANE -VU states except Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont. While the program applies primarily to electric generating units (EGUs), the NOx SIP Call app lies to non-EGUs such as large industrial
boilers and turbines. The NOx SIP Call di d not mandate which sources must reduce emissions; rather, it required states to meet an overall emission budget and gave them flexibility to develop control strategies to meet that budget. All states in the MANE-VU region affected by the NOx SIP Call chose to meet their NOx SIP Call requirements by participating in the NOx Budget Trading Program . We reviewed the available state rules and guidance documents to determine the a ffected nonEGU sources and ozone season NOx allowances for each source. Future year emissions for non-EGU boilers/turbines were capped at the allowance levels. Since the allowances are give n in terms of tons per ozone season (5 months May to September), we calculated annual emissions by multiplying the ozone season allowances by a factor of 12 (annual) / 5 (ozone season). Table B-1
identifies those units included in th e NOx SIP Call Phase I budget program.

Cement kilns were also included in Phase I of the NO x SIP call. There is a cement kiln in Maine, but it is not subject to the NOx SI P call. For the cement kilns in Maryland and New York, a default control efficiency value of 25 percent was applie d. For the cement kilns in Pennsylvania, the state provided their best estimates of the actual control efficiency expected for each kiln after the NOx SIP Call. Table B-2 identifies the cement kilns affected by the NOx SIP Call.

2.3.2 NOx SIP Call Phase II
The final Phase II NOx SIP Call rule was promulgated on April 21, 2004. States had until April 21, 2005, to submit SIPs meeting the Phase II NOx budget requirements. The Phase II rule applies to large IC engines, which are primarily used in pipeline transmission service at compressor stations . We have identified aff ected units using the same methodology as was used by EPA in the proposed Phase II rule (i.e., a large IC engine is one that emitted, on average, more than 1 ton per day during 2002). The final rule reflects a control level of 82 percent for natural gas-fi red IC engines and 90 percent for diesel or dual fuel categories. Pennsylvania identified la rge IC engines affected by the rule. Table
B-3 identifies those units included in the NOx SIP Call Phase II.

2.3.3 NOx RACT in 1-hour Ozone SIPs
Emission reductions requirements from NOx reasonably available control technology (RACT) requirements in 1-hour Ozone SIP areas were implemented in or prior to 2002.Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 2 – NonEGU Point Sources Page 2-9

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. These reductions should alre ady be accounted for in th e MANE-VU 2002 inventory since the 2002 inventory was based on 2002 actual em issions which includes any reductions due
to NOx RACT.

2.3.4 NOx OTC 2001 Model Rule for ICI Boilers
The Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) deve loped control measures for industrial, commercial, and institutional (IC I) boilers in 2001. Information about the proposed OTC NOx emission limits by fuel type and size range was obtained from Table III-1 of Control Measure Development Support Analysis of Ozone Transport Commission Model Rules (E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc., March 31, 2001 ). Information about the emission limits contained in the existing state rules (prior to adoption of the OT C 2001 model rule) were obtained from Tables III-2 through III-9 of th e Pechan document. Information about the
emission limits contained in the current stat e rules (as they existed in June 2006) were
obtained from the individual st ates regulations. The percen t reduction for ICI boilers was estimated by state, fuel type, and size range by comparing the current state emission limits (as they existed in June 2 006) with the state emission limits as they existed in 2001. Pennsylvania adopted the OTC 2001 model rule in five southeaste rn counties (Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, and Philade lphia) for boilers in the 100 to 250 million Btu/hour range. New Jersey adopted the OTC 2001 model rule for natural gas-fired boilers
with a maximum heat rate of at least 100 million Btu/hour. For other states, it did not appear that the emission limits in 2006 ha d changed from the emission limits in 2001.

2.3.5 2-, 4-, 7-, and 10-ye ar MACT Standards

Maximum achievable control technology (MACT) requirement s were also applied, as documented in the report entitled Control Packet Development and Data Sources, dated July 14, 2004 (available at http://www.epa.gov/air/interstateairquality/pdfs/NonEGU_nonpoint_Control_Development.pdf ). The point source MACTs and associated emission reductions were designed from Federa l Register (FR) notices and discussions with EPA’s Emission Standards Division (ESD ) staff. These MACT requirements apply only to units located at a major source of h azardous air pollutants (HAP). We did not apply reductions for MACT standards with an initial compliance da te of 2002 or earlier, assuming that the effects of these controls are already accounted for in the inventories supplied by the States. Emission reductions we re applied only for MACT standards with an initial compliance date of 2003 or greater.

Because the MANE-VU inventory does not id entify HAP major sources, the reductions from post-2002 MACT standards we re applied on a more general scale to all sources with certain SCCs. Every source with an SCC de termined to be affected by a post-2002 MACTFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 2 – NonEGU Point Sources Page 2-10

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. standard was assigned an incremental percent reduction for the applicable MACT standard.
Table B-4 shows the SCCs affected and the in cremental control efficiencies applied for post-2002 MACT standards.

2.3.6 Combustion Turbine and RICE MACT
The MANE-VU projection invent ory does not include the NOx co-benefit effects of the MACT regulations for Gas Turbines or sta tionary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines, which EPA estimates to be sm all compared to the overall inventory.

2.3.7 Industrial Boiler/Process Heater MACT
EPA anticipates ancillary reductions in PM and SO2 as a result of the Industrial
Boiler/Process Heater MACT st andard. The MACT applies to industrial, commercial, and institutional units firing solid fuel (coal, wood, waste, biomass) which have a design capacity greater than 10 mmBtu/hr and are lo cated at a major source of hazardous air pollutants (HAP). The boiler design capacity field in many cases was missing from the MANE-VU emission inventory. In lieu of boiler design capacity, we identified boilers with the following SCCs that emitted greater than 10 tons/year of either SO2 or PM10

• 1-02-001-xx Industrial, Anthracite Coal

• 1-02-002-xx Industrial, Bituminous/subbituminous Coal

• 1-02-008-xx Industrial, Petroleum Coke

• 1-02-009-xx Industrial, Wood/Bark Waste

• 1-03-001-xx Commercial/Inst itutional, Anthracite Coal

• 1-03-002-xx Commercial/Instituti onal, Bituminous/subbituminous Coal

• 1-03-009-xx Commercial/Inst itutional, Wood/Bark Waste

• 3-90-002-89 In-Process Fuel Use, Bituminous Coal

• 3-90-002-99 In-Process Fuel Use, Bituminous Coal

• 3-90-008-89 In-Process Fuel Use, Coke

• 3-90-008-99 In-Process Fuel Use, Coke

• 3-90-009-99 In-Process Fuel Use, Wood For these sources, we applied the average MACT control efficiencies of 4% for SO2 and
40% for PM.

2.3.8 Refinery Enforcement Initiative
Both EPA and State/local agencies have negot iated (or are in the pr ocess of negotiating) Consent Decrees that will require significant investment in pollution control technology and will result in significant emission reductions in the future. There are eight refineries in the MANE-VU inventory impacted by the settlem ents. The five major refinery processes that are affected by the judicial settlements are:Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 2 – NonEGU Point Sources Page 2-11

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. • Fluid Catalytic Cracking Units (FCCU s) and Fluid Coking Units (FCUs)

• Process Heaters and Boilers

• Flare Gas Recovery

• Leak Detection and Repair

• Benzene/Wastewater As part of the development of the Assessment of Control Technology Options for Petroleum Refineries in the Mid-Atlantic Region (Draft Final, Oc tober 2006), MACTEC
coordinated with State and local agencies to develop estimates of future year emissions based upon the settlements and recent permits that implement the provisions of those
settlements.

For FCCUs/FCUs, the Consent Decree cont rol requirements generally require the installation of wet gas scrubbers for SO2 control. Some of the units have already been permitted to include the control requirements. In those cases, specific emission limits for SO2 have already been established and were us ed as the best estimate of emission in 2009. In cases where specific emission limitation ha ve not yet been speci fied in permits, a 90 percent SO2 control efficiency was assumed as a conservative estimate of the SO2
reductions from the installation of a wet gas scrubber.

For NOx control at FCCUs/FCUs, the Cons ent Decrees require selective catalytic reduction (SCR), selective non-catalytic reducti on (SCNR), or optimization studies to reduce NOx emissions. Some of the units have already been permitted to include the control requirements. In those cases, specifi c emission limits for NOx have already been
established and were used as the best estimate of emission in 2009. In cases where specific emission limitation have not yet been speci fied in permits, a 90 percent NOx control efficiency was assumed for SCR, and a 60 percent reduction was assumed from the
installation of SNCR.

For SO2 emissions from boilers/heaters, the control requirements generally require the elimination of burning solid/liquid fuels. We identified all boilers and heaters at the eight
affected refineries that burn solid or liquid fuels. For thes e units, we set the SO2 emissions to zero in the future year inventories.

For NOx emissions from boilers/heaters, cont rol requirements generally apply to units greater than 40 million British thermal units (MMBtu) per hour capacity or larger. In many cases, the consent decrees establish NO x emission reduction objectives across a number of refineries that are owned by the same firm. Therefore, the companies have some discretion in deciding which individual boilers/heaters to control as well as the control techniques to apply. Also, the consent decrees have various phase-in dates which
make it difficult to determine the exact date when the reductions will be fully realized. AsFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 2 – NonEGU Point Sources Page 2-12

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. part of the development of the Assessment of Control Technology Options for Petroleum Refineries in the Mid-Atlantic Region (Draft Final, October 2006), MACTEC coordinated with State and local agencies to develop estimates of future year emissions based upon the settlements and recent permits that implement the provisions of those settlements.
Heater/boiler NOx controls for the units to which they are applied were determined to be equivalent to meeting a 0.04 lbs per million Btu NOx emission rate. Meeting this emission reduction requirement is expect ed to provide an average NOx emission reduction of 50 percent from 2002 levels in 2009.

The Consent Decrees also included enhanced LDAR programs (e.g., reducing the defined leak concentration, increasing the monitoring frequency, other requirements. Our best estimate is a 50% reduction in VOC emissions as a result of implementing enhanced LDAR programs similar to those required in the recent Consent Decrees. This is based on a study ( http://www.rti.org/pubs/e rtc_enviro_2002_final1.pdf ) that estimated an enhanced LDAR program could result in a 50% reduction in fugitive VOCs.

The settlements are expected to pro duce additional SO2, NOx, and VOC emission reductions for flare gas recovery and wastew ater operations. Thes e emission reductionswere not quantified as they are expected to produce less significant changes in the MANEVU inventory because of the magnitude and un certainty associated with the emissions from these units in the 2002 MANE-VU inventory.

2.3.9 Source Shutdowns

A few states indicated that si gnificant source shut downs have occurred since 2002 and that
emissions from these sources should not be incl uded in the future year inventories. These
sources are identified in Table B-5.

2.3.10 State Specific Control Factors
Delaware provided reductions expected from the Maritr ans lightering operation. VOC emissions are projected to be redu ced by 34.8% by 2009, 69.3% by 2012, and 79.2% by
2018.

2.4 NONEGU POINT SOURCE QA/QC REVIEW

Throughout the inventory developm ent process, quality assuran ce steps were performed to ensure that no double counting of emissions occurred, and to ensu re that a full and complete inventory was developed. Quality a ssurance was an important component to the inventory development process and MACTEC performed the following QA steps on the nonEGU point source component of the M ANE-VU future year inventories:Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 2 – NonEGU Point Sources Page 2-13

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 1. State agencies reviewed the draft growth and control factors in the summer of 2005. Changes based on these comments were implemented in the files.

2. Compared, at the emission unit-level, em issions from the IPM parsed files and the MANE-VU NIF files to verify that the splitting of the MANE-VU point source inventory into the EGU and nonE GU sectors did not result in any double county of emissions or cause units to be missing from both inventories.

3. SCC level emission summaries were prepared and evaluated to ensure that
emissions were consistent and that there were no missing sources. Tier comparisons (by pollutant) were devel oped between the revised 2002 base year inventory and the 2009/2012/2018 projection inventories.

4. State level emission summar ies were prepared and evaluated to ensure that
emissions were consistent and reasonab le. The summaries included base year 2002 emissions, 2009/2012/2018 projected emissions accounting only for growth, 2009/2012/2018 projected emissi ons accounting for both growth and
emission reductions from OTB and OTW controls.

5. Emission inventory files in NIF format we re provided for state agency review and comment. Changes based on these comments were implemented.

6. All final files were run through EPA’s Format and Content checking software.

7. Version numbering was used for all i nventory files developed. The version numbering process used a decimal system to track major and minor changes. For example, a major change would result in a version going from 1.0 to 2.0 for example. A minor change would cause a version number to go from 1.0 to 1.1. Minor changes resulting from largely edito rial changes would result in a change from 1.00 to 1.01 for example.

Final QA checks were run on the revised projecti on inventory data set to ensure that all corrections provided by the S/L ag encies and stakeholders were correctly incorporated into
the S/L inventories and that there were no re maining QA issues that could be addressed during the duration of the project. After expor ting the inventory to AS CII text files in NIF 3.0, the EPA QA program was run on the ASCII files and the QA output was reviewed to verify that all QA issues that co uld be addressed were resolvedFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 2 – NonEGU Point Sources Page 2-14

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 2.5 NONEGU POINT SOURCE NIF AND SMOKE FILES

The Version 3 file names and descriptions de livered to MARAMA are shown in Table 2-1.

2.6 NONEGU POINT SOURCE EMISSION SUMMARIES

Emission summaries by state, year, and polluta nt are presented in Tables 2-2 through 2-8 for CO, NH3, NOx, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI, SO2, and VOC, respectively.

Table 2-1 NonEGU Point Source NIF, IDA, and Summary File Names

File Name Date Description

MANEVU_OTB2009_NonEGU_NIFV3_1.mdb Dec. 4, 2006 Version 3.1 of 2009 OTB NonEGU source NIF inventory
MANEVU_OTB2012_NonEGU_NIFV3_1.mdb Dec. 4, 2006 Version 3.1 of 2012 OTB NonEGU source NIF inventory
MANEVU_OTB2018_NonEGU_NIFV3_1.mdb Dec. 4, 2006 Version 3.1 of 2018 OTB NonEGU source NIF inventory

MANEVU_OTB2009_NonEGU_IDAV3_1.txt Nov. 22, 2006 Version 3.1 of 2009 OTB NonEGU source inventory in SMOKE IDA format
MANEVU_OTB2012_NonEGU_IDAV3_1.txt Nov. 22, 2006 Version 3.1 of 2012 OTB NonEGU source inventory in SMOKE IDA format
MANEVU_OTB2018_NonEGU_IDA3V_2.txt Nov. 22, 2006 Version 3.1 of 2018 OTB NonEGU source inventory in SMOKE IDA format
MANEVU OTB BOTW NonEGU V3_1 State Summary.xls Nov. 22, 2006 Spreadsheet with state totals by pollutant for all NonEGU

sources MANEVU OTB BOTW NonEGU V3_1 State SCC Summary.xls Dec. 4, 2006 Spreadsheet with SCC totals by state and pollutant for all NonEGU sources.Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 2 – NonEGU Point Sources Page 2-15

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. Table 2-2 NonEGU Point Sources OTB/OTW Annual CO Emission Projections (tons per year)

State 2002 2009 2012 2018

CT 2,157 2,251 2,306 2,415 DE 8,812 9,037 8,748 8,651 DC 247 283 299 327 ME 9,043 10,147 10,467 11,433 MD 94,536 104,012 111,174 141,342 MA 10,793 12,027 12,552 13,426 NH 774 858 871 907 NJ 8,209 10,076 10,806 12,244 NY 53,259 61,411 65,541 78,876 PA 105,815 116,430 121,251 140,909 RI 1,712 1,764 1,821 1,927 VT 220 250 254 267 Total 295,577 328,546 346,090 412,724

0 25,000 50,000 75,000 100,000 125,000 150,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002

2009 OTB/W

2012 OTB/W

2018 OTB/WFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 2 – NonEGU Point Sources Page 2-16

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. Table 2-3 NonEGU Point Sources OTB/OTW Annual NH3 Emi ssion Projections (tons per year)

State 2002 2009 2012 2018

CT 0 0 0 0 DE 153 145 138 134 DC 4 5 5 5 ME 700 796 809 859 MD 305 347 366 410 MA 462 510 521 563 NH 37 46 50 60 NJ 0 0 0 0 NY 1,027 1,081 1,128 1,296 PA 1,170 1,307 1,363 1,591 RI 58 64 68 68 VT 0 0 0 0 Total 3,916 4,301 4,448 4,986

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

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002

2009 OTB/W

2012 OTB/W

2018 OTB/WFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 2 – NonEGU Point Sources Page 2-17

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. Table 2-4 NonEGU Point Sources OTB/OTW Annual NOx Emi ssion Projections (tons per year)

State 2002 2009 2012 2018

CT 6,773 7,236 7,465 7,921 DE 4,372 4,076 4,135 4,246 DC 480 548 577 627 ME 12,108 14,285 14,661 15,753 MD 21,940 19,401 20,399 22,797 MA 18,292 20,603 21,372 23,040 NH 1,188 1,384 1,394 1,435 NJ 15,812 16,498 17,091 18,805 NY 34,253 33,648 34,586 37,133 PA 89,136 89,932 93,526 103,137 RI 2,308 2,449 2,471 2,442 VT 386 462 460 466 Total 207,048 210,522 218,137 237,802

0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002

2009 OTB/W

2012 OTB/W

2018 OTB/WFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 2 – NonEGU Point Sources Page 2-18

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. Table 2-5 NonEGU Point Sources OTB/OTW Annual PM10-PRI Emission Projections (tons per year)

State 2002 2009 2012 2018

CT 990 1,035 1,058 1,106 DE 1,820 1,486 1,475 1,487 DC 157 178 186 198 ME 6,120 7,088 7,133 7,496 MD 4,739 4,797 5,040 5,828 MA 4,212 5,006 5,088 5,314 NH 918 1,084 1,097 1,129 NJ 3,439 4,205 4,417 4,959 NY 5,072 5,221 5,444 6,098 PA 23,282 25,169 26,307 29,516 RI 296 333 331 330 VT 235 267 272 296 Total 51,280 55,869 57,848 63,757

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002

2009 OTB/W

2012 OTB/W

2018 OTB/WFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 2 – NonEGU Point Sources Page 2-19

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. Table 2-6 NonEGU Point Sources OTB/OTW Annual PM25-PRI Emission Projections (tons per year)

State 2002 2009 2012 2018

CT 822 871 894 939 DE 1,606 1,256 1,245 1,254 DC 128 145 152 164 ME 4,899 5,675 5,690 5,935 MD 2,772 2,861 3,011 3,503 MA 2,953 3,554 3,574 3,660 NH 857 1,008 1,021 1,052 NJ 2,947 3,588 3,764 4,234 NY 3,355 3,535 3,688 4,161 PA 12,360 13,578 14,159 15,878 RI 180 200 198 194 VT 198 226 229 246 Total 33,077 36,497 37,625 41,220

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002

2009 OTB/W

2012 OTB/W

2018 OTB/WFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 2 – NonEGU Point Sources Page 2-20

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. Table 2-7 NonEGU Point Sources OTB/OTW Annual SO2 Emi ssion Projections (tons per year)

State 2002 2009 2012 2018

CT 2,438 2,528 2,567 2,644 DE 35,706 7,117 7,401 7,610 DC 618 707 735 780 ME 14,412 18,656 18,492 18,794 MD 34,193 34,223 35,373 38,921 MA 14,766 18,185 18,442 18,955 NH 2,436 3,099 3,098 3,114 NJ 9,797 7,141 7,234 7,856 NY 58,227 62,922 64,484 67,545 PA 88,259 90,735 93,441 99,924 RI 2,651 3,163 3,182 3,164 VT 874 1,182 1,147 1,127 Total 264,377 249,658 255,596 270,434

0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002

2009 OTB/W

2012 OTB/W

2018 OTB/WFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 2 – NonEGU Point Sources Page 2-21

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. Table 2-8 NonEGU Point Sources OTB/OTW Annual VOC Emi ssion Projections (tons per year)

State 2002 2009 2012 2018

CT 4,604 4,114 4,152 4,230 DE 4,645 2,987 2,311 1,993 DC 69 72 75 85 ME 4,477 4,740 4,985 5,709 MD 5,676 5,297 5,578 6,301 MA 7,794 8,381 9,061 10,564 NH 1,459 1,060 1,132 1,294 NJ 13,318 16,702 17,621 19,915 NY 9,933 10,157 10,750 12,354 PA 36,326 35,875 38,162 44,537 RI 1,898 1,640 1,695 1,812 VT 1,079 1,254 1,365 1,730 Total 91,278 92,279 96,887 110,524

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002

2009 OTB/W

2012 OTB/W

2018 OTB/WFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 3 – Area Sources Page 3-1

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### 3.0 AREA SOURCES

The area source sector is comprised of stationa ry sources that are sm all and numerous, and that have not been inventoried individually as specific point, mobile, or biogenic sources. Individual sources are typically grouped with other like source s into area source categories and the emissions are calculated on a county- by-county basis. Area source categories
include residential/commercial/i ndustrial fuel combustion; small industrial processes; solvent utilization (such as architectural coatings and consumer products); petroleum product storage and transport (such as gasolin e service stations); waste disposal; and agricultural activities.

The procedures for projecting emissions for area sources are described in this section. We
started with the MANE-VU 2002 area source emi ssion inventory. We first applied growth factors to account for change s in population and economic activity. Next, we applied
control factors to account for future emissi on reductions from on-the-books (OTB) control regulations and on-the-way (O TW) control regulations. The OTB control scenario accounts for post-2002 emission reductions from promulgated federal, State, local, and site-specific control programs as of June 15, 2005. The OTW control scenario accounts for proposed (but not final) control programs that are reasonably anticipated to result in post2002 emission reductions. We then conducted a se ries of quality assurance steps to ensure the development of complete, accurate, and cons istent emission inventories. We provided
the inventories in three formats – the Nati onal Emission Inventory Input Format (NIF), SMOKE Inventory Data Analyzer (IDA) format, and SMOKE growth/control packets. We also prepared emission summary tables by state and pollutant. Each of these activities is
discussed in this section.

3.1 INITIAL 2002 AREA SOURCE EMISSION INVENTORY

The starting point for the area source projec tions was Version 3 of the MANE-VU 2002 area source emission inventory (MANE-VU _2002_Area_040606.MDB). There were two updates to this version of the 2002 inventory in response to re quests from the District of Columbia and Massachusetts. These changes, described in the followi ng paragraphs, were used in preparing the 2009/2012/2018 projections.

After release of Version 3 of the MANE-VU 2002 inventory, the Di strict of Columbia discovered a gross error in the 2002 residential, non-residential and roadway construction. They requested that the following values be used for the 2002 base year and as the basis for the 2009/2012/2018 projections:Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 3 – Area Sources Page 3-2

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. SCC Pollutant Code 2002 Annual Emissions (tpy)
2311010000 PM10-PRI 8.2933

PM25-PRI 1.6587
2311020000 PM10-PRI 486.1951
PM25-PRI 97.239
2311030000 PM10-PRI 289.8579
PM25-PRI 57.9716

After release of Version 3 of the MANE-VU 2002 inventory, Massac husetts revised their inventory of area source heating oil emissi ons due to two changes: (1) SO2 emission factors were adjusted for the sulfur content from 1.0 to 0.03; and (2) use of the latest DOEEIA 2002 fuel use data instead of the previ ous version used 2001. These two changes significantly altered the 2002 SO2 emissions for area so urce heating oil combustion. Massachusetts provided revised 2002 PE a nd EM tables, which MACTEC used in preparing the 2009/2012/2018 pr ojection inventories.

3.2 AREA SOURCE GROWTH FACTORS

The area source growth factors were de veloped using three sets of data:

• The U.S. EPA’s Economic Growth and An alysis System Version 5.0 (EGAS 5.0) using the default SCC configuration. EGAS 5.0 generates growth factors from REMI’s 53 Sector Policy Insight Mode l Version 5.5, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Annual Energy Outlook 2004 (A EO2004) fuel use projections, and national vehicle mile travel projections from EPA’s MOBILE 4.1 Fuel Combustion Model;

• The DOE’s Annual Energy Outlook 2005 (AEO2005) fuel consumption forecasts were used to replace the AEO2004 forecasts that are used as the default values in EGAS 5.0; and

• State-supplied population, employment, and other emission projection data.

The priority for applying these growth factor s was to first use the state-supplied projection data (if available). If no st ate-supplied data are availabl e, then we used the AEO2005 projection factors for fuel consumption sources. If data from these two sources were not available, we used the EGAS 5.0 default S CC configuration. Appe ndix C lists the area source growth factors used for this study.Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 3 – Area Sources Page 3-3

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 3.2.1 EGAS 5.0 Growth Factors
EGAS is an EPA-developed economic and activ ity forecast tool that provides credible growth factors for developing emission inve ntory projections. Growth factors are generated using national- and regional-ec onomic forecasts. For nonEGUs, the primary economic activity data sets in EGAS 5.0 are:

• State-specific growth rates from th e Regional Economic Model, Inc. (REMI) Policy Insight® model, version 5.5. Th e REMI socioeconomic data (output by industry sector, population, farm sector value added, and gasoline and oil expenditures) are available by 4-digit SIC code at the State level.

• Energy consumption data from the DOE’s Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) Annual Energy Outlook 2004, w ith Projections through 2025 for use in generating growth factors for non-EGU fu el combustion sources. These data include regional or national fuel-use for ecast data that were mapped to specific
SCCs for the non-EGU fuel use sectors (e.g., commercial coal, industrial natural gas). Growth factors are reported at the Census divi sion level. These Census divisions represent a group of States (e.g., the South Atlantic division includes Delaware, the District of Columbia, a nd Maryland; the Middle Atlantic division includes New Jersey, New York, and Pe nnsylvania; the Ne w England division includes Connecticut, Maine, Massachuset ts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont). Although one might expect diffe rent growth rates in each of these States due to unique demogra phic and socioeconomic trends, all States within each division received the same growth rate.

EGAS uses these economic activity datasets and a set of cross-referen ce files to generate growth factors by Standard Industrial Cla ssification (SIC) code, Source Classification Code (SCC), or Maximum Achievable Cont rol Technology (MACT) codes. Growth factors for 2009, 2012, and 2018 were calculated us ing 2002 as the base year at the State and SCC level. County-specific growth factors are not available in EGAS 5.0.

There were several SCCs in the MANE-VU 200 2 inventory that are not included in the EGAS 5.0 files. As a result, EGAS did not generate growth factors for those SCCs. MACTEC assigned growth factors for the mi ssing SCCs by assigning a surrogate SCC that best represented the missing SCC.

3.2.2 AEO2005 Growth Factors

The default version of EGAS 5.0 uses the DOE ’s AEO2004 forecasts. We replaced these
data with the more recent AEO2005 forecasts to improve the emissions growth factorsFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 3 – Area Sources Page 3-4

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. produced. Using ACCESS, we created a copy of the “DOE EGAS 5” dataset. The dataset
includes three tables. One table contains th e projection data values from 2001-2025. The
other two tables are th e MACT and SCC crosswalk tables. The crosswalk tables are linked to the projection table via a “model code”. Using the copy of AEO2004 data, we updated the corresponding projection tables with data from the AEO2005 located at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/supplement/supref.html . Using the data and descriptions from the new tables, we matched the projection data to the appropriate model codes and then
built a table identical to the DOE EGAS 5 dataset with the new 2005 AEO data. The resulting ACCESS dataset contains a projection data table with the exact same structure as the original except with the new data. The SCC and MACT crosswalks did not require any updates since the model code assignments we re not changed in the new data table.

3.2.3 State Specific Growth Factors
In addition to the growth data described a bove, we received growth projections from
several MANE-VU states to be used instea d of the default EGAS or AEO2005 growth factors. The following paragraphs describe th e area source growth factors used for each

state.

3.2.3.1 Connecticut
Connecticut provided state-level populat ion projections for 2009, 2012, and 2018. We created growth factors for those SCCs that are population based usi ng the state-supplied data. Connecticut also provided state-level employment projections for industry categories analogous to 2-digit SIC codes. Projec tions were provided for 2009, 2012, and 2018. We matched these industry groupings to SCC codes in order to create SCC specific growth
factors for area sources. Emissions from area source fuel combustion were projected using
the AEO2005 forecasts.

3.2.3.2 Delaware

Delaware provided county-level population projections ( Delaware Population Consortium Annual Population Projections , Oct 18, 2001 Version 2001.0) for 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2020. We interpolated these data to get growth factors fo r projection from 2002 to 2009, 2012, and 2018 for those SCCs that are population based. Delaware al so provided state-level employment data by NAICS codes for 2002 and 2012. We interpolat ed values for 2009 and 2018. We matched these industry groupings to SCC codes in order to cr eate SCC specific growth factors for selected area

sources. Emissions from area source fuel combus tion were projected using the AEO2005
forecasts.Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 3 – Area Sources Page 3-5

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 3.2.3.3 District of Columbia
DC provided local growth factors for pr ojecting emissions from 2002 to 2009, 2012, and 2018 for all area source SCCs except fuel co mbustion sources. Emissions from area source fuel combustion were proj ected using the AEO2005 forecasts.

3.2.3.4 Maine
Maine indicated that it pref erred to use the EGAS 5.0 growth factors and the DOE’s 2005 Annual Energy Outlook data for combustion sources.

3.2.3.5 Maryland
Maryland provided growth factors by SCC for all counties in the State. These growth factors were derived from a variety source sources, including the MWCOG Cooperative Forecast 7.0, the BMC Round 6A Cooperative Forecast (prepared by the MD Dept. of Planning, May 2004), and EGAS 5.0.

3.2.3.6 Massachusetts
Massachusetts provided county-level populat ion data for the years 2000, 2010, and 2020. We interpolated these data to get growth factors for projection from 2002 to 2009, 2012, and 2018 for those SCCs that are population ba sed. Massachusetts also provided growth factors for several SCCs based on employ ment data for the years 2000 and 2010. We interpolated these data to get growth factors for projection from 2002 to 2009, 2012, and 2018. Massachusetts agreed on the use of th e AEO2005 forecasts for projecting emissions
from area source fuel combustion.

3.2.3.7 New Hampshire
New Hampshire agreed to use the EGAS 5.0 gr owth factors, with the enhancement of using the DOE’s 2005 Annual Energy Outlook data for combustion sources.

3.2.3.8 New Jersey
New Jersey provided growth fact ors for most SCCs for all counties in the State. When state-specific growth factors were not av ailable, we used th e AEO2005 forecasts for projecting emissions from area source fuel combustion and EGAS default factors for any remaining categories.

3.2.3.9 New York
New York provided county-level population data for 2002 and projections/growth factors for 2009, 2012, and 2018. We used these growth factors for those SCCs that are population based. W e usedFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 3 – Area Sources Page 3-6

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. the AEO2005 forecasts for projecting emissions from area source fuel combustion and EGAS default factors for any remaining categories.

3.2.3.10 Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania provided county-level population data for 2000 and projections for 2010 and 2020. We interpolated these data to get gr owth factors for projecting from 2002 to 2009, 2012, and 2018 for those SCCs that are populati on based. Pennsylvania also provided general employment data for 21 counties or area for 2000 and projections for 2010 and 2020. We interpolated these data to get gr owth factors for projecting from 2002 to 2009, 2012, and 2018 for nine area source categories id entified by Pennsylvania. For all other area source categories, we used the AEO2005 fo recasts for projecting emissions from area
source fuel combustion and EGAS default f actors for any remaining categories.

3.2.3.11 Rhode Island
Rhode Island provided county-level population projections for 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2020. We interpolated these data to get growth factors for projection from 2002 to 2009, 2012, and 2018 for those SCCs that are pop ulation based. Rhode Island provided state-level employment data from the Depart ment of Labor and Trai ning by 3-digit NAICS
codes for 2002 and 2012. We used these data to calculate the growth factor from 2002 to 2012 and interpolated these data to derive growth factors for 2009 and 2018. We matched these industry NAICS groupings to SCC codes in order to create SCC specific growth factors for area sources. Rhode Island agr eed on the use of the AEO2005 forecasts for projecting emissions from ar ea source fuel combustion.

3.2.3.12 Vermont
Vermont agreed to use the EGAS 5.0 growth f actors, with the enha ncement of using the DOE’s 2005 Annual Energy Outlook data for combustion sources.

3.3 AREA SOURCE CONTROL FACTORS

We developed control factors to estimate emission reductions that will result from on-thebooks regulations that will result in po st-2002 emission reductions and proposed regulations or actions that will result in post-2002 reduc tions. Control factors were developed for the following national or regional control measures:

• OTC VOC Model Rules

• Federal On-board Vapor Recovery

• New Jersey Post-2002 Ar ea Source Controls

• Residential Woodstove NSPSFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 3 – Area Sources Page 3-7

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 3.3.1 OTC 2001 VOC Model Rules

Most of the MANE-VU States have adopted (or will soon adopt) the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) model rules for five area source VOC categories: consumer products, architectural and industrial maintenance (AIM) coatings, portable fuel containers, mobile equipment repair and refinishing (MERR), and solvent cleaning. Information on the percent reduction anticipated by each model rule was obtained from Table II-6 of Control Measure Development Support Analysis of Ozone Transport Commission Model Rules (E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc., March 31, 2001). This set of model rules will be referred
to as the “OTC 2001 model rules” in this document. Information as to whether a particular state has adopted (or will soon adopt) a partic ular measure was obtained form the Status Report on OTC States’ Efforts to Promulgate Regulations Based on OTC Model Rules (As of June 1, 2005, as posted on the OTC web site). For all categories, except portable fuel containers (see discussion belo w), we assumed that the rules would be fully implemented by all states by 2009 . Some states had already adopted some the OTC 2001 Model Rules in 2002 or already had similar rules in pl ace in 2002. The 2002 emission inventory for those states already reflected the emission reductions expected from the OTC 2001 Model
Rule level of control. For those states a nd categories, no incremental reductions were applied for to the future year proj ections, as indicated Table 3-1.

For consumer products, the 2001 OTC model rule was estimated to provide a 14.2 percent
VOC emissions reductions from the Federal Part 59 rule. Most, but not all, states in the OTR have adopted the OTC 2001 model rule for consumer products. For this inventory, it
was assumed that all OTC states would a dopt the 2001 OTC model ru le prior to 2009. Thus, the 14.2 percent control factor was a pplied uniformly to all states in the 2009, 2012, and 2018 projection inventories.

For AIM coatings, the 2001 OT C model rule was estimated to provide a 31 percent VOC
emissions reduction from the Federal Part 59 ru le. Most, but not all, states in the OTR have adopted the OTC 2001 model rule for AI M coatings. For this inventory, it was assumed that all OTC states would adopt th e 2001 OTC model rule prior to 2009. Thus, this control factor was applie d uniformly to all states, with one exception. Maine adopted
the OTC model rule with an alternative VOC content limit for varnis hes and interior wood clear and semitransparent wood stains. As a result, Maine estimated that reductions from AIM coatings should be modeled using a 29.5 percent control factor instead of the 31 percent estimated for the OTC 2001 model rule.

For portable fuel containers, the 2001 OTC model rule was estimated to provide a 75 percent reduction in VOC emissi ons at the end of an assumed 10-year phase-in period asFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 3 – Area Sources Page 3-8

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. Table 3-1 Adoption Matrix for 2001 OTC Model Rules

State Consumer Products AIM Coatings Portable Fuel Containers Mobile Equipment Repair and Refinishing Solvent Cleaning

CT Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
DE Yes Yes Yes Yes No
DC Yes Yes Yes Yes No
ME Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
MD Yes Yes Yes No No MA Yes Yes Yes No * (7%)
NH Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NJ Yes Yes Yes Yes ** (17%)
NY Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
PA Yes Yes Yes No No
RI Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
VT Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes – apply incremental reductions in future years No – OTC Model Rule reductions already accounted for in 2002 inventory; no incremental reductions applied to future years. * MA is amending its existing Solven t/Degreasing rule and anticipates a 7% reduction from 2002 levels. ** NJ amended its existing Solvent/Degreasing rule and anticipates a 17% reduc tion from 2002 levels older non-compliant containers are replaced wi th new compliant containers. The rule penetration (RP) depends on the assumed PFC estimated useful life and how quickly old non-compliant containers are replaced with new compliant containers. For the 2001 OTC model rule, the turnover from old to new containe rs is expected to be 10 percent per year. The MANEVU states have adopted the OTC 2001 model rule at different times, so the rule penetration will vary by State depending upon wh en the rule became effective in a given state. For example, compliant containers were required in Pe nnsylvania beginning on January 1, 2003. By the 2009 ozone season, there will be a 6.5 year turnover period for compliant PFCs in Pennsylvania. By contrast , compliant containers in New Jersey were not required until January 1, 2005. Thus, by the 2009 ozone season, there will be a 4.5 year turnover period for compliant PFCs. Tabl e 3.2 shows the effective date for compliant containers by state, along with the rule penetratio n factors and overall control efficiency. There are different rule penetration factors for the three inventory years because of the increased penetration of comp liant containers into the marketplace. By 2018, 100 percent compliance is assumed.Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 3 – Area Sources Page 3-9

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. Table 3-2 Rule Penetration and Control Efficiency Values for 2001 OTC Model Rule for PFCs

Rule Compliance
Date States with this Compliance
Date Control Efficiency (%) Rule Penetration (%) Overall Control Efficiency (%) Control Factor for 2009 Inventory
2003 MD, NY, PA 75 65 48.8
2004 CT, DE, DC, ME 75 55 41.3

2005 NJ 75 45 33.8

2006 NH 75 35 26.3
2007* MA, RI, VT 75 25 18.8 Control Factor for 2012 Inventory
2003 MD, NY, PA 75 95 71.3
2004 CT, DE, DC, ME 75 85 63.8

2005 NJ 75 75 56.3

2006 NH 75 65 48.8
2007* MA, RI, VT 75 55 41.3 Control Factor for 2018 Inventory
2003 MD, NY, PA 75 100 75.0
2004 CT, DE, DC, ME 75 100 75.0

2005 NJ 75 100 75.0

2006 NH 75 100 75.0
2007* MA, RI, VT 75 100 75.0

* The 2001 OTC model rule is not yet effective. It wa s assumed to become effective January 1, 2007 for the MANEVU modeling inventory. Massachusetts’ rule actually will not become effective until 2009 and is based only on the OTC 2006 model rule; Massachusetts will not adopt the OTC 2001 model rule.

The emission reductions from the 2001 OTC PFC m odel rule were calculated only for the
emissions accounted for in the area source inve ntory. Additional benefits (not estimated for this report) would be expected from equipment refueling vapor displacement and spillage that is accounted fo r in the nonroad inventory.

For mobile equipment repair and refinishi ng, the 2001 OTC model rule was estimated to provide a 38 percent VOC emi ssions reductions from the Fede ral Part 59 rule (35% for paint application and 3% for cleaning operation s). Most, but not all, states in the OTR have adopted the OTC 2001 model rule for MERR or already had similar rules in effect inFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 3 – Area Sources Page 3-10

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 2002. For this inventory, it was assumed that all OTC states would adopt the 2001 OTC model rule prior to 2009 or have similar rules in effect. For those states (MD, MA, PA)
that had similar rules in effect in 2002 or earlier, no incremental reductions were applied
since it was assumed that the e ffects of the state rule were already accounted for in the 2002 inventory. New Jersey indicated that a 19 percent control factor should be used for VOC emissions from MERR in New Jersey. For all other states, the OTC 2001 Model Rule control factor of 38 percent was applied.

For solvent cleaning, the 2001 OTC model rule was estimated to provide a 66 percent VOC emissions reductions. Most, but not all, states in the OTR have adopted the OTC 2001 model rule for solvent cleaning or alrea dy had similar rules in effect in 2002. For this inventory, it was assumed that all OTC states would adopt the 2001 OTC model rule prior to 2009 or have similar ru les in effect. For those states (DE, DC, MD, PA, VT) that
had similar rules in effect in 2002 or earlier , no incremental reductions were applied since
it was assumed that the effects of the stat e rule were already accounted for in the 2002 inventory. Massachusetts indicated that some portion of the reductions resulting from the OTC 2001 model rule were already accounted for in their 2002 emissions, but that the state anticipated an additional 7 pe rcent reduction from anticipated amendments. New Jersey indicated that a 17 percent cont rol factor should be used for VOC emissions from solvent cleaning in New Jersey. For all other stat es (CT, ME, NH, NY, RI), the OTC 2001 Model Rule control factor of 66 percent was applied.

Table D-1 in Appendix D shows the anticipated percent reductions by state, SCC, and year from implementation of the OTC 2001 VOC Model Rules.

3.3.2 On-Board Vapor Recovery
The U.S. EPA issued regulations requiring onboard vapor recovery (ORVR) standards for the control of vehicle refueling emissions in 1994. ORVR works by routing refueling vapors to a carbon canister on the vehicle and are expected to achi eve from 95-98 percent
reduction in VOC emissions for those vehicles equipped with ORVR. ORVR is required to be installed on some new light-duty gaso line vehicles in 1998, and all new light-and medium-duty automobiles and trucks will be required to have ORVR installed by 2006.

For the Lake Michigan Air Dire ctors Consortium, E.H. Pechan made estimates of emission reductions as they grow over time due to increased rule penetration. The following
discussion describes how the on-board vapor recovery cont rol factors were developed (email from Maureen Mullen, E.H. Pechan):Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 3 – Area Sources Page 3-11

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. “Onroad refueling control factors were calc ulated based on the percentage difference between the projection year (2007, 2 008, 2009, 2012, and 2018) MOBILE6 refueling emission factors and the 2002 MOBILE6 refueling emission factors.

MOBILE6 emission factors were calculated at January and July temperature and fuel conditions. July emission factors were used as the surrogate fo r the five-month ozone season (May through September) and the Janua ry emission factors were used as the surrogates for the remaining seven months. Temperatures modeled were the January and July average daily monthly maximum a nd minimum temperatures for each State, based on 30-year average temperature data , as used in EPA’s second Section 812 Prospective analysis. With in a State, MOBILE6 input files were created for each unique combination of: January and July RVP, RFG, oxygenated fuel, and Stage II control programs. Fuel data was based on 2002 data, also as used in the Section 812 analysis. Information on St age II control programs and control efficiencies were provided by EPA, as included in the draft 2002 NEI. Using these same temperature inputs, fuel inputs, and Stage II control i nputs (where applicable ), Pechan calculated MOBILE6 emission factors for calendar years 2002, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2012, and 2018. The resulting MOBILE6 emission factors were first weighted according to the default MOBILE6 VMT mix to determine the weighted average refueling emission factor for all gasoline vehicle t ypes. The resulting January and July emission factors were weighted together according to the number of days in the seven-month season (212 days) and the five-month ozone season (153) . After this was done for all of the modeled years and State or s ub-State areas, the overall cont rol efficiency for refueling, due to fleet turnover, was calculated based on the percen tage difference between the 2002 and corresponding projection year emission factors. These control efficiencies were then assigned to individual counties, based on the mapping of fuel and Stage II control parameters to those modeled in the MOBILE6 files.” These projections were made on a county- by-county basis. Table D-2 shows the anticipated percent reductions by county, SCC, and year.

3.3.3 Post-2002 Area Source Controls in New Jersey
New Jersey made gasoline transfer provisi on amendments at N.J.A.C. 7:27-16.3. The Stage I portion of the amendments are expected to result in emissions reductions of 23.2 percent from the 2002 baseline. This is base d on a control efficiency of 29 percent and a rule effectiveness of 80 percent. The Stat e II portion of the amendments are already incorporated into the inventor y through the MOBILE6 inputs.

New Jersey also made amendments to ICI boi ler provisions at N.J.A.C. The amendments require any ICI boiler has a maximum gross h eat input rate of at least 5 mmBTU/hour, whether or not it is located at a major NO x facility, to conduct annua l tune-ups. In the support documentation for this rule amendment, New Jersey estimated that the tune-ups would result in a 25 percent reduction in NOx emissions.Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 3 – Area Sources Page 3-12

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 3.3.4 Residential Wood Combustion

Control factors were evaluated to account for the replacement of re tired woodstoves that emit at pre-new source performance standard (NSPS) levels. We used EPA’s latest methodology provided by Marc Houyoux of EPA/OAQPS. This methodology uses a combination growth and control factor and is based on activity not po llutant. The growth and control are accounted for in a single f actor the SCCs split out the controlled and uncontrolled equipment. The control is indire ctly incorporated based on which stove is used. The combined growth and control rates are as follows:

• Fireplaces increase 1%/yr

• Old woodstoves (non-EPA certified) decrease 2%/yr

• New woodstoves (EPA certified) increase 2%/yr The data to support these rates were collected as part of th e woodstove change-out program development in OAQPS. Table D-3 shows th e anticipated percent changes by SCC and

year.

3.4 AREA SOURCE QA/QC REVIEW

Throughout the inventory developm ent process, quality assuran ce steps were performed to ensure that no double counting of emissions o ccurred, to ensure that a full and complete inventory was developed for MANE-VU, and to make sure that projection calculations were working correctly. Quality assurance was an important component to the inventory development process and MACTEC performed the following QA steps on the area source components of the 2009/2012/2018 projection inventories:

1. State agencies reviewed the draft growth and control factors in the summer of 2005. Changes based on these comments were implemented in the files.

2. SCC level emission summaries were prepared and evaluated to ensure that
emissions were consistent and that there were no missing sources. Tier comparisons (by pollutant) were devel oped between the revised 2002 base year inventory and the 2009/2012/2018 projection inventories.

3. Emission inventory files in NIF format we re provided for state agency review and comment. Changes based on these comments were implemented.

4. All final files were run through EPA’s Format and Content checking software.Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 3 – Area Sources Page 3-13

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 3.5 AREA SOURCE NIF, SMOKE AND SUMMARY FILES

The Version 3 file names and descriptions de livered to MARAMA are shown in Table 3-3.

3.6 AREA SOURCE EMISSION SUMMARIES

Emission summaries by state, year, and polluta nt are presented in Tables 3-4 through 3-10 for CO, NH3, NOx, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI, SO2, and VOC, respectively.

Table 3-3 Area Source NIF, IDA, and Summary File Names

File Name Date Description

MANEVU_OTB2009_Area_NIFV3_2.mdb Nov. 9, 2006 Version 3.2 of 2009 OTB area source NIF inventory
MANEVU_OTB2012_Area_NIFV3_2.mdb Nov. 9, 2006 Version 3.2 of 2012 OTB area source NIF inventory
MANEVU_OTB2018_Area_NIFV3_2.mdb Nov. 9, 2006 Version 3.2 of 2018 OTB area source NIF inventory
MANEVU_OTB2009_Area_IDAV3_2.txt Nov. 20, 2006 Version 3.2 of 2009 OTB area source inventory in SMOKE IDA format
MANEVU_OTB2012_Area_IDAV3_2.txt Nov. 20, 2006 Version 3.2 of 2012 OTB area source inventory in SMOKE IDA format
MANEVU_OTB2018_Area_IDA3V_2.txt Nov. 20, 2006 Version 3.2 of 2018 OTB area source inventory in SMOKE IDA format
MANEVU OTB BOTW Area V3_2 State Summary.xls Nov. 8, 2006 Spreadsheet with state totals by pollutant for all area sources
MANEVU OTB BOTW Area V3_2 State SCC Summary.xls Nov. 8, 2006 Spreadsheet with SCC totals by state and pollutant for all area

sources.Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 3 – Area Sources Page 3-14

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. Table 3-4 Area Sources OTB/OTW Annual CO Emission Projections (tons per year)

State 2002 2009 2012 2018

CT 70,198 65,865 63,874 59,797 DE 14,052 15,395 15,233 14,864 DC 2,300 2,417 2,460 2,512 ME 109,223 102,743 99,877 94,181 MD 141,178 143,653 144,233 144,649 MA 137,496 132,797 130,255 125,205 NH 79,647 76,504 75,319 73,038 NJ 97,657 90,432 88,048 83,119 NY 356,254 336,576 327,118 307,659 PA 266,935 266,887 264,012 257,396 RI 8,007 8,007 8,026 8,024 VT 43,849 42,683 42,172 41,283 Total 1,326,796 1,283,959 1,260,627 1,211,727

0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002

2009 OTB/W

2012 OTB/W

2018 OTB/WFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 3 – Area Sources Page 3-15

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. Table 3-5 Area Sources OTB/OTW Annual NH3 Emi ssion Projections (tons per year)

State 2002 2009 2012 2018

CT 5,318 5,208 5,156 5,061
DE 13,279 13,316 13,328 13,342
DC 14 16 16 17
ME 8,747 10,453 11,116 12,312
MD 25,834 31,879 34,222 38,155
MA 18,809 19,131 19,275 19,552
NH 2,158 2,466 2,584 2,789
NJ 17,572 19,457 20,154 21,435
NY 67,422 81,626 87,116 96,078
PA 79,911 98,281 105,418 117,400
RI 883 945 972 1,025
VT 9,848 12,156 13,062 14,580
Total 249,795 294,934 312,419 341,746

0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002

2009 OTB/W

2012 OTB/W

2018 OTB/WFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 3 – Area Sources Page 3-16

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. Table 3-6 Area Sources OTB/OTW Annual NOx Emi ssion Projections (tons per year)

State 2002 2009 2012 2018

CT 12,689 13,173 13,342 13,388 DE 2,608 2,821 2,913 3,014 DC 1,644 1,961 2,081 2,259 ME 7,360 7,477 7,486 7,424 MD 15,678 16,858 17,315 18,073 MA 34,281 35,732 36,331 37,187 NH 10,960 11,879 12,055 12,430 NJ 26,692 24,032 23,981 23,660 NY 98,803 106,375 107,673 108,444 PA 47,591 50,162 50,793 50,829 RI 3,886 4,149 4,260 4,397 VT 3,208 3,419 3,429 3,430 Total 265,400 278,038 281,659 284,535

0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002

2009 OTB/W

2012 OTB/W

2018 OTB/WFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 3 – Area Sources Page 3-17

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. Table 3-7 Area Sources OTB/OTW Annual PM10-PRI Emission Projections (tons per year)

State 2002 2009 2012 2018

CT 48,281 48,970 49,004 49,479 DE 13,039 13,928 14,236 14,844 DC 3,269 3,511 3,605 3,825 ME 168,953 175,979 179,689 189,619 MD 95,060 105,944 110,141 117,396 MA 192,860 198,668 200,692 204,922 NH 43,328 46,060 47,187 49,801 NJ 61,601 61,684 61,284 60,880 NY 369,595 382,124 385,925 392,027 PA 391,897 421,235 432,844 454,970 RI 8,295 8,962 9,244 9,797 VT 56,131 60,521 62,465 66,916 Total 1,452,309 1,527,586 1,556,316 1,614,476

0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 500,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002

2009 OTB/W

2012 OTB/W

2018 OTB/WFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 3 – Area Sources Page 3-18

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. Table 3-8 Area Sources OTB/OTW Annual PM25-PRI Emission Projections (tons per year)

State 2002 2009 2012 2018

CT 14,247 13,766 13,517 13,033 DE 3,204 3,387 3,403 3,426 DC 805 860 879 917 ME 32,774 33,026 33,189 33,820 MD 27,318 28,923 29,508 30,449 MA 42,083 43,121 43,186 43,438 NH 17,532 17,965 18,050 18,316 NJ 19,350 18,590 18,271 17,653 NY 87,154 87,576 87,260 86,422 PA 74,925 79,169 80,728 83,570 RI 2,064 2,184 2,232 2,316 VT 11,065 11,482 11,652 12,059 Total 332,521 340,049 341,875 345,419

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002

2009 OTB/W

2012 OTB/W

2018 OTB/WFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 3 – Area Sources Page 3-19

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. Table 3-9 Area Sources OTB/OTW Annual SO2 Emi ssion Projections (tons per year)

State 2002 2009 2012 2018

CT 12,418 12,581 12,604 12,184 DE 1,588 1,599 1,602 1,545 DC 1,337 1,487 1,541 1,632 ME 13,149 13,776 13,846 13,901 MD 12,393 13,685 14,074 14,741 MA 25,488 25,961 26,029 25,570 NH 7,072 7,463 7,470 7,421 NJ 10,744 10,672 10,697 10,510 NY 130,409 139,589 140,154 141,408 PA 63,679 67,535 67,446 66,363 RI 4,557 5,024 5,189 5,398 VT 4,087 4,646 4,687 4,764 Total 286,921 304,018 305,339 305,437

0 25,000 50,000 75,000 100,000 125,000 150,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002

2009 OTB/W

2012 OTB/W

2018 OTB/WFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 3 – Area Sources Page 3-20

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. Table 3-10 Area Sources OTB/OTW Annual VOC Emi ssion Projections (tons per year)

State 2002 2009 2012 2018

CT 87,302 75,693 73,560 71,274 DE 15,519 14,245 13,943 13,744 DC 6,432 5,420 5,352 5,255 ME 100,621 91,910 91,667 92,410 MD 120,254 110,385 108,067 110,046 MA 162,145 148,625 145,674 140,558 NH 65,370 63,069 63,356 64,368 NJ 167,882 147,617 143,752 139,626 NY 507,292 462,811 456,856 457,421 PA 240,785 228,444 230,393 243,421 RI 31,402 26,695 25,548 23,561 VT 23,265 24,068 24,635 26,198 Total 1,528,269 1,398,982 1,382,803 1,387,882

0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 500,000 550,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002

2009 OTB/W

2012 OTB/W

2018 OTB/WFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section4 – Nonroad Sources Page 4-1

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### 4.0 NONROAD SOURCES

The nonroad source sector is comprised of nonroad engines included in EPA’s NONROAD model, as well as other nonroa d engines not accounted for in the NONROAD model, including aircraft, commercial marine vessels, and locomotive engines. The sections that follow describe the proj ection process used to develop 2009/2012/2018 nonroad projection estimates for sources found in the NONROAD model and those sources estimated outside of the model (loc omotives, airplanes and commercial marine vessels).

4.1 NONROAD MODEL SOURCES

NONROAD model source categories include eq uipment such as recreational boats and watercraft; recreational vehicles; farm, industrial, mining, and construction machinery; and lawn and garden equipment. Also included are aircraft ground support equipment and rail maintenance equipment. These equipment types are powered by e ngines using diesel, gasoline, compressed natural gas (CNG), a nd liquefied petroleum gas (LPG).

EPA released a revised version of NONROAD during December 2005 called NONROAD 2005. EPA’s National Mobile Inventory Mode l (NMIM) is a consolidated modeling system that incorporates the NONROAD and MOBILE models, along with a county database of inputs. EPA also released an updated version of NMIM called NMIM2005, which incorporates th e NONROAD2005 model.

MACTEC utilized the NMIM 2005 model to develop projec tions for nonroad engines included in the NONROAD2005 model. Project ed emission estimates were calculated using NMIM default data. Prior to st arting the NMIM2005 runs, MACTEC confirmed with U.S. EPA’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ) that the database used for fuel sulfur content, gas Reid Vapor Pr essure (RVP) values and reformulated fuel programs was current and up to date for the MANE-VU region. The information received from OTAQ indicated that these values were the most current.

NMIM2005 runs were then developed for each projection year. These included 2009,
2012 and 2018. Emission calculations were made at the monthly level and consolidated to provide annual values. This enabled monthl y temperatures and changes in reformulated gas to be captured by the program.

The NMIM/NONROAD2005 results in NIF 3.0, and ran EPA’s QA checker program to verify that the NIF 3.0 files were properly constructed.Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section4 – Nonroad Sources Page 4-2

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 4.2 AIRCRAFT, COMMERCIAL M ARINE, AND LOCOMOTIVES

Since aircraft, commercial marine vessels, and locomotives are not included in the NONROAD model, emission projections for th ese sources were developed separately. The starting point for the emission project ions was Version 3 of the MANE-VU 2002 Nonroad emission inventory ( Documentation of the MANE-VU 2002 Nonroad Sector Emission Inventory, Version 3, Draft Technical Memorandum , March 2006).

MACTEC’s approach to developing emission projections for these sources was to use combined growth and control factors devel oped from emission projec tions for U.S. EPA’s Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) devel opment effort. MACTEC obtained emission projections developed for the CAIR rule. We then calculated the combined growth and control factors by determini ng the ratio of emissions be tween 2002 and each of the MANE-VU projection years ( 2009, 2012, and 2018). The CAIR emissions were available for 2001, 2010, 2015 and 2020. Thus, we developed intermediate year estimates using linear interpolation between the actual CAIR years and the MANE-VU years.

Using this approach we developed State/count y/SCC/pollutant growth /control factors for use in projecting the MANE-VU base year data to the year of interest. These values were then used to multiply times the base year va lue to obtain the projected values. Since the development of the CAIR factors included bot h growth and controls, no separate control factors were developed for thes e sources except where exceptions to this method were used for States that requeste d alternative growth/contr ol methods (see below).

Once the CAIR factors were developed, MACT EC compared the SCCs contained in the CAIR inventory with those used in MANE-VU. In some cases there were differences. In
cases where a similar SCC in the CAIR inve ntory could be assigned to the SCC in the MANE-VU inventory the State/County/SCC/pollutant growth and control factor for the substitute was assigned to the MANE- VU SCC. If no corresponding county SCC substitution could be found, a State or MANE- VU regional average value for the substitute SCC was developed and assigned for use in projecting emissions. The substitution scheme was to use State values first, then MANE-VU regional values if the State value couldn’t be
used.

This projection method was used with three exceptions. These exceptions were: 1) Maryland sources, 2) DC locomotive growth and controls and 3) Logan (Boston) airport. Each of these sources used alternative growth and/or controls provi ded by the States or developed from current Federal ru les for these sources (applies to controls only). Each of
these is discussed below.Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section4 – Nonroad Sources Page 4-3

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 4.2.1 Maryland Non-NONROAD Source Emissions
Maryland indicated that they would prefer to use EGAS gr owth factors coupled with Federal controls to determine projected emi ssions for these source categories. Maryland provided EGAS growth factors for use with these categories. Control values were developed based on Federal ru les that were on the books.

For CMV, controls were developed based on data contained in Table 1.1-2 of the document “Final Regulatory Support Documen t: Control of Emissions from New Marine Compression-Ignition Engines at or Above 30 Liters pe r Cylinder,” EPA420-R-03-004, January 2003. Values in that table were interpolated to develop emission estimates with and without controls for the MANE-VU years (and base year) and then control factors were calculated for those values. Only Cate gory 3 marine engines were identified in the Maryland inventory and thus only NOx contro ls for those engines were developed.

For locomotives, control factors for different types of locomotives were developed using Tables 6-2 through 6-5 of the document “L ocomotive Emission Standards: Regulatory Support Document,” United States Environmen tal Protection Agency, Office of Mobile Sources, April 1998. Since these tables only sh owed PM controls, we assumed the same
level of control for both PM-10 and PM-2.5. Controls for VOC, NOx and PM were developed using these tables.

In addition to engine specification contro ls for both CMV and locomotives, we also developed control factors resulting from changes to diesel fuel sulfur contents. The diesel fuel sulfur regulations were utilized to de velop controls for SO2 and PM due solely to changing fuel sulfur requirements. Data fr om Tables 3.1-6a and 3.4-8a of the document “Final Regulatory Analysis: Control of Emissions from Nonroad Diesel Engines,” EPA420-R-04-007, May 2004 were used to develop control levels created due to changes
in fuel sulfur content. In cases where ther e were controls due to both engine technology and fuel sulfur reduction, we a dded the control efficiencies to gether to create a combined control efficiency. All control values are cons idered to be “additive”. In other words, the controls applied are above those found in the ba se year. Thus the controls were used on the base year emission values without back- calculation to determine uncontrolled levels
since the controls are in addition to those controls.

The control values were then applied along w ith the growth factors to the base year emissions for Maryland to produce the required emission projections.Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section4 – Nonroad Sources Page 4-4

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 4.2.2 DC Locomotive Emissions

The District of Columbia em ission contact provided MACTEC with alternative growth factors for locomotive emissions. The growth factors provided were:

2002-2009 6.9% 2002-2012 9.9% 2002-2018 13.7% Since the CAIR factors were combined growth and controls, the cont rol factors developed for locomotives for Maryland (based on Federa l control programs) were used to apply
controls to the DC locomotive emissions. As was the case for Maryland, the control
factors were “additive” and were used on the base year emission without back-calculating
uncontrolled emissions since the control levels we re relative to contro ls in place for 2002.

4.2.3 Logan (Boston) Airport Emissions
Massachusetts supplied historic and future year projections of operations at Logan Airport. The data covered the period 2000-2010. Since only one year of the period required for MANE-VU projections was in cluded in that interval (2009), MACTEC developed
estimates for 2012 and 2018 from those data by linear interpol ation. Two linear interpolations were developed. The first used the entire data set (2000-2010) to develop a linear projection for 2012 and 2018 and a second using just the 2002-2010 data. For the final growth factors, MACTEC used the aver age of the two. These growth factors were then applied to commercial aircraft oper ations for Suffolk County (FIPS = 25025). The growth factors developed were:

2002-2009 1.184 2002-2012 1.22 2002-2018 1.33

No controls that would come on board for airc raft for the projection years were identified from a review of Federal programs.

4.3 NONROAD QA/QC REVIEW

Throughout the inventory developm ent process, quality assuran ce steps were performed to ensure that no double counting of emissions o ccurred, to ensure that a full and complete inventory was developed for MANE-VU, and to make sure that projection calculations were working correctly. MA CTEC performed the following QA steps on nonroad source projection inventories: (1) All final files (NONROAD onl y) were run through EPA’s Format and Content checking software; SCC le vel emission summaries were prepared and
evaluated to ensure that emissions were consis tent with the 2002 projections and that there were no missing source categ ories or geographical areas.Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section4 – Nonroad Sources Page 4-5

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 4.4 NONROAD NIF, SMOKE, AND SUMMARY FILES

The Version 3.1 files delivered to MARAMA are shown in Table 4-1.

4.5 NONROAD EMISSION SUMMARIES

Table 4-2a shows the CO emissi ons by state and year for the entire nonroad sector. Table 4-2b presents the CO emission results for NONROAD model equipment only. Table 4-2c presents the CO emission results for only th e aircraft, commercial marine vessel, and locomotive categories. Tables 4-3 to 4-8 presen t the emission results for the other criteria pollutants of interest.

Table 4-1 Nonroad Source NIF, IDA, and Summary File Names

File Name Date Description

MANEVU_OTB2009_NR_NIFV3_1.mdb Oct. 23, 2006 Version 3.1 of 2009 nonroad source NIF inventory
MANEVU_OTB2012_NR_NIFV3_1.mdb Oct. 23, 2006 Version 3.1 of 2012 nonroad source NIF inventory
MANEVU_OTB2018_NR_NIFV3_1.mdb Oct. 23, 2006 Version 3.1 of 2018 nonroad source NIF inventory
MANEVU_OTB2009_NR_IDAV3_1.txt Oct. 26, 2006 Version 3.1 of 2009 nonroad source inventory in SMOKE IDA format
MANEVU_OTB2012_NR_IDAV3_1.txt Oct. 26, 2006 Version 3.1 of 2012 nonroad source inventory in SMOKE IDA format
MANEVU_OTB2018_NR_IDA3V_1.txt Oct. 26, 2006 Version 3.1 of 2018 nonroad source inventory in SMOKE IDA format
MANEVU OTB Nonroad V3_1 State Summary.xls Oct. 23, 2006 Spreadsheet with state totals by pollutant for all nonroad sources, NONROAD model sources, and aircraft, locomotives, an d commercial marine vessels
MANEVU OTB Nonroad V3_1 State SCC Summary.xls Oct. 23, 2006 Spreadsheet with SCC totals by state and pollutant for all nonroad sources, NONROAD model sourcesFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section4 – Nonroad Sources Page 4-6

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. Table 4-2a All Nonroad Sources OTB/OTW Annual CO Emission Projections (tons per year)

State 2002 2009 2012 2018

CT 276,773 282,788 288,061 303,764
DE 68,782 74,856 76,491 80,646
DC 18,845 20,746 21,306 22,429
ME 153,424 163,782 165,273 166,679
MD 437,400 497,276 513,737 550,795
MA 461,514 504,400 516,019 546,373
NH 130,782 142,318 143,804 147,544
NJ 704,396 753,916 777,069 831,880
NY 1,233,968 1,349,439 1,388,406 1,474,727
PA 931,978 1,031,816 1,058,256 1,119,247
RI 73,013 80,228 82,113 87,195
VT 62,248 68,360 69,003 70,074
Total 4,553,124 4,969,925 5,099,538 5,401,353

0 250,000 500,000 750,000 1,000,000 1,250,000 1,500,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002

2009

2012

2018Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section4 – Nonroad Sources Page 4-7

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. Table 4-2b NONROAD Model Sources OTB/OTW Annual CO Emission Projections (tons per year)

State 2002 2009 2012 2018

CT 274,388 280,253 285,415 300,931
DE 65,954 71,877 73,397 77,356
DC 18,775 20,671 21,229 22,350
ME 148,555 158,715 160,043 161,215
MD 424,777 482,312 497,806 532,970
MA 448,399 490,895 501,684 530,686
NH 128,572 139,288 140,655 144,191
NJ 692,548 741,792 764,424 818,519
NY 1,219,309 1,333,923 1,372,164 1,457,277
PA 903,168 1,003,480 1,029,045 1,088,614
RI 71,573 78,764 80,607 85,618
VT 61,732 67,802 68,421 69,456
Total 4,457,748 4,869,771 4,994,890 5,289,186

0 250,000 500,000 750,000 1,000,000 1,250,000 1,500,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002

2009

2012

2018Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section4 – Nonroad Sources Page 4-8

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. Table 4-2c Aircraft, Locomotive , and Commercial Marine Sources OTB/OTW Annual CO Emission Projections (tons per year)

State 2002 2009 2012 2018

CT 2,385 2,535 2,646 2,833
DE 2,828 2,979 3,094 3,290
DC 70 75 77 79
ME 4,868 5,067 5,230 5,464
MD 12,624 14,964 15,931 17,825
MA 13,116 13,505 14,335 15,687
NH 2,211 3,030 3,149 3,353
NJ 11,849 12,124 12,645 13,361
NY 14,660 15,516 16,242 17,450
PA 28,810 28,336 29,211 30,633
RI 1,440 1,464 1,506 1,577
VT 516 558 582 618
Total 95,375 100,154 104,648 112,167

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002

2009

2012

2018Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section4 – Nonroad Sources Page 4-9

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. Table 4-3a All Nonroad Sources OTB/OTW Annual NH3 Emi ssion Projections (tons per year)

State 2002 2009 2012 2018

CT 17 18 19 21 DE 5 6 6 7 DC 2 3 3 3 ME 11 13 14 15 MD 28 31 33 36 MA 28 31 33 36 NH 9 10 11 12 NJ 43 45 47 52 NY 79 89 94 103 PA 55 62 66 73 RI 4 4 5 5
VT 5 5 6 6 Total 287 317 337 369

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002

2009

2012

2018Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section4 – Nonroad Sources Page 4-10

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. Table 4-3b NONROAD Model Sources OTB/OTW Annual NH3 Emi ssion Projections (tons per year)

State 2002 2009 2012 2018

CT 17 18 19 21 DE 5 6 6 6 DC 2 3 3 3 ME 11 13 14 15 MD 28 31 33 36 MA 28 31 33 36 NH 9 10 11 12 NJ 43 45 47 52 NY 79 89 94 103 PA 55 62 66 73 RI 4 4 5 5
VT 5 5 6 6 Total 287 318 335 369

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002

2009

2012

2018Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section4 – Nonroad Sources Page 4-11

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. Table 4-3c Aircraft, Locomotive , and Commercial Marine Sources OTB/OTW Annual NH3 Emi ssion Projections (tons per year)

State 2002 2009 2012 2018

CT 0 0 0 0 DE 0 0 0 0 DC 0 0 0 0 ME 0 0 0 0 MD 0 0 0 0 MA 0 0 0 0 NH 0 0 0 0 NJ 0 0 0 0 NY 0 0 0 0 PA 0 0 0 0 RI 0 0 0 0
VT 0 0 0 0 Total <1 <1 <1 <1

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002

2009

2012

2018Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section4 – Nonroad Sources Page 4-12

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. Table 4-4a All Nonroad Sources OTB/OTW Annual NOx Emi ssion Projections (tons per year)

State 2002 2009 2012 2018

CT 25,460 21,512 19,316 16,233
DE 16,227 15,439 15,081 14,631
DC 3,571 2,981 2,620 1,815
ME 9,820 8,500 7,752 6,543
MD 37,472 31,762 29,058 24,257
MA 42,769 35,703 32,118 27,040
NH 9,912 8,485 7,624 6,344
NJ 63,479 52,703 48,234 41,166
NY 109,878 94,186 85,852 72,400
PA 103,824 76,105 67,818 55,771
RI 5,002 4,022 3,470 2,723
VT 4,217 3,452 2,992 2,262
Total 431,631 354,850 321,935 271,185

0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002

2009

2012

2018Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section4 – Nonroad Sources Page 4-13

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. Table 4-4b NONROAD Model Sources OTB/OTW Annual NOx Emi ssion Projections (tons per year)

State 2002 2009 2012 2018

CT 17,897 14,849 12,811 9,784 DE 5,798 4,755 4,108 2,966 DC 3,066 2,561 2,221 1,444 ME 8,229 6,957 6,211 4,970 MD 27,789 23,431 20,839 15,745 MA 30,047 24,606 21,274 16,096 NH 8,150 6,749 5,893 4,583 NJ 43,515 34,447 30,416 23,594 NY 78,648 66,645 58,900 45,400 PA 62,265 49,982 42,571 30,797 RI 4,564 3,624 3,066 2,294 VT 4,170 3,403 2,941 2,205 Total 294,138 242,009 211,252 159,877

0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002

2009

2012

2018Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section4 – Nonroad Sources Page 4-14

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. Table 4-4c Aircraft, Locomotive , and Commercial Marine Sources OTB/OTW Annual NOx Emi ssion Projections (tons per year)

State 2002 2009 2012 2018

CT 7,563 6,663 6,505 6,449
DE 10,428 10,684 10,973 11,665
DC 505 420 399 371
ME 1,592 1,543 1,541 1,573
MD 9,683 8,331 8,219 8,512
MA 12,722 11,097 10,844 10,944
NH 1,763 1,736 1,731 1,761
NJ 19,964 18,256 17,818 17,572
NY 31,230 27,541 26,952 27,000
PA 41,559 26,123 25,247 24,974
RI 438 398 404 429
VT 47 49 51 57
Total 137,493 112,841 110,683 111,308

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002

2009

2012

2018Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section4 – Nonroad Sources Page 4-15

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. Table 4-5a All Nonroad Sources OTB/OTW Annual PM10-PRI Emission Projections (tons per year)

State 2002 2009 2012 2018

CT 1,952 1,642 1,532 1,236
DE 1,021 947 940 897
DC 310 235 209 135
ME 1,437 1,367 1,301 1,086
MD 4,936 4,353 4,191 3,814
MA 3,531 2,964 2,768 2,246
NH 1,058 944 881 698
NJ 5,495 4,539 4,233 3,489
NY 9,605 8,050 7,425 5,830
PA 9,738 8,501 8,112 6,949
RI 500 435 414 348

VT 530 476 439 331

Total 40,114 34,453 32,445 27,059

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002

2009

2012

2018Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section4 – Nonroad Sources Page 4-16

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. Table 4-5b NONROAD Model Sources OTB/OTW Annual PM10-PRI Emission Projections (tons per year)

State 2002 2009 2012 2018

CT 1,713 1,407 1,295 987 DE 570 456 414 301 DC 298 226 200 127 ME 1,204 1,119 1,039 797 MD 3,119 2,534 2,321 1,782 MA 2,887 2,370 2,176 1,640 NH 947 834 769 581 NJ 4,285 3,424 3,143 2,411 NY 8,339 6,871 6,248 4,624 PA 6,282 5,282 4,839 3,574 RI 403 337 314 244
VT 518 462 425 316 Total 30,565 25,321 23,182 17,385

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002

2009

2012

2018Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section4 – Nonroad Sources Page 4-17

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. Table 4-5c Aircraft, Locomotive , and Commercial Marine Sources OTB/OTW Annual PM10-PRI Emission Projections (tons per year)

State 2002 2009 2012 2018

CT 239 235 237 249
DE 451 491 526 596
DC 12 9 9 8
ME 233 248 262 289
MD 1,817 1,819 1,870 2,032
MA 644 594 592 606
NH 111 110 112 117
NJ 1,210 1,115 1,090 1,078
NY 1,266 1,179 1,177 1,206
PA 3,456 3,219 3,273 3,375
RI 97 98 100 104
VT 12 14 14 15
Total 9,549 9,132 9,263 9,674

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002

2009

2012

2018Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section4 – Nonroad Sources Page 4-18

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. Table 4-6a All Nonroad Sources OTB/OTW Annual PM25-PRI Emission Projections (tons per year)

State 2002 2009 2012 2018

CT 1,794 1,508 1,408 1,135
DE 926 856 849 808
DC 299 216 192 124
ME 1,329 1,238 1,177 978
MD 4,357 3,806 3,653 3,301
MA 3,226 2,710 2,531 2,052
NH 965 861 802 634
NJ 4,997 4,113 3,829 3,143
NY 8,821 7,390 6,815 5,349
PA 8,440 7,274 6,900 5,808
RI 443 383 364 303
VT 486 436 402 303
Total 36,084 30,791 28,922 23,938

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002

2009

2012

2018Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section4 – Nonroad Sources Page 4-19

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. Table 4-6b NONROAD Model Sources OTB/OTW Annual PM25-PRI Emission Projections (tons per year)

State 2002 2009 2012 2018

CT 1,578 1,296 1,193 911
DE 525 420 381 277
DC 288 208 184 117
ME 1,135 1,030 956 734
MD 2,870 2,333 2,137 1,641
MA 2,659 2,184 2,005 1,512
NH 872 768 708 536
NJ 3,951 3,154 2,896 2,223
NY 7,677 6,327 5,755 4,262
PA 5,784 4,866 4,459 3,296
RI 371 311 290 226
VT 477 426 391 292
Total 28,186 23,321 21,356 16,027

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002

2009

2012

2018Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section4 – Nonroad Sources Page 4-20

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. Table 4-6c Aircraft, Locomotive , and Commercial Marine Sources OTB/OTW Annual PM25-PRI Emission Projections (tons per year)

State 2002 2009 2012 2018

CT 216 212 215 224
DE 401 436 468 531
DC 11 8 8 7
ME 194 208 221 244
MD 1,487 1,473 1,516 1,660
MA 568 526 526 540
NH 94 93 94 98
NJ 1,047 959 933 920
NY 1,144 1,063 1,060 1,087
PA 2,656 2,408 2,441 2,512
RI 72 72 74 77
VT 9 10 11 11
Total 7,898 7,470 7,566 7,911

0 1,000 2,000 3,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002

2009

2012

2018Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section4 – Nonroad Sources Page 4-21

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. Table 4-7a All Nonroad Sources OTB/OTW Annual SO2 Emi ssion Projections (tons per year)

State 2002 2009 2012 2018

CT 2,087 887 711 815
DE 3,983 2,851 2,834 3,296
DC 375 66 9 5
ME 917 201 82 82
MD 7,942 1,638 706 577
MA 3,791 983 470 442
NH 891 310 218 246
NJ 15,686 3,508 1,253 832
NY 12,920 3,387 1,724 1,686
PA 7,915 1,659 667 607
RI 377 93 42 42
VT 372 68 15 13
Total 57,257 15,651 8,731 8,643

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002

2009

2012

2018Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section4 – Nonroad Sources Page 4-22

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. Table 4-7b NONROAD Model Sources OTB/OTW Annual SO2 Emi ssion Projections (tons per year)

State 2002 2009 2012 2018

CT 1,377 249 39 28 DE 513 90 12 8 DC 341 59 6 3 ME 772 132 24 19 MD 2,569 452 63 42 MA 2,428 429 66 47 NH 673 119 20 16 NJ 3,525 607 93 67 NY 6,966 1,208 182 130 PA 5,292 917 135 92 RI 336 60 10 7
VT 368 64 10 8 Total 25,159 4,387 661 467

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002

2009

2012

2018Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section4 – Nonroad Sources Page 4-23

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. Table 4-7c Aircraft, Locomotive , and Commercial Marine Sources OTB/OTW Annual SO2 Emi ssion Projections (tons per year)

State 2002 2009 2012 2018

CT 711 638 672 787
DE 3,470 2,761 2,822 3,288
DC 34 7 3 2
ME 145 69 58 63
MD 5,372 1,186 643 535
MA 1,363 554 404 395
NH 218 191 198 230
NJ 12,161 2,901 1,160 765
NY 5,953 2,179 1,542 1,556
PA 2,623 742 532 515
RI 42 33 32 35
VT 5 4 5 5
Total 32,097 11,264 8,070 8,176

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002

2009

2012

2018Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section4 – Nonroad Sources Page 4-24

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. Table 4-8a All Nonroad Sources OTB/OTW Annual VOC Emi ssion Projections (tons per year)

State 2002 2009 2012 2018

CT 33,880 24,910 22,657 20,694
DE 8,010 6,440 6,044 5,653
DC 2,073 1,559 1,438 1,369
ME 31,144 29,445 27,093 21,988
MD 56,330 43,260 40,266 37,969
MA 56,749 43,429 39,713 36,306
NH 22,377 19,651 17,933 15,003
NJ 83,919 62,920 57,769 53,625
NY 157,612 128,421 117,770 104,562
PA 102,331 84,744 78,630 69,956
RI 7,780 6,038 5,640 5,389
VT 10,548 10,105 9,304 7,566
Total 572,751 460,922 424,257 380,080

0 30,000 60,000 90,000 120,000 150,000 180,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002

2009

2012

2018Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section4 – Nonroad Sources Page 4-25

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. Table 4-8b NONROAD Model Sources OTB/OTW Annual VOC Emi ssion Projections (tons per year)

State 2002 2009 2012 2018

CT 33,519 24,546 22,286 20,308 DE 7,531 5,943 5,533 5,115 DC 2,053 1,540 1,419 1,351 ME 30,741 29,030 26,669 21,547 MD 53,035 39,731 36,638 34,106 MA 54,836 41,473 37,706 34,185 NH 22,238 19,476 17,752 14,810 NJ 81,900 60,878 55,682 51,451 NY 155,475 126,265 115,553 102,224 PA 99,241 82,094 75,941 67,186 RI 7,699 5,956 5,556 5,302 VT 10,520 10,076 9,273 7,533 Total 558,788 447,006 410,009 365,117

0 30,000 60,000 90,000 120,000 150,000 180,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002

2009

2012

2018Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section4 – Nonroad Sources Page 4-26

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. Table 4-8c Aircraft, Locomotive , and Commercial Marine Sources OTB/OTW Annual VOC Emi ssion Projections (tons per year)

State 2002 2009 2012 2018

CT 361 364 371 386
DE 480 497 511 538
DC 20 19 19 18
ME 403 415 424 441
MD 3,295 3,529 3,628 3,863
MA 1,913 1,956 2,007 2,121
NH 139 175 181 193
NJ 2,019 2,042 2,087 2,174
NY 2,137 2,156 2,217 2,338
PA 3,090 2,650 2,689 2,770
RI 81 82 84 87
VT 27 29 31 33
Total 13,964 13,916 14,248 14,963

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002

2009

2012

2018Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-1

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### 5.0 BEYOND-ON-THE-WAY EMISSION INVENTORY

The States are considering addi tional control measures as part of their planning to achieve regional haze goals and to attain the oz one and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). To accomplish this, ma ny of the states will need to implement
additional measures to reduce emissions. As such, the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) undertook an exercise to identify a suite of additional control measures that could be used by the states in the Ozone Transpor t Region (OTR) in attaining their air quality goals.

Based on the analyses conducted by various OTC Workgroups, the OTC Commissioners
made several recommendations at the Commissioner’s meeting in Boston on June 7, 2006:

• Memorandum of Understanding Among the States of the Ozone Transport Commission on a Regional Strategy Concer ning the Integrated Control of Ozone Precursors from Various Sources

• Resolution 06-02 of the Ozone Trans port Commission Concerning Coordination and Implementation of Regional Ozone Cont rol Strategies for Certain Source Categories

• Statement of the Ozone Transport Co mmission Concerning Multi-Pollutant Emission Control of Electric Generating Units

• Resolution 06-03 of the Ozone Tr ansport Commission Concerning Federal Guidance and Rulemaking for Nationally-R elevant Ozone Control Measures

The Commissioners recommende d that States consider emission reductions from the following source categories:

• Consumer Products

• Portable Fuel Containers

• Adhesives and Sealants Application

• Diesel Engine Chip Reflash

• Cutback and Emulsified Asphalt Paving

• Asphalt Production Plants

• Cement Kilns

• Glass Furnaces

• Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional (ICI) Boilers

• Regional Fuels

• Electric Generating Units (EGUs)

This suite of controls for the above source categories constitutes a “beyond-on-the-way” (BOTW) scenario to be used in modeling ozone, fine particles, and regional haze in the OTR and MANE-VU regions.Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-2

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. For the MANE-VU modeling inve ntory, each state was asked to complete a matrix to identify which of the above source category cont rol measures to include and in which years the control measure should be applied. This section documents the emission reductions anticipated to result from the implementation of the above control measures based on the
state recommendations for measures to in clude for each state, source category, and projection year. There are five subsections discussing the control measure and emission reductions for the five source category sect ors: nonEGU point sources, area sources, EGUs, onroad mobile sources, and nonroad mobile sources.

5.1 NONEGU POINT SOURCES

This Section describes the analysis of the c ontrol measures to reduce emissions from nonEGU point sources. The control measures incl uded in this analysis reduce emissions for the following pollutants and nonE GU point source categories:

• NOx measures: asphalt production plants; cement kilns; glass and fiberglass furnaces; low sulfur heating oil for comm ercial and institutional units; and ICI boilers (natural gas, #2 fuel oil, #4/#6 fuel oil, and coal);

• Primary PM10 and PM2.5 measure: commercial heating oil;

• SO2 measures: commercial heating oil and IC I boilers (#2 fuel oil, #4/#6 fuel oil, and coal); and

• VOC measure: adhesives and sealants application;

For the MANE-VU modeling inve ntory, each state was asked to complete a matrix to identify which nonEGU control measures to include and in which years the control measure should be applied. Table 5.1 summa rizes the staff recommendations for NOx
control measures to include in the BO TW regional modeling inventory for non-EGU source categories (except ICI boilers). Ta ble 5.2 summarizes the st aff recommendations
for NOx emission reductions for ICI boilers. Tables 5.3 and 5.4 summarize the staff
recommendations for control measures to include in the BO TW regional modeling inventory for SO2 and VOC emissions, respectiv ely. The following subsections describe the emission reductions anticipated for each of the control measures.Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-3

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. Table 5.1 State Staff Recommendations fo r Control Measures to Include in BOTW Regional Modeling – NOx Emissions from NonEGU Point Sources

Asphalt Production Plants Cement Kilns Glass and Fiberglass Furnaces Commercial & Institutional Heating Oil

State 2009 2012 2018 2009 2012 2018 2009 2012 2018 2009 2012 2018

CT Yes Yes Yes N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A No No Yes

DE No No No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A No No No

DC Yes Yes Yes N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A No Yes Yes

ME No No No Yes Yes Yes N/A N/A N/A No Yes Yes

MD No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes

MA No No No N/A N/A N/A Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes

NH No No No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A No No Yes

NJ No Yes Yes N/A N/A N/A No Yes 2 Yes 2 No Yes Yes

NY Yes Yes Yes Yes 1 Yes 1 Yes 1 Yes 2 Yes 3 Yes 3 No Yes Yes

PA No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes

RI No No No N/A N/A N/A No No No No Yes Yes

VT No No No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A No No No

Yes - Include emission reductions from control measure in modeling inventory No - Do not include emission reduction from control measure in modeling inventory N/A – No facilities of this type located in the state 1) New York specified that a 40 percent NOx reduction from cement kilns should be used. 2) New Jersey specified a 20 percen t NOx reduction from glass furn aces in 2012 and a 35 percent reduction in 2018. 3) New York specified a 70 per cent NOx reduction from glass furnaces beginning in 2009.Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-4

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. Table 5.2 State Staff Recommendations fo r Control Measures to Include in BOTW Regional Modeling – NOx Emissions from ICI Boilers

ICI Boilers < 25 mmBTU/hour ICI Boilers 25-50 mmBtu/hour ICI Boilers
50-100 mmBtu/hour ICI Boilers
100-250 mmBtu/hour ICI Boilers >250 mmBtu/hour (see note 7)

State 2009 2012 2018 2009 2012 2018 2009 2012 2018 2009 2012 2018 2009 2012 2018

CT Yes 1 Yes 1 Yes 1 Yes 1 Yes 1 Yes 1 Yes 1 Yes 1 Yes 1 Yes 1 Yes 1 Yes 1 No No No

DE No No No No No No No No No Yes 4 Yes 4 Yes 4 No No No

DC No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No

ME No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No

MD No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes No No No

MA No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No

NH No No No Yes 5 Yes 5 Yes 5 Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 Yes 5 Yes 5 No No No

NJ Yes 2 Yes 2 Yes 2 No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No

NY Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No

PA No 3 No 3 No 3 No 3 No 3 No 3 No 3 No 3 No 3 No 6 No 6 No 6 No No No

RI No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No

VT No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No

Yes - Include emission reductions from control measure in modeling inventory No - Do not include emission reduction from control measure in modeling inventory N/A – No facilities of this type located in the state 1) Connecticut is now pursuing adoption of model rule for boilers of all sizes at major and non-major sources 2) New Jersey specified a 5 percen t reduction in 2009, 10 percent in 2012, and 10 percent in 2018 3) Pennsylvania specified no reductions since sources already covered by statewide NOx RACT regulation 4) Delaware is developing regulation for ICI boilers greater than 200 mmBtu/hour – no plans for regulating smaller units 5) New Hampshire specified a 40 percent reduction for 25-50 mmBtu/hour boilers, and a 10 percent reduction for natural gas-fired 100-250 mmBtu/hour boilers 6) Pennsylvania specified no reductions since sources in the 5-county Philadelphia area are already covered by the Small Sources of NOx regulation and do not plan on e xpanding the regulation outside of the corridor at this time 7) Resolution 06-02 specified the reduction for > 250mmBtu/hour boilers to be the “same as EGUs of similar size.” The OTC Commissioners have not yet recommended an emission rate or percent reduction for EGUs. As a result, no reductions for ICI boilers > 250 mmBtu/hour were included in the BOTW inventory.Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-5

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. Table 5.3 State Staff Recommendations fo r Control Measures to Include in BOTW Regional Modeling – SO2 Emissions from NonEGU Point Sources

Commercial & Institutional Heating Oil ICI Boilers (low sulfur fuel)

State 2009 2012 2018 2009 2012 2018

CT No No Yes No No No

DE No No No No No No

DC No Yes Yes No No No

ME No Yes Yes No No No

MD No Yes Yes No No No

MA No Yes Yes No No No

NH No No Yes No No No

NJ No Yes Yes No No No

NY No Yes Yes No No No

PA No Yes Yes No No No

RI No Yes Yes No No No

VT No No No No No No

Yes - Include emission reductions from control measure in modeling inventory No - Do not include emission reduction from control measure in modeling inventoryFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-6

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. Table 5.4 State Staff Recommendations fo r Control Measures to Include in BOTW Regional Modeling – VOC Emission s from NonEGU Point Sources

Adhesives and Sealants Application

State 2009 2012 2018

CT Yes Yes Yes

DE Yes Yes Yes

DC Yes Yes Yes

ME Yes Yes Yes

MD Yes Yes Yes

MA Yes Yes Yes

NH No Yes Yes

NJ No 1 No 1 No 1

NY Yes Yes Yes

PA Yes Yes Yes

RI Yes Yes Yes

VT No No No

Yes - Include emission reductions from control measure in modeling inventory No - Do not include emission reduction from control measure in modeling inventory

1) New Jersey indicated that the reductions fr om the adhesives and sealants application control measure should only apply to area so urce - no reductions for point sources (SCC 4- 02-007-xx) were included due to inventory double-counting issues, not due to rule change issues.Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-7

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 5.1.1 Adhesives and Sealants Application

The OTC 2006 model rule for adhesives and seal ants is based on the reasonably available control technology (RACT) and best availa ble retrofit control technology (BARCT) determination by the California Air Res ources Board (CARB) developed in 1998.
Adhesive and sealant emission sources are cl assified as both point sources and area sources. About 96 percent of adhesive and se alant VOC emissions in the OTC states fall into the area source category. The remaini ng four percent of the VOC emissions are included in the point source inventory.

The emission reduction benefit estimation me thodology is based on information developed and used by CARB for their RACT/BARCT dete rmination in 1998. For point sources, we first identified those sources that were appl ying adhesives and sealan ts (using the source classification code of 4-02-007-xx, adhesives application). Next, we reviewed the MANEVU inventory to determine whether thes e sources had existing capture and control systems. Most of the sources did not have control information in the NIF database. However, several sources reported capture a nd destruction efficiencies in the 70 to 99 percent range, with a few s ources reporting capture and dest ruction efficiencies of 99+ percent. Sources with existi ng control systems that exceeded an 85 percent overall capture and destruction efficiency would comply w ith the OTC 2006 model rule provision for addon air pollution control equipment; therefore, no additional reductions were calculated for these sources. For point sources without add-on control equipment, we used the 64.4 percent reduction based on the CARB determination.

5.1.2 Asphalt Production Plants

In Resolution 06-02, the OTC Commissioners recommended that OTC member states pursue as necessary and appropr iate state-specific rulemaki ngs or other implementation methods to establish emission reduction percen tages, emission rates or technologies that would result in about a 35 percent reduction in NOx emissions. The reductions estimated for this category only include emissions incl uded in the MANE-VU point source emission inventory. Only emissions from major point sources are typically included in the MANEVU point source database. Emissions from non- major sources are not explicitly contained in the area source inventory; rather, the emi ssions from non-major asphalt plants are likely lumped together in the general area source i ndustrial and commercial fuel use category. Therefore, there is some uncertainty regarding the actual reductions that will occur as since minor sources are not specifically id entified in the MANE-VU inventory.Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-8

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 5.1.3 Cement Kilns

In Resolution 06-02, the OTC Commissioners recommended that OTC member states pursue as necessary and appropr iate state-specific rulemaki ngs or other implementation methods to establish emission reduction percen tages, emission rates or technologies that would result in about a 60 percent reduction in NOx emissions from uncontrolled levels. Cement kilns were already included in Phase I of the NO x SIP call. Emission reductions resulting from the NOx SIP call were accounted for in the 2009 OTB inventory. For the cement kilns in Maryland and New York, a defa ult control efficiency value of 25 percent was applied to account for the reductions expect ed from the NOx SIP call. For the cement kilns in Pennsylvania, the state provided their best estimates of the actual control efficiency expected for each kiln after the NOx SIP Call. There is a cement kiln in Maine, but it is not subject to the NOx SIP call. To calculate the additional reductions from the OTC 2006 Control Measure, MACTEC back cal culated uncontrolled emissions from the 2009 base year inventory based on the controls applied to account for the NOx SIP Call.
Once the uncontrolled emissions were calc ulated, MACTEC app lied the 60 percent emission reduction guideline recommended by the OTC Commissioners, except for the
kilns in New York. Staff from New York indicated that a 40 pe rcent emission reduction should be used for modeling purposes.

5.1.4 Glass and Fiberglass Furnaces

In Resolution 06-02, the OTC Commissioners recommended that OTC member states pursue as necessary and appropr iate state-specific rulemaki ngs or other implementation methods to establish emission reduction percen tages, emission rates or technologies that would result in about an 85 percent reduction in NOx emissions from uncontrolled levels.
The NOx emission reduction benefit was calcul ated by applying an 85 percent reduction to the projected 2009 base inventory, except in New Jersey and New York. New Jersey specified a 20 percent NOx reduction from glass furnaces in 2012 and a 35 percent reduction in 2018. New York specified a 70 pe rcent NOx reduction from glass furnaces beginning in 2009. The estimated 85% reductions does not ta ke into account existing
controls at the facilities. The OTC states ar e currently working with the glass industry to obtain additional data to better identify the cont rols already in place. This will allow for a
better calculation of the em ission reduction benefits.

5.1.5 Industrial, Commercial, a nd Institutional Boilers

In Resolution 06-02, the OTC Commissioners recommended that OTC member states pursue as necessary and appropr iate state-specific rulemaki ngs or other implementation methods to establish emission reduction percen tages, emission rates or technologies for ICIFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-9

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. boilers based on guidelines that varied by bo iler size and fuel type. Specifically, the following guidelines were provided:

NOx Reduction from 2009 Base Emissions by Fuel Type Boiler Size (mmBtu/hour) Natural Gas #2 Fuel Oil #4/#6 Fuel Oil Coal

< 25 10 10 10 10 25 to 50 50 50 50 50* 50 to 100 10 10 10 10* 100 to 250 75 40 40 40* >250 **   ** 
* Resolution 06-02 did not specify a percent reduction for coal; for modeling purposes, the same percent

reduction specified for #4/#6 fuel oil was used for coal

** Resolution 06-02 specified the reduction for > 250mmBtu/hour boilers to be the “same as EGUs of similar

size.” The OTC Commissioners have not yet recommended an emission rate or percent reduction for EGUs. As a result, no reductions for ICI boilers > 250 mmBtu/hour were included in the BOTW inventory.

Since the above guidelines vary by boiler size and fuel type, the specific percent reduction applied to an individual sour ce depends on the SCC and design capacity of the source. The SCC identifies the fuel type, while the design capacity identifies the boiler size. In many cases, the design capacities in the MANE-VU NIF database were missing. MACTEC used the following hierarchy in filling in gaps where design capacities were missing.

• Use the design capacity field from th e NIF EU table, if available;

• Use the design capacities provided by State/lo cal agencies to fill in the data gaps (Allegheny County, District of Columbia , Maryland, New Jersey, Philadephia County);

• Use design capacity as reported either th e Unit Description field in the NIF EU table or the Process Description field fr om the NIF EP table, if available;

• Use design capacity from the source’s Title V permit, if the Title V permit was online;

• Use the SCC description to determine the design capacity (for example, SCC 1-02-
006-01 describes a >100 mmBtu/hr natu ral gas-fired boiler, SCC 1-02-006-02
describes a 10-100 mmBtu/hr natural gas-fired boiler)
After performing this gap-filling exercise, MA CTEC was able to a ssign over 97 percent of the NOx emissions to a specific boiler size range. For the remaining sources where
MACTEC could not determine the boiler size (which accounted for only 3 percent of the NOx emissions), MACTEC assumed that these boilers were < 25 mmBtu/hr.Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-10

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 5.1.6 Commercial and Institutional Heating Oil

The BOTW control measure for heating oil is based on NESC AUM’s report entitled “Low Sulfur Heating Oil in the Northeast Stat es: An Overview of Benefits, Costs and Implementation Issues.” NESCAUM estimates th at reducing the sulfur content of heating oil from 2,500 ppm to 500 ppm lowers SO2 em issions by 75 percent, PM emissions by 80 percent, NOx emissions by 10 percent. The 500 ppm sulfur heating oil is not expected to available on a widespread basis until 2012 at th e earliest. These percent reductions were applied to commercial dist illate oil category (SCC 1-03- 005-xx and 1-05-002-05). These percent reductions were applied based on the state’s recommendations in the matrix which
identifies control measures to include and in which years the control measure should be accounted for in the modeling inventory.

5.1.7 BOTW NonEGU Point Source NIF, SMOKE, and Summary Files
The Version 3.1 file names and descriptions delivered to MARAMA are shown in Table 5-
5.

Table E-1 shows the anticipated percent redu ctions by SCC and year for the nonEGU point
source BOTW control measures.

5.1.8 BOTW NonEGU Point Source Emission Summaries
Emission summaries by state, year, and polluta nt are presented in Tables 5-6 through 5-12 for CO, NH3, NOx, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI, SO2, and VOC, respectively.Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-11

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. Table 5-5 BOTW NonEGU Point Source NIF, IDA, and Summary File Names

File Name Date Description

MANEVU_BOTW2009_NonEGU_NIFV3_1.mdb Dec. 4, 2006 Version 3.1 of 2009 BOTW nonEGU source NIF inventory
MANEVU_BOTW2012_NonEGU_NIFV3_1.mdb Dec. 4, 2006 Version 3.1 of 2012 BOTW nonEGU source NIF inventory
MANEVU_BOTW2018_NonEGU_NIFV3_1.mdb Dec. 4, 2006 Version 3.1 of 2018 BOTW nonEGU source NIF inventory
MANEVU_BOTW2009_NonEGU_IDAV3_1.txt Nov. 22, 2006 Version 3.1 of 2009 BOTW nonEGU source inventory in SMOKE IDA format
MANEVU_BOTW2012_NonEGU_IDAV3_1.txt Nov. 22, 2006 Version 3.1 of 2012 BOTW nonEGU source inventory in SMOKE IDA format
MANEVU_BOTW2018_NonEGU_IDA3V_1.txt Nov. 22, 2006 Version 3.1 of 2018 BOTW nonEGU source inventory in SMOKE IDA format
MANEVU OTB BOTW NonEGU V3_1 State Summary.xls Nov. 22, 2006 Spreadsheet with state totals by pollutant for all nonEGU

sources MANEVU OTB BOTW NonEGU V3_1 State SCC Summary.xls Dec. 4, 2006 Spreadsheet with SCC totals by state and pollutant for all nonEGU sources.Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-12

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. Table 5-6 NonEGU Point Sources OTB/OTW and BOTW Annual CO Emission Projections (tons per year)

2002 2009 OTB/W 2009 BOTW 2012 OTB/W 2012 BOTW 2018 OTB/W 2018 BOTW
CT 2,157 2,251 2,251 2,306 2,306 2,415 2,415 DE 8,812 9,037 9,037 8,748 8,748 8,651 8,651
DC 247 283 283 299 299 327 327 ME 9,043 10,147 10,147 10,467 10,467 11,433 11,433 MD 94,536 104,012 104,012 111,174 111,174 141,342 141,342 MA 10,793 12,027 12,027 12,552 12,552 13,426 13,426
NH 774 858 858 871 871 907 907 NJ 8,209 10,076 10,076 10,806 10,806 12,244 12,244 NY 53,259 61,411 61,411 65,541 65,541 78,876 78,876

PA 105,815 116,430 116,430 121,251 121,251 140,908 140,908 RI 1,712 1,764 1,764 1,821 1,821 1,927 1,927
VT 220 250 250 254 254 267 267 Total 295,577 328,546 328,546 346,090 346,090 412,723 412,723
No BOTW controls were considered for CO.

0 25,000 50,000 75,000 100,000 125,000 150,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002 2009 OTB/W 2009 BOTW 2012 OTB/W 2012 BOTW 2018 OTB/W 2018 BOTWFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-13

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. Table 5-7 NonEGU Point Sources OTB/OTW and BOTW Annual NH3 Emission Projections (tons per year)

2002 2009 OTB/W 2009 BOTW 2012 OTB/W 2012 BOTW 2018 OTB/W 2018 BOTW

CT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
DE 153 145 145 138 138 134 134
DC 4 5 5 5 5 5 5
ME 700 796 796 809 809 859 859
MD 305 347 347 366 366 410 410
MA 462 510 510 521 521 563 563

NH 37 46 46 50 50 60 60

NJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NY 1,027 1,081 1,081 1,128 1,128 1,296 1,296

PA 1,170 1,307 1,307 1,363 1,363 1,591 1,591

RI 58 64 64 68 68 68 68

VT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 3,916 4,301 4,301 4,448 4,448 4,986 4,986
No BOTW controls were considered for NH3.

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

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002 2009 OTB/W 2009 BOTW 2012 OTB/W 2012 BOTW 2018 OTB/W 2018 BOTWFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-14

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. Table 5-8 NonEGU Point Sources OTB/OTW and BOTW Annual NOx Emission Projections (tons per year)

2002 2009 OTB/W 2009 BOTW 2012 OTB/W 2012 BOTW 2018 OTB/W 2018 BOTW
CT 6,773 7,236 6,820 7,465 7,047 7,921 7,501 DE 4,372 4,076 4,076 4,135 4,135 4,246 4,246
DC 480 548 548 577 577 627 627 ME 12,108 14,285 12,914 14,661 13,183 15,753 14,137 MD 21,940 19,401 16,015 20,399 16,819 22,797 18,888 MA 18,292 20,603 20,047 21,372 20,768 23,040 22,301 NH 1,188 1,384 1,120 1,394 1,131 1,435 1,169 NJ 15,812 16,498 16,463 17,091 15,901 18,805 17,464 NY 34,253 33,648 28,529 34,586 29,256 37,133 31,305

PA 89,136 89,932 76,215 93,526 72,779 103,137 79,186 RI 2,308 2,449 2,449 2,471 2,471 2,442 2,442

VT 386 462 462 460 460 466 466 Total 207,048 210,522 185,658 218,137 184,527 237,802 199,732

0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002 2009 OTB/W 2009 BOTW 2012 OTB/W 2012 BOTW 2018 OTB/W 2018 BOTWFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-15

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. Table 5-9 NonEGU Point Sources OTB/OTW and BOTW Annual PM10-PRI Emission Projections (tons per year)

2002 2009 OTB/W 2009 BOTW 2012 OTB/W 2012 BOTW 2018 OTB/W 2018 BOTW
CT 990 1,035 1,035 1,058 1,058 1,106 1,104 DE 1,820 1,486 1,486 1,475 1,475 1,487 1,487
DC 157 178 178 186 182 198 194 ME 6,120 7,088 7,088 7,133 7,114 7,496 7,477 MD 4,739 4,797 4,797 5,040 5,039 5,828 5,827 MA 4,212 5,006 5,006 5,088 5,004 5,314 5,227 NH 918 1,084 1,084 1,097 1,097 1,129 1,129 NJ 3,439 4,205 4,205 4,417 4,412 4,959 4,953 NY 5,072 5,221 5,221 5,444 5,395 6,098 6,048

PA 23,282 25,169 25,169 26,307 26,258 29,516 29,466
RI 296 333 333 331 318 330 316
VT 235 267 267 272 272 296 296 Total 51,280 55,869 55,869 57,848 57,624 63,757 63,524

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002 2009 OTB/W 2009 BOTW 2012 OTB/W 2012 BOTW 2018 OTB/W 2018 BOTWFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-16

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. Table 5-10 NonEGU Point Sources OTB/OTW and BOTW Annual PM25-PRI Emission Projections (tons per year)

2002 2009 OTB/W 2009 BOTW 2012 OTB/W 2012 BOTW 2018 OTB/W 2018 BOTW

CT 822 871 871 894 894 939 937 DE 1,606 1,256 1,256 1,245 1,245 1,254 1,254
DC 128 145 145 152 149 164 161 ME 4,899 5,675 5,675 5,690 5,678 5,935 5,922 MD 2,772 2,861 2,861 3,011 3,010 3,503 3,501 MA 2,953 3,554 3,554 3,574 3,510 3,660 3,594 NH 857 1,008 1,008 1,021 1,021 1,052 1,052 NJ 2,947 3,588 3,588 3,764 3,760 4,234 4,230 NY 3,355 3,535 3,535 3,688 3,646 4,161 4,117

PA 12,360 13,578 13,578 14,159 14,114 15,878 15,831
RI 180 200 200 198 188 194 184
VT 198 226 226 229 229 246 246 Total 33,077 36,497 36,497 37,625 37,444 41,220 41,029

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002 2009 OTB/W 2009 BOTW 2012 OTB/W 2012 BOTW 2018 OTB/W 2018 BOTWFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-17

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. Table 5-11 NonEGU Point Sources OTB/OTW and BOTW Annual SO 2 Emission Projections (tons per year)

2002 2009 OTB/W 2009 BOTW 2012 OTB/W 2012 BOTW 2018 OTB/W 2018 BOTW
CT 2,438 2,528 2,528 2,567 2,567 2,644 2,596 DE 35,706 7,117 7,117 7,401 7,401 7,610 7,610
DC 618 707 707 735 533 780 554 ME 14,412 18,656 18,656 18,492 18,393 18,794 18,692 MD 34,193 34,223 34,223 35,373 35,342 38,921 38,886 MA 14,766 18,185 18,185 18,442 17,305 18,955 17,778 NH 2,436 3,099 3,099 3,098 3,098 3,114 3,099 NJ 9,797 7,141 7,141 7,234 7,196 7,855 7,816 NY 58,227 62,922 62,922 64,484 64,432 67,545 67,491

PA 88,259 90,735 90,735 93,441 93,206 99,924 99,681 RI 2,651 3,163 3,163 3,182 3,018 3,164 3,000 VT 874 1,182 1,182 1,147 1,147 1,127 1,127 Total 264,377 249,658 249,658 255,596 253,638 270,433 268,330

0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002 2009 OTB/W 2009 BOTW 2012 OTB/W 2012 BOTW 2018 OTB/W 2018 BOTWFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-18

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. Table 5-12 NonEGU Point Sources OTB/OTW and BOTW Annual VOC Emission Projections (tons per year)

2002 2009 OTB/W 2009 BOTW 2012 OTB/W 2012 BOTW 2018 OTB/W 2018 BOTW
CT 4,604 4,114 4,111 4,152 4,149 4,230 4,227 DE 4,645 2,987 2,981 2,311 2,305 1,993 1,987
DC 69 72 72 75 75 85 85 ME 4,477 4,740 4,740 4,985 4,985 5,709 5,708 MD 5,676 5,297 5,279 5,578 5,559 6,301 6,279 MA 7,794 8,381 8,273 9,061 8,940 10,564 10,418 NH 1,459 1,060 1,005 1,132 1,069 1,294 1,219 NJ 13,318 16,702 16,702 17,621 17,621 19,915 19,915 NY 9,933 10,157 10,141 10,750 10,732 12,354 12,333 PA 36,326 35,875 35,548 38,162 37,795 44,537 44,085 RI 1,898 1,640 1,628 1,695 1,683 1,812 1,799 VT 1,079 1,254 1,238 1,365 1,347 1,730 1,707 Total 91,278 92,279 91,718 96,887 96,260 110,524 109,762

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002 2009 OTB/W 2009 BOTW 2012 OTB/W 2012 BOTW 2018 OTB/W 2018 BOTWFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-19

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 5.2 AREA SOURCES

This Section describes the analysis of the OTC and MANE-VU control measures to reduce
emissions from area sources. The control m easures included in this analysis reduce emissions for the following pollutant s and area source categories:

• NOx measures: ICI boilers (natural gas, #2 fuel oil, #4/#6 fuel oil, and coal) and residential and commercial home heating oil;

• Primary PM10 and PM2.5 measures: resident ial and commercial home heating oil;

• SO2 measures: residential and commercia l home heating oil, and ICI boilers (distillate oil).

• VOC measures: adhesives and sealants, emulsified and cutback asphalt paving, consumer products, and porta ble fuel containers;

For the MANE-VU modeling invent ory, each state was asked to complete a matrix identify
which control measures to include and in which years the contro l measure should be applied. Tables 5.13, 5.14, and 5.15 summarize the staff recommendations for control measures to include in the BOTW regiona l modeling inventory for NOx, SO2, and VOC respectively. The following subsections descri be the emission reductions anticipated for
each of the area source control measures.

5.2.1 Adhesives and Sealants

The OTC 2006 model rule for adhesives and seal ants is based on the reasonably available control technology (RACT) and best availa ble retrofit control technology (BARCT) determination by the California Air Res ources Board (CARB) developed in 1998.
Adhesive and sealant emission sources are cl assified as both point sources and area sources. About 96 percent of adhesive and se alant VOC emissions in the OTC states fall into the area source category. The remaini ng four percent of the VOC emissions are included in the point source inventory.

The emission reduction benefit estimation methodology for area sources is based on information developed and used by CARB for their RACT/BARCT determination in 1998.
CARB estimates that the total industrial adhesive and sealant emissions in California to be about 45 tons per day (tpd). Solvent-based a dhesive and sealant emissions are estimated to be about 35 tpd of VOC and wa ter-based adhesive and sealan t emissions are about 10 tpd
of VOC.Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-20

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. Table 5.13 State Staff Recommendations for Control Measures to Include in BOTW Regional Modeling – NOx Area Sources

ICI Boilers < 25 mmBTU/hour ICI Boilers 25-50 mmBtu/hour ICI Boilers 50-100 mmBtu/hour Residential and Commercial Home Heating Oil

State 2009 2012 2018 2009 2012 2018 2009 2012 2018 2009 2012 2018

CT Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes

DE No No No No No No No No No No No No

DC No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes

ME No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes

MD No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes

MA No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes

NH No No No No No No No No No No No Yes

NJ No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes

NY Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes

PA No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes

RI No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes

VT 1 No No No No No No No No No No No No

Yes - Include emission reductions from OTC 2006 control measure in modeling inventory No - Do not include emission reduction from OTC 2006 control measure in modeling inventoryFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-21

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. Table 5.14 State Staff Recommendat ions for Control Measures

to Include in BOTW Regional Modeling – SO2 Area Sources

ICI Boilers < 25 mmBTU/hour ICI Boilers 25-50 mmBtu/hour ICI Boilers 50-100 mmBtu/hour Residential Home Heating Oil

State 2009 2012 2018 2009 2012 2018 2009 2012 2018 2009 2012 2018

CT No No No No No No No No No No No Yes

DE No No No No No No No No No No No No

DC No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes

ME No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes

MD No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes

MA No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes

NH No No No No No No No No No No No Yes

NJ No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes

NY No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes

PA No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes

RI No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes

VT 1 No No No No No No No No No No No No

Yes - Include emission reductions from OTC 2006 control measure in modeling inventory No - Do not include emission reduction from OTC 2006 control measure in modeling inventoryFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-22

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. Table 5.15 State Staff Recommendat ions for Control Measures

to Include in BOTW Regional Modeling – VOC Area Sources

Adhesives and Sealants Emulsified and Cutback Asphalt Paving Consumer Products Portable Fuel Containers

State 2009 2012 2018 2009 2012 2018 2009 2012 2018 2009 2012 2018

CT Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

DE Yes Yes Yes No 2 No 2 No 2 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

DC Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

ME Yes Yes Yes No 3 No 3 No 3 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

MD Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

MA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes

NH No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

NJ Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

NY Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

PA Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

RI Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

VT 1 No No No No No No No No No No No No

Yes - Include emission reductions from OTC 2006 control measure in modeling inventory No - Do not include emission reduction from OTC 2006 control measure in modeling inventory 1) Vermont indicated that the modeling inventory should not reflect anything beyond the 2002 OTC control level for these source categories in Vermont. 2) Delaware’s existing asphalt paving regulations are more stringent than the OTC 2006 control

measure. 3) Maine has not yet determined whether to include emission reductions from the OTC 2006 control measure for asphalt paving. Maine’s inventory includes emissions only from cutback asphalt; no emissions are reported fo r emulsified asphalt.Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-23

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. CARB estimated that emission reductions ach ieved by statewide compliance with the VOC
limits in the RACT/BARCT determination wi ll range from approximately 29 to 35 tpd (CARB 1998, pg. 18). These emission reductio ns correspond to a 64.4 to 77.8 percent
reduction from uncontrolled levels . For OTC modeling purposes , we used the lower end of this range (i.e., 64.4 percent reduction) to estimate the em ission benefit for area sources
due to the OTC 2006 model rule.

5.2.2 Asphalt Paving
The OTC current guideline for asphalt paving calls for a complete ban on the use of cutback asphalt during the ozone season and lim its the VOC content of emulsified asphalt to two percent or less. The proposal is st ill under evaluation. A 20 percent reduction in emissions from emulsified asphalt was assumed for the modeling inventory.

The current regulations in all MANE-VU states generally ban the use of cutback asphalt during the ozone season. In some states, th ere are a few exemptions from the ban that allow for the use of cutback during the ozone season. It has not yet been determined whether states will modify their cutback aspha lt rules to eliminate the exemptions. Since
the VOC emissions from the use of cutback asphalt during the ozone season are generally very small, MACTEC assumed that there wi ll be no additional emission reductions from the use of cutback asphal t during the ozone season.

The emission reductions resulting from the tw o percent VOC content limit on emulsified asphalt depend on the baseline VOC content of emulsified asphalt. The baseline VOC content may range from 0 to 12 percent. New Jersey used a VOC content of 8 percent in their baseline emission calculations (based on th e 8 percent limit in their current rule). Reducing the VOC content to 2 percent in New Je rsey will result in a 75 percent reduction. Delaware already bans the use of emulsified asphalt that co ntains any VOC, so there is no
reduction in Delaware. Severa l other states used an aver age VOC content of 2.5 percent when developing their emission inventory. T hus, reducing the averag e VOC content from 2.5 percent to 2.0 percent results in a 20 percent reduction in VOC emissions. For States that did not supply a baseline VOC content for asphalt paving, we used the 20 percent
reduction in VOC emissions from emulsified asphalt paving during the ozone season.

5.2.3 Consumer Products
The OTC 2006 model rule will modify the OTC 2001 model rule based on amendments adopted by CARB in July 2005. The emi ssion reduction benefit estimation methodology is based on information developed by CARB . CARB estimates 6.05 tons per day of VOC reduced from their July 2005 amendments (CARB 2004, pg. 8), excluding the benefitsFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-24

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. from the two products (anti-static products and shaving gels) with compliance dates in 2008 or 2009. This equates to about 2,208 tons per year. The population of California as of July 1, 2005 is 36,132,147 (Census 2006). On a per capita basis, the emission reduction from the CARB July 2005 amendments equals 0.122 lbs/capita.

Since the OTC’s 2006 control measure is very similar to the CARB July 2005 amendments (with the exclusion of the anti-static produc ts and shaving gel 2008/2009 limits), the per capita emission reductions are expected to be the same in the OTR. The per capita factor after the implementation of the OTC 2001 model rule is 6.06 lbs/capita (Pechan 2001, pg. 8). The percentage reduction from the OT C’s 2006 control measure was computed as
shown below:

Current OTC Emission Factor = 6.06 lbs/capita Benefit from CARB 2005 amendments = 0.122 lbs/capita
Percent Reduction =

= 100%*(1 - (6.06 – 0.122)/6.06) 2.0%
The 2.0% reduction will be applied to all states except Vermont, which indicated that they do not want the modeling inve ntory to reflect anything be yond the 2002 OTC control level for consumer products in Vermont.

5.2.4 Portable Fuel Containers
The OTC 2006 model rule will modify the OTC 2001 model rule based on amendments adopted by CARB in 2006. Estimated emissi on reductions were based on information compiled by CARB to support their recent amendments. CARB estimated that PFC emissions in 2015 will be 31.9 tpd in California with no additional controls or amendments
to the 2000 PFC rules. CARB further esti mates that the 2006 amendment will reduce emission from PFCs by 18.4 tpd in 2015 in California compared to the 2000 PFC regulations. Thus, at full implementati on, the expected incremental reduction is approximately 58 percent, afte r an estimated 75 percent reduc tion from the original 2000 rule (CARB later adjusted the reduction to 65 percent due to unantic ipated problems with spillage from the new cans).

The OTC calculations assume that States will adopt the rule by July 2007 and will provide manufacturers one year from the date of th e rule to comply. Thus, new compliant PFCs will not be on the market until July 2008. Assuming a 10-year turnover to compliant cans, only 10 percent of the existing inventory of PFCs will comply with the new requirements in the summer of 2009. Therefore, only 10 percent of the full emission benefit estimated by CARB will occur by 2009 – the incremental reduction will be about 5.8 percent inFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-25

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 2009. In 2012, there will be a 40 percent tur nover to compliant cans, resulting in an incremental reductions of about 23.2 percent. By 2018, the will be 100 percent penetration to compliant PFCs, resulting in an in cremental reduction of 58 percent in 2018.

The emission reductions from the 2006 OTC PFC m odel rule were calculated only for the
emissions accounted for in the area source inve ntory. Additional benefits (not estimated for this report) would be expected from equipment refueling vapor displacement and spillage that is accounted fo r in the nonroad inventory.

5.2.5 Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Boilers

In Resolution 06-02, the OTC Commissioners recommended that OTC member states pursue as necessary and appropr iate state-specific rulemaki ngs or other implementation methods to establish emission reduction percen tages, emission rates or technologies for ICI boilers based on guidelines that varied by bo iler size and fuel type. Specifically, the following guidelines were provided:

NOx Reduction from 2009 Base Emissions by Fuel Type Boiler Size (mmBtu/hour) Natural Gas #2 Fuel Oil #4/#6 Fuel Oil Coal

< 25 10 10 10 10 25 to 50 50 50 50 50* 50 to 100 10 10 10 10* 100 to 250 75 40 40 40* >250 **   ** 
* Resolution 06-02 did not specify a percent reduction for coal; for modeling purposes, the same percent

reduction specified for #4/#6 fuel oil was used for coal

** Resolution 06-02 specified the reduction for > 250mmBtu/hour boilers to be the “same as EGUs of similar

size.” The OTC Commissioners have not yet recommended an emission rate or percent reduction for EGUs. As a result, no reductions for ICI boilers > 250 mmBtu/hour were included in the BOTW inventory.

Since the above guidelines vary by boiler size and fuel type, the specific percent reduction applied to an area source category depends on the SCC and design capacity of the source. The SCC identifies the fuel type (for example, SCC 21-02-004-xxx describes distillate oilfired industrial boilers, SCC 21- 02-006-xxx describes natural gas- fired industrial boilers). The area source inventory does not contain a ny information on the sizes of the units
included in the inventories. To apportion area source emission s to the boiler size ranges listed above, MACTEC used data from the Characterization of the U.S. Industrial/Commercial Boiler Population (May 2005, Oak Ridge Na tional Laboratory).
We used the national estimates of boiler ca pacity by size from Table ES-1 of the OakFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-26

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. Ridge report to calculate the pe rcentage of total bo iler capacity in each size range. Since the Oak Ridge report distinguished between indu strial boilers and co mmercial/institutional boilers, we developed separate prof iles for industrial boilers and for
commercial/institutional boilers. We used thes e boiler size profiles to calculate weighted average percent reductions i ndustrial boilers by fuel type and commercial/institutional boilers by fuel type.

5.2.6 Residential and Commercial Heating Oil

The BOTW control measure for heating oil is based on NESC AUM’s report entitled “Low Sulfur Heating Oil in the Northeast Stat es: An Overview of Benefits, Costs and Implementation Issues.” NESCAUM estimates th at reducing the sulfur content of heating oil from 2,000 ppm to 500 ppm lowers SO2 em issions by 75 percent, PM emissions by 80 percent, NOx emissions by 10 percent. The 500 ppm sulfur heating oil is not expected to available on a widespread basis until 2012 at th e earliest. These percent reductions were applied to residential distill ate oil category (SCC 21-04-004-xxx) and commercial distillate oil category (SCC 21-03-004-xxx). These percent reductions were applied based on the
state’s recommendations in the matrix which identifies control measures to include and in which years the control measure should be accounted for in the modeling inventory.

5.2.7 BOTW Area Source NIF, SMOKE, and Summary Files
The Version 3 file names and descriptions delivered to MARAMA are shown in Table 5-
16.

Table E-1 shows the anticipated percent redu ctions by SCC and year for the nonEGU point
source BOTW control measures.

5.2.8 BOTW Area Source Emission Summaries
Emission summaries by state, year, and polluta nt are presented in Tables 5-17 through 5- 23 for CO, NH3, NOx, PM10-PRI, PM25-PR I, SO2, and VOC, respectively.Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-27

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. Table 5-16 BOTW Area Source NIF, IDA, and Summary File Names

File Name Date Description

MANEVU_BOTW2009_Area_NIFV3_2.mdb Nov. 9, 2006 Version 3.2 of 2009 BOTW area source NIF inventory
MANEVU_BOTW2012_Area_NIFV3_2.mdb Nov. 9, 2006 Version 3.2 of 2012 BOTW area source NIF inventory
MANEVU_BOTW2018_Area_NIFV3_2.mdb Nov. 9, 2006 Version 3.2 of 2018 BOTW area source NIF inventory
MANEVU_BOTW2009_Area_IDAV3_2.txt Nov. 20, 2006 Version 3.2 of 2009 BOTW area source inventory in SMOKE IDA format
MANEVU_BOTW2012_Area_IDAV3_2.txt Nov. 20, 2006 Version 3.2 of 2012 BOTW area source inventory in SMOKE IDA format
MANEVU_BOTW2018_Area_IDA3V_2.txt Nov. 20, 2006 Version 3.2 of 2018 BOTW area source inventory in SMOKE IDA format
MANEVU OTB BOTW Area V3_2 State Summary.xls Nov. 8, 2006 Spreadsheet with state totals by pollutant for all area sources
MANEVU OTB BOTW Area V3_2 State SCC Summary.xls Nov. 8, 2006 Spreadsheet with SCC totals by state and pollutant for all area

sources.Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-28

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. Table 5-17 Area Sources OTB/OTW and BOTW Annual CO Emission Projections (tons per year)

2002 2009 OTB/W 2009 BOTW 2012 OTB/W 2012 BOTW 2018 OTB/W 2018 BOTW
CT 70,198 65,865 65,865 63,874 63,874 59,797 59,797 DE 14,052 15,395 15,395 15,233 15,233 14,864 14,864 DC 2,300 2,417 2,417 2,460 2,460 2,512 2,512 ME 109,223 102,743 102,743 99,877 99,877 94,181 94,181 MD 141,178 143,653 143,653 144,233 144,233 144,649 144,649 MA 137,496 132,797 132,797 130,255 130,255 125,205 125,205 NH 79,647 76,504 76,504 75,319 75,319 73,038 73,038 NJ 97,657 90,432 90,432 88,048 88,048 83,119 83,119 NY 356,254 336,576 336,576 327,118 327,118 307,659 307,659 PA 266,935 266,887 266,887 264,012 264,012 257,396 257,396 RI 8,007 8,007 8,007 8,026 8,026 8,024 8,024 VT 43,849 42,683 42,683 42,172 42,172 41,283 41,283 Total 1,326,796 1,283,959 1,283,959 1,260,627 1,260,627 1,211,727 1,211,727
No BOTW controls were considered for CO.

0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002 2009 OTB/W 2009 BOTW 2012 OTB/W 2012 BOTW 2018 OTB/W 2018 BOTWFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-29

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. Table 5-18 Area Sources OTB/OTW and BOTW Annual NH3 Emission Projections (tons per year)

2002 2009 OTB/W 2009 BOTW 2012 OTB/W 2012 BOTW 2018 OTB/W 2018 BOTW
CT 5,318 5,208 5,208 5,156 5,156 5,061 5,061 DE 13,279 13,316 13,316 13,328 13,328 13,342 13,342

DC 14 16 16 16 16 17 17 ME 8,747 10,453 10,453 11,116 11,116 12,312 12,312 MD 25,834 31,879 31,879 34,222 34,222 38,155 38,155 MA 18,809 19,131 19,131 19,275 19,275 19,552 19,552 NH 2,158 2,466 2,466 2,584 2,584 2,789 2,789 NJ 17,572 19,457 19,457 20,154 20,154 21,435 21,435 NY 67,422 81,626 81,626 87,116 87,116 96,078 96,078

PA 79,911 98,281 98,281 105,418 105,418 117,400 117,400 RI 883 945 945 972 972 1,025 1,025 VT 9,848 12,156 12,156 13,062 13,062 14,580 14,580 Total 249,795 294,934 294,934 312,419 312,419 341,746 341,746
No BOTW controls were considered for NH3.

0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002 2009 OTB/W 2009 BOTW 2012 OTB/W 2012 BOTW 2018 OTB/W 2018 BOTWFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-30

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. Table 5-19 Area Sources OTB/OTW and BOTW Annual NOx Emission Projections (tons per year)

2002 2009 OTB/W 2009 BOTW 2012 OTB/W 2012 BOTW 2018 OTB/W 2018 BOTW
CT 12,689 13,173 12,245 13,342 12,389 13,388 11,795 DE 2,608 2,821 2,821 2,913 2,913 3,014 3,014 DC 1,644 1,961 1,961 2,081 2,052 2,259 2,229 ME 7,360 7,477 7,477 7,486 7,095 7,424 7,036 MD 15,678 16,858 16,858 17,315 17,007 18,073 17,746 MA 34,281 35,732 35,732 36,331 35,321 37,187 36,199 NH 10,960 11,879 11,879 12,055 12,055 12,430 12,180 NJ 26,692 24,032 24,032 23,981 21,976 23,660 21,684 NY 98,803 106,375 95,190 107,673 92,935 108,444 93,639

PA 47,591 50,162 50,162 50,793 49,773 50,829 49,829 RI 3,886 4,149 4,149 4,260 4,112 4,397 4,249 VT 3,208 3,419 3,419 3,429 3,429 3,430 3,430 Total 265,400 278,038 265,925 281,659 261,057 284,535 263,030

0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002 2009 OTB/W 2009 BOTW 2012 OTB/W 2012 BOTW 2018 OTB/W 2018 BOTWFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-31

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. Table 5-20 Area Sources OTB/OTW and BOTW Annual PM10-PRI Emission Projections (tons per year)

2002 2009 OTB/W 2009 BOTW 2012 OTB/W 2012 BOTW 2018 OTB/W 2018 BOTW
CT 48,281 48,970 48,970 49,004 49,004 49,479 48,734 DE 13,039 13,928 13,928 14,236 14,236 14,844 14,844 DC 3,269 3,511 3,511 3,605 3,547 3,825 3,762 ME 168,953 175,979 175,979 179,689 179,004 189,619 188,928 MD 95,060 105,944 105,944 110,141 109,829 117,396 117,066 MA 192,860 198,668 198,668 200,692 200,215 204,922 204,456 NH 43,328 46,060 46,060 47,187 47,187 49,801 49,544 NJ 61,601 61,684 61,684 61,284 60,916 60,880 60,519 NY 369,595 382,124 382,124 385,925 383,234 392,027 389,385

PA 391,897 421,235 421,235 432,844 431,787 454,970 453,934 RI 8,295 8,962 8,962 9,244 8,976 9,797 9,514 VT 56,131 60,521 60,521 62,465 62,465 66,916 66,916 Total 1,452,309 1,527,586 1,527,586 1,556,316 1,550,400 1,614,476 1,607,602

0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 500,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002 2009 OTB/W 2009 BOTW 2012 OTB/W 2012 BOTW 2018 OTB/W 2018 BOTWFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-32

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. Table 5-21 Area Sources OTB/OTW and BOTW Annual PM25-PRI Emission Projections (tons per year)

2002 2009 OTB/W 2009 BOTW 2012 OTB/W 2012 BOTW 2018 OTB/W 2018 BOTW
CT 14,247 13,766 13,766 13,517 13,517 13,033 12,366 DE 3,204 3,387 3,387 3,403 3,403 3,426 3,426
DC 805 860 860 879 827 917 860 ME 32,774 33,026 33,026 33,189 32,576 33,820 33,201 MD 27,318 28,923 28,923 29,508 29,228 30,449 30,153 MA 42,083 43,121 43,121 43,186 42,820 43,438 43,080 NH 17,532 17,965 17,965 18,050 18,050 18,316 18,087 NJ 19,350 18,590 18,590 18,271 17,924 17,653 17,313 NY 87,154 87,576 87,576 87,260 85,011 86,422 84,211

PA 74,925 79,169 79,169 80,728 79,775 83,570 82,637 RI 2,064 2,184 2,184 2,232 1,996 2,316 2,068 VT 11,065 11,482 11,482 11,652 11,652 12,059 12,059 Total 332,521 340,049 340,049 341,875 336,779 345,419 339,461

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002 2009 OTB/W 2009 BOTW 2012 OTB/W 2012 BOTW 2018 OTB/W 2018 BOTWFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-33

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. Table 5-22 Area Sources OTB/OTW and BOTW Annual SO 2 Emission Projections (tons per year)

2002 2009 OTB/W 2009 BOTW 2012 OTB/W 2012 BOTW 2018 OTB/W 2018 BOTW
CT 12,418 12,581 12,581 12,604 12,604 12,184 3,398 DE 1,588 1,599 1,599 1,602 1,602 1,545 1,545 DC 1,337 1,487 1,487 1,541 499 1,632 522 ME 13,149 13,776 13,776 13,846 4,897 13,901 4,940 MD 12,393 13,685 13,685 14,074 8,762 14,741 9,118 MA 25,488 25,961 25,961 26,029 8,414 25,570 8,357 NH 7,072 7,463 7,463 7,470 7,470 7,421 3,118 NJ 10,744 10,672 10,672 10,697 4,435 10,510 4,374 NY 130,409 139,589 139,589 140,154 98,160 141,408 100,452

PA 63,679 67,535 67,535 67,446 49,212 66,363 48,475 RI 4,557 5,024 5,024 5,189 1,316 5,398 1,368 VT 4,087 4,646 4,646 4,687 4,687 4,764 4,764 Total 286,921 304,018 304,018 305,339 202,058 305,437 190,431

0 25,000 50,000 75,000 100,000 125,000 150,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002 2009 OTB/W 2009 BOTW 2012 OTB/W 2012 BOTW 2018 OTB/W 2018 BOTWFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-34

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. Table 5-23 Area Sources OTB/OTW and BOTW Annual VOC Emission Projections (tons per year)

2002 2009 OTB/W 2009 BOTW 2012 OTB/W 2012 BOTW 2018 OTB/W 2018 BOTW
CT 87,302 75,693 73,738 73,560 71,249 71,274 68,395 DE 15,519 14,245 13,794 13,943 13,408 13,744 13,066 DC 6,432 5,420 5,300 5,352 5,144 5,255 4,991 ME 100,621 91,910 90,869 91,667 90,457 92,410 90,866 MD 120,254 110,385 107,527 108,067 104,400 110,046 104,615 MA 162,145 148,625 145,059 145,674 140,848 140,558 134,963 NH 65,370 63,069 61,860 63,356 61,913 64,368 62,649 NJ 167,882 147,617 143,089 143,752 138,646 139,626 134,089 NY 507,292 462,811 451,669 456,856 443,940 457,421 440,892 PA 240,785 228,444 219,733 230,393 219,897 243,421 230,011 RI 31,402 26,695 26,572 25,548 25,315 23,561 23,305 VT 23,265 24,068 24,068 24,635 24,634 26,198 26,197 Total 1,528,269 1,398,982 1,363,278 1,382,803 1,339,851 1,387,882 1,334,039

0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 500,000 550,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VTEmissions (tpy) 2002 2009 OTB/W 2009 BOTW 2012 OTB/W 2012 BOTW 2018 OTB/W 2018 BOTWFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-35

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 5.3 Nonroad Mobile Sources

In the June 2007 MOU, the OTC Commissioners recommended that states pursue statespecific rulemakings for one nonroad source cate gories – portable fuel containers. The OTC 2006 control measure for portable fuel containers will result in addition VOC emission reduction from the refueling of nonroa d equipment. However, these reductions
could not be estimated due to resource and time constraints.

5.4 Electric Generating Units

In the June 2008 Statement on EGUs, the OT C Commissioners dire cted OTC staff to complete an evaluation and recommendations for a program beyond CAIR that includes strategies to address the base, intermediate and peak load emissions. No specific emission reduction targets were identified. States spec ified that no additional reductions from EGUs be included in the BOTW inventory.

5.5 Onroad Mobile Sources

In Resolution 06-02, the OTC Commissioners recommended that the OTC member states pursue a region fuel program consistent w ith the Energy Act of 2005. No specific emission reduction targets were identified. St ates specified that no additional reductions from onroad mobile sources be included in the BOTW inventory.

In the June 2007 MOU, the OTC Commissioners recommended that states pursue statespecific rulemakings to implement a mandatory di esel engine chip refl ash program. It is our understanding that the emission reductions from the diesel engine chip reflash program are already accounted for in M ANE-VU’s OTB emission inventory.Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Appendix A – Non EGU Point Source Growth Factors Page A-1

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### Appendix A – NonEGU Point Source Growth Factors

Table A-1 Connecticut Growth Factors by SIC Code

SIC GF_02_09 GF_02_12 GF_02_18 CTDOL_CAT 0181 1.0019 1.0027 1.0042 Agricultural, Crop Production 1422 0.9400 0.9143 0.8629 Mining 1429 0.9400 0.9143 0.8629 Mining 2051 0.9355 0.9079 0.8526 Manufacturing, Food 2096 0.9355 0.9079 0.8526 Manufacturing, Food 2261 0.9254 0.8934 0.8295 Manufacturing, Textile Product Mills 2262 0.9254 0.8934 0.8295 Manufacturing, Textile Product Mills 2284 0.9254 0.8934 0.8295 Manufacturing, Textile Product Mills 2298 0.9254 0.8934 0.8295 Manufacturing, Textile Product Mills 2434 1.0679 1.0969 1.1551 Manufacturing, Wood Products 2522 1.0435 1.0621 1.0994 Manufacturing, Furniture & Related 2541 1.0679 1.0969 1.1551 Manufacturing, Wood Products 2621 0.8706 0.8152 0.7043 Manufacturing, Paper 2631 0.8706 0.8152 0.7043 Manufacturing, Paper 2652 0.8706 0.8152 0.7043 Manufacturing, Paper 2653 0.8706 0.8152 0.7043 Manufacturing, Paper 2672 0.8706 0.8152 0.7043 Manufacturing, Paper 2673 0.8706 0.8152 0.7043 Manufacturing, Paper 2711 0.8386 0.7695 0.6312 Manufacturing, Printing & Related Activ 2752 0.8386 0.7695 0.6312 Manufacturing, Printing & Related Activ 2754 0.8386 0.7695 0.6312 Manufacturing, Printing & Related Activ 2759 0.8386 0.7695 0.6312 Manufacturing, Printing & Related Activ 2821 1.1024 1.1464 1.2342 Manufacturing, Chemical 2833 1.1024 1.1464 1.2342 Manufacturing, Chemical 2869 1.1024 1.1464 1.2342 Manufacturing, Chemical 2875 1.1024 1.1464 1.2342 Manufacturing, Chemical 3052 0.9591 0.9416 0.9066 Manufacturing, Plastic & Rubber Product 3069 0.9591 0.9416 0.9066 Manufacturing, Plastic & Rubber Product 3081 0.9591 0.9416 0.9066 Manufacturing, Plastic & Rubber Product 3086 0.9591 0.9416 0.9066 Manufacturing, Plastic & Rubber Product 3087 0.9591 0.9416 0.9066 Manufacturing, Plastic & Rubber Product 3272 0.9841 0.9772 0.9636 Manufacturing, Miscellaneous 3312 0.8713 0.8162 0.7059 Manufacturing, Primary Metal 3351 0.8713 0.8162 0.7059 Manufacturing, Primary Metal 3357 0.8713 0.8162 0.7059 Manufacturing, Primary Metal 3423 0.9150 0.8786 0.8057 Manufacturing, Fabricated Metal 3429 0.9150 0.8786 0.8057 Manufacturing, Fabricated Metal 3444 0.9150 0.8786 0.8057 Manufacturing, Fabricated Metal 3469 0.9150 0.8786 0.8057 Manufacturing, Fabricated Metal 3471 0.9150 0.8786 0.8057 Manufacturing, Fabricated Metal 3479 0.9150 0.8786 0.8057 Manufacturing, Fabricated Metal 3497 0.9150 0.8786 0.8057 Manufacturing, Fabricated Metal 3562 0.8778 0.8254 0.7206 Manufacturing, MachineryFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Appendix A – Non EGU Point Source Growth Factors Page A-2

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. SIC GF_02_09 GF_02_12 GF_02_18 CTDOL_CAT 3569 0.8778 0.8254 0.7206 Manufacturing, Machinery 3579 0.8452 0.7788 0.6461 Manufacturing, Computer & Electronic Eq 3634 0.9149 0.8784 0.8054 Manufacturing, Electrical Equipment, Ap 3675 0.9149 0.8784 0.8054 Manufacturing, Electrical Equipment, Ap 3714 0.9705 0.9578 0.9326 Manufacturing, Transportation Equipment 3721 0.9705 0.9578 0.9326 Manufacturing, Transportation Equipment 3724 0.9705 0.9578 0.9326 Manufacturing, Transportation Equipment 3728 0.9705 0.9578 0.9326 Manufacturing, Transportation Equipment 3731 0.9705 0.9578 0.9326 Manufacturing, Transportation Equipment 3827 0.9841 0.9772 0.9636 Manufacturing, Miscellaneous 3949 0.9841 0.9772 0.9636 Manufacturing, Miscellaneous 3951 0.9841 0.9772 0.9636 Manufacturing, Miscellaneous 4226 1.0921 1.1316 1.2106 Transportation & Warehousing, Warehousi 4911 0.9550 0.9358 0.8972 Utilities 4922 0.9550 0.9358 0.8972 Utilities 4924 0.9550 0.9358 0.8972 Utilities 4931 1.1439 1.2056 1.3290 Waste Management & Remediation Services 4952 1.1439 1.2056 1.3290 Waste Management & Remediation Services 4953 1.1439 1.2056 1.3290 Waste Management & Remediation Services 4961 0.9550 0.9358 0.8972 Utilities 5171 1.0605 1.0864 1.1382 Wholesale Trade, Nondurable Goods 6036 1.0569 1.0814 1.1302 Finance & Insurance 6512 1.0197 1.0282 1.0451 Real Estate & Rental & Leasing 6513 1.0197 1.0282 1.0451 Real Estate & Rental & Leasing 7389 1.0569 1.0814 1.1302 Finance & Insurance 8051 1.0824 1.1177 1.1883 Health Care & Social Assistance, Nursin 8062 1.0583 1.0833 1.1334 Health Care & Social Assistance, Hospit 8063 1.0583 1.0833 1.1334 Health Care & Social Assistance, Hospit 8211 1.0642 1.0918 1.1468 Educational Services 8221 1.0642 1.0918 1.1468 Educational Services 8631 1.0642 1.0918 1.1468 Educational Services 8734 1.1189 1.1699 1.2718 Professional, Scientific, and Technical 9223 1.0185 1.0264 1.0423 Government 9511 1.0185 1.0264 1.0423 Government 9621 1.0185 1.0264 1.0423 Government 9711 1.0185 1.0264 1.0423 Government 3900 0.9841 0.9772 0.9636 Manufacturing, Miscellaneous 5093 1.0527 1.0754 1.1206 Wholesale Trade, Durable Goods 4200 0.9871 0.9815 0.9705 Transportation & Warehousing, Truck TraFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Appendix A – Non EGU Point Source Growth Factors Page A-3

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. Table A-2 Non-EGU Point Source Growth Factors by SCC Code

See Electronic File: MANE-VU_NonEGU_gf_scc.xls

This table contains 12,791 records with NonEGU point source growth factors by county and SCC.
The format for the tables is as follows:

Column A – County FIPS code

Column B – Source Classification Code (SCC)

Column C – EGAS_02_09 this is the EGAS 5.0 factor for projecting from 2002 to 2009

Column D – AEO5_02_09 this is the DOE AEO 2005 factor for projecting from 2002 to 2009

Column E – ST_02_09 this is the state-supplied factor for projecting from 2002 to 2009

Column F – GF_02_09 this is the final factor actually used for projecting from 2002 to 2009 (it is the state-supplied factor, if available; if no state-supplied factor, then it is the AEO2005 factor; if no AEO2005 factor, then it is the default EGAS 5.0 factor)

Column G – EGAS_02_12 this is the EGAS 5.0 factor for projecting from 2002 to 2012

Column H – AEO5_02_12 this is the DOE AEO 2005 factor for projecting from 2002 to 2012

Column I – ST_02_12 this is the state-supplied factor for projecting from 2002 to 2012

Column J – GF_02_09 this is the final factor actually used for projecting from 2002 to 2012 (it is the state-supplied factor, if available; if no state-supplied factor, then it is the AEO2005 factor; if no AEO2005 factor, then it is the default EGAS 5.0 factor)

Column K – EGAS_02_18 this is the EGAS 5.0 factor for projecting from 2002 to 2018

Column J – AEO5_02_18 this is the DOE AEO 2005 factor for projecting from 2002 to 2018

Column M– ST_02_18 this is the state-supplied factor for projecting from 2002 to 2018

Column N – GF_02_09 this is the final factor actually used for projecting from 2002 to 2012 (it is the state-supplied factor, if available; if no state-supplied factor, then it is the AEO2005 factor; if no AEO2005 factor, then it is the default EGAS 5.0 factor)

Column O – SCC descriptionFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-1

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### Appendix B – NonEGU Point Source Control Factors

Table B-1 NonEGU Emission Units A ffected by the NOx SIP Call Phase I

FIPS SITE ID Facility Name EU ID Ozone Season Allowance (tpy) Prorated Annual Emissions (tpy) Unit Description
09003 1509 PRATT & WHITNEY DIV UTC P0049 11 26 FT-8 COGENERATION GAS TURBINE

09011 0604 PFIZER INC P0001 33 79 BLR B&W FM140-97 #8

09011 0604 PFIZER INC R0012 31 74 BLR CE #5 (101-4)

09011 3102 SPRAGUE PAPERBOARD INC R0003 75 180 BLR B&W PFI-22-0 #1

24001 001-0011 WESTVACO FINE PAPERS 1 500 1200 001-0011-3-0018

24001 001-0011 WESTVACO FINE PAPERS 2 440 1056 001-0011-3-0019

25009 1190138 GENERAL ELECTRIC AIRCRAFT 03 29 68 BOILER #3- BABCOCK+WILCOX PPL-2897 DUAL FUEL EV99-3

25009 1190138 GENERAL ELECTRIC AIRCRAFT 05 24 58 TURBINE #1-GE G5301 DUAL FUEL BLDG 99-8

25017 1191844 MIT 02 132 317 TURBINE #1-ABB GT10 DUEL FUEL(EXHAUST TO HRSG)

25025 1190507 TRIGEN BOSTON ENERGY 01 47 113 BOILER #1- BABCOCK+WILCOX HSB8477A DUAL FUEL

25025 1190507 TRIGEN BOSTON ENERGY 02 47 113 BOILER #2- BABCOCK+WILCOX JSB8477B DUAL FUEL

25025 1190507 TRIGEN BOSTON ENERGY 03 47 113 BOILER #3- FOSTER+WHEELER SC DUAL FUEL

25025 1190507 TRIGEN BOSTON ENERGY 04 47 113 BOILER #4- BABCOCK+WILCOX HSB8608A DUAL FUEL

36031 5154800008 INTERNATIONAL PAPER TICONDEROG POWERH 227 545 EMISSION UNIT

36055 8261400205 KODAK PARK DIVISION U00015 1721 4130 EMISSION UNIT

36091 5412600007 INTERNATIONAL PAPER HUDSON RIV UBOILR 124 298 EMISSION UNIT

42003 4200300022 SHENANGO INC. 005 13 31 BOILER #9, NATURAL GAS

42017 420170306 EXELON GENERATION CO/FAIRLESS 043 2 5 POWER HOUSE BOILER NO. 3Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-2

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. FIPS SITE ID Facility Name EU ID Ozone Season Allowance (tpy) Prorated Annual Emissions (tpy) Unit Description
42017 420170306 EXELON GENERATION CO/FAIRLESS 044 73 175 POWER HOUSE BOILER NO. 4

42017 420170306 EXELON GENERATION CO/FAIRLESS 045 61 146 POWER HOUSE BOILER NO. 5

42045 420450016 KIMBERLY CLARK PA LLC/CHESTER 034 2 5

42045 420450220 FPL ENERGY MH50 LP/MARCUS HOOK 031 82 197 COGENERATION UNIT - ABB TYPE B

42047 420470005 WEYERHAEUSER/JOHNSONBURG MILL 040 85 204 BOILER #81

42047 420470005 WEYERHAEUSER/JOHNSONBURG MILL 041 86 206 BOILER #82

42091 420910028 MERCK & CO/WEST POINT 039 101 242 COGEN II GAS TURBINE 42101 4210101551 SUNOCO CHEMICALS (FORMER ALLIE 052 86 206 BL-703: BOILER #3

42131 421310009 PROCTER & GAMBLE PAPER PROD CO 035 203 482 WESTINGHOUSE 251B12

42133 421330016 PH GLATFELTER CO/SPRING GROVE 034 146 350 #4 POWER BOILERFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-3

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. Table B-2 Cement Kilns Affect ed by the NOx SIP Call Phase I

FIPS SITE ID Facility Name EU ID Control Factor Unit Description
24013 013-0012 LEHIGH PORTLAND CEMENT 39 25.00 013-0012-6-0256 013-0012-6-0256

24021 021-0013 ESSROC CEMENT 21 25.00 021-0013-6-0465 021-0013-6-0465

24021 021-0013 ESSROC CEMENT 22 25.00 021-0013-6-0466 021-0013-6-0466

24043 043-0008 INDEPENDENT CEMENT/ST. LAWEREN 24 25.00 043-0008-6-0495 043-0008-6-0495

36001 4012400001 LAFARGE BUILDING MATERIALS INC 041000 25.00 EMISSION UNIT

36039 4192600021 ST LAWRENCE CEMENT CORPCATSKI U00K18 25.00 EMISSION UNIT

36113 5520500013 GLENS FALLS LEHIGH CEMENT 0UKILN 25.00 EMISSION UNIT

42011 420110039 LEHIGH CEMENT CO /EVANSVILLE 121 70.00 PORTLAND CEMENT KILN #1

42011 420110039 LEHIGH CEMENT CO /EVANSVILLE 122 70.00 PORTLAND CEMENT KILN #2

42019 420190024 ARMSTRONG CEMENT & SUPPLY 101 16.00 NO.1 KILN

42019 420190024 ARMSTRONG CEMENT & SUPPLY 121 16.00 NO.2 KILN

42073 420730024 CEMEX INC/WAMPUM CEMENT PLT 226 12.50

42073 420730024 CEMEX INC/WAMPUM CEMENT PLT 227 0.00

42073 420730024 CEMEX INC/WAMPUM CEMENT PLT 228 12.70

42073 420730026 ESSROC/BESSEMER 501 8.00

42073 420730026 ESSROC/BESSEMER 502 8.00

42077 420770019 LAFARGE CORP/WHITEHA LL PLT 101 12.28 K-2 KILN

42077 420770019 LAFARGE CORP/WHITEHA LL PLT 114 100.00 K-3 KILN

42095 420950006 HERCULES CEMENT CO LP/STOCKERT 102 6.88 NO. 1 CEMENT KILN

42095 420950006 HERCULES CEMENT CO LP/STOCKERT 122 6.88 NO. 3 CEMENT KILN

42095 420950012 KEYSTONE PORTLAND CEMENT/EAST 101 27.00 CEMENT KILN NO. 1

42095 420950012 KEYSTONE PORTLAND CEMENT/EAST 102 27.00 CEMENT KILN NO. 2

42095 420950045 ESSROC/NAZARETH LOWER CEMENT 142 41.00

42095 420950045 ESSROC/NAZARETH LOWER CEMENT 143 41.00

42095 420950127 ESSROC/NAZARETH CEMENT PLT 3 101 41.00

42095 420950127 ESSROC/NAZARETH CEMENT PLT 3 102 41.00

42095 420950127 ESSROC/NAZARETH CEMENT PLT 3 103 41.00

42095 420950127 ESSROC/NAZARETH CEMENT PLT 3 104 41.00

42133 421330060 LEHIGH CEMENT CO/YORK OPERATION 200 27.00Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-4

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. Table B-3 Large IC Engines Affect ed by the NOx SIP Call Phase II

FIPS SITE ID Facility Name EU ID Control Factor Unit Description
24027 027-0223 TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS PIPE LINE 1 80.00 027-0223-5-0054 boiler
42005 420050015 DOMINION TRANS INC/SOUTH BEND 101 80.00 ENGINE #1 (2000 BHP) 42005 420050015 DOMINION TRANS INC/SOUTH BEND 102 80.00 ENGINE #2 (2000 BHP) 42005 420050015 DOMINION TRANS INC/SOUTH BEND 103 80.00 ENGINE #3 (2000 BHP) 42005 420050015 DOMINION TRANS INC/SOUTH BEND 104 80.00 ENGINE #4 (2000 BHP) 42005 420050015 DOMINION TRANS INC/SOUTH BEND 105 80.00 ENGINE #5 (2000 BHP) 42005 420050015 DOMINION TRANS INC/SOUTH BEND 106 80.00 ENGINE #6 (2000 BHP)

42029 420290047 TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS/FRAZER ST 741 80.00 #11 I-C GAS COMPRESSOR ENGINE

42029 420290047 TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS/FRAZER ST 742 80.00 #12 I-C GAS COMPRESSOR ENGINE

42029 420290047 TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS/FRAZER ST 743 80.00 #13 I-C GAS COMPRESSOR ENGINE

42063 420630018 PA STATE SYS OF HIGHER ED/INDI 101 90.00 COOPER-BESSEMER ENGINE #1

42063 420630018 PA STATE SYS OF HIGHER ED/INDI 101 90.00 COOPER-BESSEMER ENGINE #1

42063 420630018 PA STATE SYS OF HIGHER ED/INDI 101 90.00 COOPER-BESSEMER ENGINE #1

42063 420630018 PA STATE SYS OF HIGHER ED/INDI 101 90.00 COOPER-BESSEMER ENGINE #1

42063 420630018 PA STATE SYS OF HIGHER ED/INDI 102 90.00 COOPER-BESSEMER ENGINE #2

42063 420630018 PA STATE SYS OF HIGHER ED/INDI 102 90.00 COOPER-BESSEMER ENGINE #2

42063 420630018 PA STATE SYS OF HIGHER ED/INDI 102 90.00 COOPER-BESSEMER ENGINE #2

42063 420630018 PA STATE SYS OF HIGHER ED/INDI 102 90.00 COOPER-BESSEMER ENGINE #2

42063 420630018 PA STATE SYS OF HIGHER ED/INDI 103 90.00 COOPER-BESSEMER ENGINE #3

42063 420630018 PA STATE SYS OF HIGHER ED/INDI 103 90.00 COOPER-BESSEMER ENGINE #3

42063 420630018 PA STATE SYS OF HIGHER ED/INDI 103 90.00 COOPER-BESSEMER ENGINE #3

42063 420630018 PA STATE SYS OF HIGHER ED/INDI 103 90.00 COOPER-BESSEMER ENGINE #3

42063 420630018 PA STATE SYS OF HIGHER ED/INDI 104 90.00 COOPER-BESSEMER ENGINE #4

42063 420630018 PA STATE SYS OF HIGHER ED/INDI 104 90.00 COOPER-BESSEMER ENGINE #4

42063 420630018 PA STATE SYS OF HIGHER ED/INDI 104 90.00 COOPER-BESSEMER ENGINE #4

42063 420630018 PA STATE SYS OF HIGHER ED/INDI 104 90.00 COOPER-BESSEMER ENGINE #4

42105 421050005 TENNESSEE GAS PIPELINE CO/313 P111 80.00 3,000HP KVT-512 ENGINE

42105 421050005 TENNESSEE GAS PIPELINE CO/313 P 112 80.00 2,000HP GMVH-10C ENGINE

42133 421330053 TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS/STATION 1 036 80.00 COOPER-BESSEMER ENGINE #4

42133 421330053 TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS/STATION 1 037 80.00 COOPER-BESSEMER ENGINE #5Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-5

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. B-4 NonEGU Control Factors for Post-2002 MACT Categories

SCC PLLTCODE CE_MACT SUBPART MACT CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 20100102 NOX 17.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating In ternal Combustion Engines 20100202 NOX 17.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating In ternal Combustion Engines 20100702 NOX 17.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating In ternal Combustion Engines 20100802 NOX 17.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating In ternal Combustion Engines 20100902 NOX 17.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating In ternal Combustion Engines 20200102 NOX 17.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating In ternal Combustion Engines 20200104 NOX 17.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating In ternal Combustion Engines 20200202 NOX 17.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating In ternal Combustion Engines 20200204 NOX 17.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating In ternal Combustion Engines 20200301 NOX 17.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating In ternal Combustion Engines 20200501 NOX 17.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating In ternal Combustion Engines 20200702 NOX 17.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating In ternal Combustion Engines 20200706 NOX 17.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating In ternal Combustion Engines 20200902 NOX 17.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating In ternal Combustion Engines 20201001 NOX 17.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating In ternal Combustion Engines 20201002 NOX 17.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating In ternal Combustion Engines 20201012 NOX 17.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating In ternal Combustion Engines 20201014 NOX 17.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating In ternal Combustion Engines 20201602 NOX 17.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating In ternal Combustion Engines 20201702 NOX 17.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating In ternal Combustion Engines 20300101 NOX 17.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating In ternal Combustion Engines 20300301 NOX 17.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating In ternal Combustion Engines 30400101 PM10-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 30400102 PM10-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 30400103 PM10-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 30400104 PM10-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 30400105 PM10-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 30400106 PM10-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 30400107 PM10-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 30400108 PM10-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 30400109 PM10-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 30400110 PM10-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 30400111 PM10-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 30400112 PM10-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 30400113 PM10-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 30400114 PM10-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 30400115 PM10-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 30400116 PM10-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 30400117 PM10-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 30400118 PM10-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 30400120 PM10-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 30400121 PM10-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 30400130 PM10-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 30400131 PM10-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 30400132 PM10-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 30400133 PM10-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 30400150 PM10-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 30400160 PM10-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 30400199 PM10-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 30500301 PM10-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural ClayFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-6

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. SCC PLLTCODE CE_MACT SUBPART MACT CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 30500302 PM10-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 30500303 PM10-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 30500304 PM10-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 30500305 PM10-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 30500306 PM10-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 30500307 PM10-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 30500308 PM10-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 30500309 PM10-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 30500310 PM10-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 30500311 PM10-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 30500312 PM10-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 30500313 PM10-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 30500314 PM10-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 30500315 PM10-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 30500316 PM10-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 30500317 PM10-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 30500318 PM10-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 30500319 PM10-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 30500321 PM10-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 30500322 PM10-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 30500330 PM10-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 30500331 PM10-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 30500332 PM10-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 30500333 PM10-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 30500334 PM10-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 30500335 PM10-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 30500340 PM10-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 30500342 PM10-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 30500350 PM10-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 30500351 PM10-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 30500355 PM10-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 30500360 PM10-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 30500361 PM10-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 30500370 PM10-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 30500397 PM10-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 30500398 PM10-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 30500399 PM10-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 30501601 PM10-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 30501602 PM10-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 30501603 PM10-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 30501604 PM10-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 30501605 PM10-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 30501606 PM10-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 30501607 PM10-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 30501608 PM10-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 30501609 PM10-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 30501610 PM10-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 30501611 PM10-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 30501612 PM10-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 30501613 PM10-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 30501614 PM10-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 30501615 PM10-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime ManufacturingFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-7

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. SCC PLLTCODE CE_MACT SUBPART MACT CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 30501616 PM10-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 30501617 PM10-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 30501618 PM10-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 30501619 PM10-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 30501620 PM10-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 30501621 PM10-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 30501622 PM10-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 30501623 PM10-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 30501624 PM10-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 30501625 PM10-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 30501626 PM10-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 30501627 PM10-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 30501628 PM10-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 30501629 PM10-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 30501630 PM10-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 30501631 PM10-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 30501632 PM10-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 30501633 PM10-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 30501640 PM10-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 30501650 PM10-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 30501660 PM10-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 30501699 PM10-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 30400101 PM25-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 30400102 PM25-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 30400103 PM25-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 30400104 PM25-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 30400105 PM25-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 30400106 PM25-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 30400107 PM25-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 30400108 PM25-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 30400109 PM25-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 30400110 PM25-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 30400111 PM25-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 30400112 PM25-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 30400113 PM25-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 30400114 PM25-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 30400115 PM25-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 30400116 PM25-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 30400117 PM25-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 30400118 PM25-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 30400120 PM25-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 30400121 PM25-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 30400130 PM25-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 30400131 PM25-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 30400132 PM25-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 30400133 PM25-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 30400150 PM25-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 30400160 PM25-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 30400199 PM25-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 30500301 PM25-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 30500302 PM25-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 30500303 PM25-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural ClayFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-8

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. SCC PLLTCODE CE_MACT SUBPART MACT CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 30500304 PM25-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 30500305 PM25-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 30500306 PM25-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 30500307 PM25-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 30500308 PM25-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 30500309 PM25-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 30500310 PM25-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 30500311 PM25-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 30500312 PM25-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 30500313 PM25-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 30500314 PM25-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 30500315 PM25-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 30500316 PM25-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 30500317 PM25-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 30500318 PM25-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 30500319 PM25-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 30500321 PM25-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 30500322 PM25-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 30500330 PM25-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 30500331 PM25-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 30500332 PM25-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 30500333 PM25-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 30500334 PM25-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 30500335 PM25-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 30500340 PM25-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 30500342 PM25-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 30500350 PM25-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 30500351 PM25-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 30500355 PM25-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 30500360 PM25-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 30500361 PM25-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 30500370 PM25-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 30500397 PM25-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 30500398 PM25-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 30500399 PM25-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 30501601 PM25-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 30501602 PM25-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 30501603 PM25-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 30501604 PM25-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 30501605 PM25-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 30501606 PM25-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 30501607 PM25-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 30501608 PM25-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 30501609 PM25-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 30501610 PM25-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 30501611 PM25-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 30501612 PM25-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 30501613 PM25-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 30501614 PM25-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 30501615 PM25-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 30501616 PM25-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 30501617 PM25-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime ManufacturingFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-9

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. SCC PLLTCODE CE_MACT SUBPART MACT CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 30501618 PM25-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 30501619 PM25-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 30501620 PM25-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 30501621 PM25-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 30501622 PM25-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 30501623 PM25-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 30501624 PM25-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 30501625 PM25-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 30501626 PM25-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 30501627 PM25-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 30501628 PM25-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 30501629 PM25-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 30501630 PM25-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 30501631 PM25-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 30501632 PM25-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 30501633 PM25-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 30501640 PM25-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 30501650 PM25-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 30501660 PM25-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 30501699 PM25-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 20100101 VOC 0.250 YYYY Stationary Combustion Turbines 20100102 VOC 40.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 20100201 VOC 0.250 YYYY Stationary Combustion Turbines 20100202 VOC 40.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 20100702 VOC 40.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 20100802 VOC 40.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 20100902 VOC 40.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 20200101 VOC 0.250 YYYY Stationary Combustion Turbines 20200102 VOC 40.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 20200103 VOC 0.250 YYYY Stationary Combustion Turbines 20200104 VOC 40.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 20200201 VOC 0.250 YYYY Stationary Combustion Turbines 20200202 VOC 40.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 20200203 VOC 0.250 YYYY Stationary Combustion Turbines 20200204 VOC 40.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 20200209 VOC 0.250 YYYY Stationary Combustion Turbines 20200301 VOC 40.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 20200501 VOC 40.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 20200702 VOC 40.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 20200706 VOC 40.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 20200902 VOC 40.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 20201001 VOC 40.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 20201002 VOC 40.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 20201012 VOC 40.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 20201014 VOC 40.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 20201602 VOC 40.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 20201702 VOC 40.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 20300101 VOC 40.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 20300102 VOC 0.250 YYYY Stationary Combustion Turbines 20300109 VOC 0.250 YYYY Stationary Combustion Turbines 20300202 VOC 0.250 YYYY Stationary Combustion Turbines 20300203 VOC 0.250 YYYY Stationary Combustion TurbinesFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-10

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. SCC PLLTCODE CE_MACT SUBPART MACT CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 20300209 VOC 0.250 YYYY Stationary Combustion Turbines 20300301 VOC 40.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 20300701 VOC 0.250 YYYY Stationary Combustion Turbines 30100501 VOC 26.100 YY Generic MACT (Carbon Black) 30100502 VOC 26.100 YY Generic MACT (Carbon Black) 30100503 VOC 26.100 YY Generic MACT (Carbon Black) 30100504 VOC 26.100 YY Generic MACT (Carbon Black) 30100506 VOC 26.100 YY Generic MACT (Carbon Black) 30100507 VOC 26.100 YY Generic MACT (Carbon Black) 30100508 VOC 26.100 YY Generic MACT (Carbon Black) 30100509 VOC 26.100 YY Generic MACT (Carbon Black) 30100510 VOC 26.100 YY Generic MACT (Carbon Black) 30100599 VOC 26.100 YY Generic MACT (Carbon Black) 30101005 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30101010 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30101011 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30101012 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30101013 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30101014 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30101015 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30101021 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30101022 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30101023 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30101025 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30101026 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30101027 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30101028 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30101030 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30101033 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30101034 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30101035 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30101036 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30101037 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30101040 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30101045 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30101046 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30101047 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30101050 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30101051 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30101052 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30101053 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30101054 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30101055 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30101061 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30101062 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30101063 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30101064 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30101073 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30101074 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30101075 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30101076 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30101077 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and ProcFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-11

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. SCC PLLTCODE CE_MACT SUBPART MACT CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 30101080 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30101085 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30101086 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30101087 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30101099 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30101827 VOC 55.700 OOO Polymers and Resins III 30101837 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30101880 VOC 67.400 MMMMM Flexible Polyur ethane Foam Fabrication Ope 30101881 VOC 67.400 MMMMM Flexible Polyur ethane Foam Fabrication Ope 30101882 VOC 67.400 MMMMM Flexible Polyur ethane Foam Fabrication Ope 30101883 VOC 67.400 MMMMM Flexible Polyur ethane Foam Fabrication Ope 30101884 VOC 67.400 MMMMM Flexible Polyur ethane Foam Fabrication Ope 30101885 VOC 67.400 MMMMM Flexible Polyur ethane Foam Fabrication Ope 30101890 VOC 67.400 MMMMM Flexible Polyur ethane Foam Fabrication Ope 30101891 VOC 67.400 MMMMM Flexible Polyur ethane Foam Fabrication Ope 30101892 VOC 67.400 MMMMM Flexible Polyur ethane Foam Fabrication Ope 30101893 VOC 67.400 MMMMM Flexible Polyur ethane Foam Fabrication Ope 30101894 VOC 67.400 MMMMM Flexible Polyur ethane Foam Fabrication Ope 30101899 VOC 67.400 MMMMM Flexible Polyur ethane Foam Fabrication Ope 30103201 VOC 87.400 UUU Petroleum Refineries 30103202 VOC 87.400 UUU Petroleum Refineries 30103203 VOC 87.400 UUU Petroleum Refineries 30103204 VOC 87.400 UUU Petroleum Refineries 30103205 VOC 87.400 UUU Petroleum Refineries 30103299 VOC 87.400 UUU Petroleum Refineries 30103301 VOC 64.820 MMM Pesticide Active Ingredient 30103311 VOC 64.820 MMM Pesticide Active Ingredient 30103312 VOC 64.820 MMM Pesticide Active Ingredient 30103399 VOC 64.820 MMM Pesticide Active Ingredient 30103901 VOC 44.500 YY Generic MACT (Cyanide) 30103902 VOC 44.500 YY Generic MACT (Cyanide) 30103903 VOC 44.500 YY Generic MACT (Cyanide) 30105001 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30105101 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30105105 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30105108 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30105110 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30105112 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30105114 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30105116 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30105118 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30105120 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30105122 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30105124 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30105130 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30110002 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30110003 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30110004 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30110005 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30110080 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30110099 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30111103 VOC 43.900 QQQQQ Friction Products ManufacturingFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-12

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. SCC PLLTCODE CE_MACT SUBPART MACT CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 30111199 VOC 43.900 QQQQQ Friction Products Manufacturing 30113001 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30113003 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30113004 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30113005 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30113006 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30113007 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 30201901 VOC 38.690 GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Produ 30201902 VOC 38.690 GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Produ 30201903 VOC 38.690 GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Produ 30201904 VOC 38.690 GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Produ 30201905 VOC 38.690 GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Produ 30201906 VOC 38.690 GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Produ 30201907 VOC 38.690 GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Produ 30201908 VOC 38.690 GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Produ 30201909 VOC 38.690 GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Produ 30201911 VOC 38.690 GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Produ 30201912 VOC 38.690 GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Produ 30201913 VOC 38.690 GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Produ 30201914 VOC 38.690 GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Produ 30201915 VOC 38.690 GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Produ 30201916 VOC 38.690 GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Produ 30201917 VOC 38.690 GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Produ 30201918 VOC 38.690 GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Produ 30201919 VOC 38.690 GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Produ 30201920 VOC 38.690 GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Produ 30201921 VOC 38.690 GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Produ 30201923 VOC 38.690 GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Produ 30201925 VOC 38.690 GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Produ 30201926 VOC 38.690 GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Produ 30201927 VOC 38.690 GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Produ 30201930 VOC 38.690 GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Produ 30201931 VOC 38.690 GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Produ 30201932 VOC 38.690 GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Produ 30201933 VOC 38.690 GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Produ 30201935 VOC 38.690 GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Produ 30201939 VOC 38.690 GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Produ 30201941 VOC 38.690 GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Produ 30201942 VOC 38.690 GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Produ 30201945 VOC 38.690 GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Produ 30201949 VOC 38.690 GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Produ 30201950 VOC 38.690 GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Produ 30201960 VOC 38.690 GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Produ 30201997 VOC 38.690 GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Produ 30201998 VOC 38.690 GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Produ 30201999 VOC 38.690 GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Produ 30203404 VOC 12.500 CCCC Manufacturing Nutritional Yeast 30203405 VOC 12.500 CCCC Manufacturing Nutritional Yeast 30203406 VOC 12.500 CCCC Manufacturing Nutritional Yeast 30203407 VOC 12.500 CCCC Manufacturing Nutritional Yeast 30203410 VOC 12.500 CCCC Manufacturing Nutritional Yeast 30203415 VOC 12.500 CCCC Manufacturing Nutritional YeastFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-13

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. SCC PLLTCODE CE_MACT SUBPART MACT CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 30203420 VOC 12.500 CCCC Manufacturing Nutritional Yeast 30203421 VOC 12.500 CCCC Manufacturing Nutritional Yeast 30203422 VOC 12.500 CCCC Manufacturing Nutritional Yeast 30203423 VOC 12.500 CCCC Manufacturing Nutritional Yeast 30203424 VOC 12.500 CCCC Manufacturing Nutritional Yeast 30203504 VOC 12.500 CCCC Manufacturing Nutritional Yeast 30203505 VOC 12.500 CCCC Manufacturing Nutritional Yeast 30203506 VOC 12.500 CCCC Manufacturing Nutritional Yeast 30203507 VOC 12.500 CCCC Manufacturing Nutritional Yeast 30203510 VOC 12.500 CCCC Manufacturing Nutritional Yeast 30203530 VOC 12.500 CCCC Manufacturing Nutritional Yeast 30203531 VOC 12.500 CCCC Manufacturing Nutritional Yeast 30203532 VOC 12.500 CCCC Manufacturing Nutritional Yeast 30203533 VOC 12.500 CCCC Manufacturing Nutritional Yeast 30203534 VOC 12.500 CCCC Manufacturing Nutritional Yeast 30203535 VOC 12.500 CCCC Manufacturing Nutritional Yeast 30203536 VOC 12.500 CCCC Manufacturing Nutritional Yeast 30203540 VOC 12.500 CCCC Manufacturing Nutritional Yeast 30300303 VOC 50.000 CCCCC Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, Battery St 30300304 VOC 50.000 CCCCC Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, Battery St 30400301 VOC 40.000 EEEEE Iron and Steel Foundries 30400302 VOC 40.000 EEEEE Iron and Steel Foundries 30400303 VOC 40.000 EEEEE Iron and Steel Foundries 30400304 VOC 40.000 EEEEE Iron and Steel Foundries 30400305 VOC 40.000 EEEEE Iron and Steel Foundries 30400310 VOC 40.000 EEEEE Iron and Steel Foundries 30400314 VOC 40.000 EEEEE Iron and Steel Foundries 30400315 VOC 40.000 EEEEE Iron and Steel Foundries 30400316 VOC 40.000 EEEEE Iron and Steel Foundries 30400317 VOC 40.000 EEEEE Iron and Steel Foundries 30400318 VOC 40.000 EEEEE Iron and Steel Foundries 30400319 VOC 40.000 EEEEE Iron and Steel Foundries 30400320 VOC 40.000 EEEEE Iron and Steel Foundries 30400321 VOC 40.000 EEEEE Iron and Steel Foundries 30400322 VOC 40.000 EEEEE Iron and Steel Foundries 30400325 VOC 40.000 EEEEE Iron and Steel Foundries 30400330 VOC 40.000 EEEEE Iron and Steel Foundries 30400331 VOC 40.000 EEEEE Iron and Steel Foundries 30400332 VOC 40.000 EEEEE Iron and Steel Foundries 30400333 VOC 40.000 EEEEE Iron and Steel Foundries 30400340 VOC 40.000 EEEEE Iron and Steel Foundries 30400341 VOC 40.000 EEEEE Iron and Steel Foundries 30400342 VOC 40.000 EEEEE Iron and Steel Foundries 30400350 VOC 40.000 EEEEE Iron and Steel Foundries 30400351 VOC 40.000 EEEEE Iron and Steel Foundries 30400352 VOC 40.000 EEEEE Iron and Steel Foundries 30400353 VOC 40.000 EEEEE Iron and Steel Foundries 30400354 VOC 40.000 EEEEE Iron and Steel Foundries 30400355 VOC 40.000 EEEEE Iron and Steel Foundries 30400356 VOC 40.000 EEEEE Iron and Steel Foundries 30400357 VOC 40.000 EEEEE Iron and Steel Foundries 30400358 VOC 40.000 EEEEE Iron and Steel FoundriesFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-14

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. SCC PLLTCODE CE_MACT SUBPART MACT CATEGORY DESCRIPTION
30400360 VOC 40.000 EEEEE Iron and Steel Foundries 30400370 VOC 40.000 EEEEE Iron and Steel Foundries 30400371 VOC 40.000 EEEEE Iron and Steel Foundries 30400398 VOC 40.000 EEEEE Iron and Steel Foundries 30400399 VOC 40.000 EEEEE Iron and Steel Foundries 30500101 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 30500102 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 30500103 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 30500104 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 30500105 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 30500106 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 30500107 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 30500108 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 30500110 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 30500111 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 30500112 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 30500113 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 30500114 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 30500115 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 30500116 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 30500117 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 30500118 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 30500119 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 30500120 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 30500121 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 30500130 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 30500131 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 30500132 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 30500133 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 30500134 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 30500135 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 30500140 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 30500141 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 30500142 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 30500143 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 30500144 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 30500145 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 30500146 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 30500147 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 30500150 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 30500151 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 30500152 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 30500153 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 30500154 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 30500198 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 30500199 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 30501201 VOC 74.000 HHHH Wet Formed Fiberglass Mat Production 30501202 VOC 74.000 HHHH Wet Formed Fiberglass Mat Production 30501203 VOC 74.000 HHHH Wet Formed Fiberglass Mat Production 30501204 VOC 74.000 HHHH Wet Formed Fiberglass Mat Production 30501205 VOC 74.000 HHHH Wet Formed Fiberglass Mat Production 30501206 VOC 74.000 HHHH Wet Formed Fiberglass Mat ProductionFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-15

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. SCC PLLTCODE CE_MACT SUBPART MACT CATEGORY DESCRIPTION
30501207 VOC 74.000 HHHH Wet Formed Fiberglass Mat Production 30501208 VOC 74.000 HHHH Wet Formed Fiberglass Mat Production 30501209 VOC 74.000 HHHH Wet Formed Fiberglass Mat Production 30501211 VOC 74.000 HHHH Wet Formed Fiberglass Mat Production 30501212 VOC 74.000 HHHH Wet Formed Fiberglass Mat Production 30501213 VOC 74.000 HHHH Wet Formed Fiberglass Mat Production 30501214 VOC 74.000 HHHH Wet Formed Fiberglass Mat Production 30501215 VOC 74.000 HHHH Wet Formed Fiberglass Mat Production 30501221 VOC 74.000 HHHH Wet Formed Fiberglass Mat Production 30501222 VOC 74.000 HHHH Wet Formed Fiberglass Mat Production 30501223 VOC 74.000 HHHH Wet Formed Fiberglass Mat Production 30501224 VOC 74.000 HHHH Wet Formed Fiberglass Mat Production 30501299 VOC 74.000 HHHH Wet Formed Fiberglass Mat Production 30600201 VOC 87.400 UUU Petroleum Refineries (FCC) 30600202 VOC 87.400 UUU Petroleum Refineries (FCC) 30600301 VOC 87.400 UUU Petroleum Refineries (FCC) 30600402 VOC 87.400 UUU Petroleum Refineries (FCC) 30600901 VOC 65.630 UUU Petroleum Refineries 30600902 VOC 65.630 UUU Petroleum Refineries 30600903 VOC 65.630 UUU Petroleum Refineries 30600904 VOC 65.630 UUU Petroleum Refineries 30600905 VOC 65.630 UUU Petroleum Refineries 30600906 VOC 65.630 UUU Petroleum Refineries 30600999 VOC 65.630 UUU Petroleum Refineries 30601001 VOC 65.630 UUU Petroleum Refineries 30601101 VOC 65.630 UUU Petroleum Refineries 30601201 VOC 65.630 UUU Petroleum Refineries 30601301 VOC 65.630 UUU Petroleum Refineries 30601401 VOC 65.630 UUU Petroleum Refineries 30609901 VOC 65.630 UUU Petroleum Refineries 30609902 VOC 65.630 UUU Petroleum Refineries 30609903 VOC 65.630 UUU Petroleum Refineries 30609904 VOC 65.630 UUU Petroleum Refineries 30609905 VOC 65.630 UUU Petroleum Refineries 30610001 VOC 65.630 UUU Petroleum Refineries 30688801 VOC 87.400 UUU Petroleum Refineries 30688802 VOC 87.400 UUU Petroleum Refineries 30688803 VOC 87.400 UUU Petroleum Refineries 30688804 VOC 87.400 UUU Petroleum Refineries 30688805 VOC 87.400 UUU Petroleum Refineries 30700103 VOC 7.020 MM Comustion Sources at Kraft, Soda, and Sulf 30700104 VOC 7.020 MM Comustion Sources at Kraft, Soda, and Sulf 30700106 VOC 7.020 MM Comustion Sources at Kraft, Soda, and Sulf 30700110 VOC 7.020 MM Comustion Sources at Kraft, Soda, and Sulf 30700602 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700604 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700606 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700607 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700608 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700610 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700611 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700621 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood ProductsFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-16

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. SCC PLLTCODE CE_MACT SUBPART MACT CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 30700625 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700626 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700628 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700629 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700630 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700631 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700632 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700635 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700640 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700651 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700655 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700661 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700701 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700702 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700703 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700704 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700705 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700706 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700707 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700708 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700709 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700710 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700711 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700712 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700713 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700714 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700715 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700716 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700717 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700718 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700720 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700725 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700727 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700730 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700734 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700735 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700736 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700737 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700740 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700744 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700746 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700747 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700750 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700752 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700753 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700756 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700757 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700760 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700762 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700763 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700766 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700767 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood ProductsFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-17

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. SCC PLLTCODE CE_MACT SUBPART MACT CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 30700769 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700770 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700771 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700780 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700781 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700783 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700785 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700788 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700789 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700790 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700791 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700792 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700793 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700798 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700799 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700921 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700923 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700925 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700927 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700931 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700932 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700933 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700934 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700935 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700936 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700937 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700939 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700940 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700950 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700960 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700971 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700980 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700981 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700982 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700983 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30700984 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30701001 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30701008 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30701009 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30701010 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30701015 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30701020 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30701030 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30701040 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30701053 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30701054 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30701055 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30701057 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 30701199 VOC 82.050 JJJJ Paper an d Other Web Coating 30800101 VOC 47.600 XXXX Rubber Tire Manufacturing 30800102 VOC 47.600 XXXX Rubber Tire Manufacturing 30800103 VOC 47.600 XXXX Rubber Tire ManufacturingFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-18

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. SCC PLLTCODE CE_MACT SUBPART MACT CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 30800104 VOC 47.600 XXXX Rubber Tire Manufacturing 30800105 VOC 47.600 XXXX Rubber Tire Manufacturing 30800106 VOC 47.600 XXXX Rubber Tire Manufacturing 30800107 VOC 47.600 XXXX Rubber Tire Manufacturing 30800108 VOC 47.600 XXXX Rubber Tire Manufacturing 30800109 VOC 47.600 XXXX Rubber Tire Manufacturing 30800110 VOC 47.600 XXXX Rubber Tire Manufacturing 30800111 VOC 47.600 XXXX Rubber Tire Manufacturing 30800112 VOC 47.600 XXXX Rubber Tire Manufacturing 30800113 VOC 47.600 XXXX Rubber Tire Manufacturing 30800114 VOC 47.600 XXXX Rubber Tire Manufacturing 30800115 VOC 47.600 XXXX Rubber Tire Manufacturing 30800116 VOC 47.600 XXXX Rubber Tire Manufacturing 30800117 VOC 47.600 XXXX Rubber Tire Manufacturing 30800120 VOC 47.600 XXXX Rubber Tire Manufacturing 30800121 VOC 47.600 XXXX Rubber Tire Manufacturing 30800122 VOC 47.600 XXXX Rubber Tire Manufacturing 30800123 VOC 47.600 XXXX Rubber Tire Manufacturing 30800124 VOC 47.600 XXXX Rubber Tire Manufacturing 30800125 VOC 47.600 XXXX Rubber Tire Manufacturing 30800126 VOC 47.600 XXXX Rubber Tire Manufacturing 30800127 VOC 47.600 XXXX Rubber Tire Manufacturing 30800128 VOC 47.600 XXXX Rubber Tire Manufacturing 30800129 VOC 47.600 XXXX Rubber Tire Manufacturing 30800130 VOC 47.600 XXXX Rubber Tire Manufacturing 30800131 VOC 47.600 XXXX Rubber Tire Manufacturing 30800132 VOC 47.600 XXXX Rubber Tire Manufacturing 30800133 VOC 47.600 XXXX Rubber Tire Manufacturing 30800197 VOC 47.600 XXXX Rubber Tire Manufacturing 30800198 VOC 47.600 XXXX Rubber Tire Manufacturing 30800199 VOC 47.600 XXXX Rubber Tire Manufacturing 30800701 VOC 70.000 WWWW Reinforced Plastics 30800702 VOC 70.000 WWWW Reinforced Plastics 30800703 VOC 70.000 WWWW Reinforced Plastics 30800704 VOC 70.000 WWWW Reinforced Plastics 30800705 VOC 70.000 WWWW Reinforced Plastics 30800720 VOC 70.000 WWWW Reinforced Plastics 30800721 VOC 70.000 WWWW Reinforced Plastics 30800722 VOC 70.000 WWWW Reinforced Plastics 30800723 VOC 70.000 WWWW Reinforced Plastics 30800724 VOC 70.000 WWWW Reinforced Plastics 30800799 VOC 70.000 WWWW Reinforced Plastics 30801001 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 31401001 VOC 43.900 QQQQQ Friction Products Manufacturing 31401002 VOC 43.900 QQQQQ Friction Products Manufacturing 31401501 VOC 35.790 VVVV Boat Manufacturing 31401503 VOC 35.790 VVVV Boat Manufacturing 31401504 VOC 35.790 VVVV Boat Manufacturing 31401510 VOC 35.790 VVVV Boat Manufacturing 31401511 VOC 35.790 VVVV Boat Manufacturing 31401512 VOC 35.790 VVVV Boat Manufacturing 31401513 VOC 35.790 VVVV Boat ManufacturingFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-19

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. SCC PLLTCODE CE_MACT SUBPART MACT CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 31401514 VOC 35.790 VVVV Boat Manufacturing 31401515 VOC 35.790 VVVV Boat Manufacturing 31401516 VOC 35.790 VVVV Boat Manufacturing 31401517 VOC 35.790 VVVV Boat Manufacturing 31401518 VOC 35.790 VVVV Boat Manufacturing 31401525 VOC 35.790 VVVV Boat Manufacturing 31401530 VOC 35.790 VVVV Boat Manufacturing 31401531 VOC 35.790 VVVV Boat Manufacturing 31401540 VOC 35.790 VVVV Boat Manufacturing 31401541 VOC 35.790 VVVV Boat Manufacturing 31401550 VOC 35.790 VVVV Boat Manufacturing 31401551 VOC 35.790 VVVV Boat Manufacturing 31401552 VOC 35.790 VVVV Boat Manufacturing 31401553 VOC 35.790 VVVV Boat Manufacturing 31401560 VOC 35.790 VVVV Boat Manufacturing 31401561 VOC 35.790 VVVV Boat Manufacturing 31401562 VOC 35.790 VVVV Boat Manufacturing 31401563 VOC 35.790 VVVV Boat Manufacturing 31401570 VOC 35.790 VVVV Boat Manufacturing 31401571 VOC 35.790 VVVV Boat Manufacturing 31604001 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 31604002 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 31604003 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 32099997 VOC 38.900 TTTT Leather Finishing Operations 32099998 VOC 38.900 TTTT Leather Finishing Operations 32099999 VOC 38.900 TTTT Leather Finishing Operations 40201101 VOC 60.170 OOOO Fabric Printing, Coating, & Dyeing 40201103 VOC 60.170 OOOO Fabric Printing, Coating, & Dyeing 40201104 VOC 60.170 OOOO Fabric Printing, Coating, & Dyeing 40201105 VOC 60.170 OOOO Fabric Printing, Coating, & Dyeing 40201111 VOC 60.170 OOOO Fabric Printing, Coating, & Dyeing 40201112 VOC 60.170 OOOO Fabric Printing, Coating, & Dyeing 40201113 VOC 60.170 OOOO Fabric Printing, Coating, & Dyeing 40201114 VOC 60.170 OOOO Fabric Printing, Coating, & Dyeing 40201115 VOC 60.170 OOOO Fabric Printing, Coating, & Dyeing 40201116 VOC 60.170 OOOO Fabric Printing, Coating, & Dyeing 40201121 VOC 60.170 OOOO Fabric Printing, Coating, & Dyeing 40201122 VOC 60.170 OOOO Fabric Printing, Coating, & Dyeing 40201197 VOC 60.170 OOOO Fabric Printing, Coating, & Dyeing 40201198 VOC 60.170 OOOO Fabric Printing, Coating, & Dyeing 40201199 VOC 60.170 OOOO Fabric Printing, Coating, & Dyeing 40201201 VOC 60.170 OOOO Fabric Printing, Coating, & Dyeing 40201210 VOC 60.170 OOOO Fabric Printing, Coating, & Dyeing 40201301 VOC 82.050 JJJJ Paper an d Other Web Coating 40201303 VOC 82.050 JJJJ Paper an d Other Web Coating 40201304 VOC 82.050 JJJJ Paper an d Other Web Coating 40201305 VOC 82.050 JJJJ Paper an d Other Web Coating 40201310 VOC 82.050 JJJJ Paper an d Other Web Coating 40201320 VOC 82.050 JJJJ Paper an d Other Web Coating 40201330 VOC 82.050 JJJJ Paper an d Other Web Coating 40201399 VOC 82.050 JJJJ Paper an d Other Web Coating 40201601 VOC 66.730 IIII Auto and Light Trucks Surface CoatingFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-20

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. SCC PLLTCODE CE_MACT SUBPART MACT CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 40201602 VOC 66.730 IIII Auto and Light Trucks Surface Coating 40201603 VOC 66.730 IIII Auto and Light Trucks Surface Coating 40201604 VOC 66.730 IIII Auto and Light Trucks Surface Coating 40201605 VOC 66.730 IIII Auto and Light Trucks Surface Coating 40201606 VOC 66.730 IIII Auto and Light Trucks Surface Coating 40201607 VOC 66.730 IIII Auto and Light Trucks Surface Coating 40201608 VOC 66.730 IIII Auto and Light Trucks Surface Coating 40201609 VOC 66.730 IIII Auto and Light Trucks Surface Coating 40201619 VOC 66.730 IIII Auto and Light Trucks Surface Coating 40201620 VOC 66.730 IIII Auto and Light Trucks Surface Coating 40201621 VOC 66.730 IIII Auto and Light Trucks Surface Coating 40201622 VOC 66.730 IIII Auto and Light Trucks Surface Coating 40201623 VOC 66.730 IIII Auto and Light Trucks Surface Coating 40201624 VOC 66.730 IIII Auto and Light Trucks Surface Coating 40201625 VOC 66.730 IIII Auto and Light Trucks Surface Coating 40201626 VOC 66.730 IIII Auto and Light Trucks Surface Coating 40201627 VOC 66.730 IIII Auto and Light Trucks Surface Coating 40201628 VOC 66.730 IIII Auto and Light Trucks Surface Coating 40201629 VOC 66.730 IIII Auto and Light Trucks Surface Coating 40201630 VOC 66.730 IIII Auto and Light Trucks Surface Coating 40201631 VOC 66.730 IIII Auto and Light Trucks Surface Coating 40201632 VOC 66.730 IIII Auto and Light Trucks Surface Coating 40201699 VOC 66.730 IIII Auto and Light Trucks Surface Coating 40201702 VOC 70.830 KKKK Metal Can 40201703 VOC 70.830 KKKK Metal Can 40201704 VOC 70.830 KKKK Metal Can 40201705 VOC 70.830 KKKK Metal Can 40201706 VOC 70.830 KKKK Metal Can 40201721 VOC 70.830 KKKK Metal Can 40201722 VOC 70.830 KKKK Metal Can 40201723 VOC 70.830 KKKK Metal Can 40201724 VOC 70.830 KKKK Metal Can 40201725 VOC 70.830 KKKK Metal Can 40201726 VOC 70.830 KKKK Metal Can 40201727 VOC 70.830 KKKK Metal Can 40201728 VOC 70.830 KKKK Metal Can 40201729 VOC 70.830 KKKK Metal Can 40201731 VOC 70.830 KKKK Metal Can 40201732 VOC 70.830 KKKK Metal Can 40201733 VOC 70.830 KKKK Metal Can 40201734 VOC 70.830 KKKK Metal Can 40201735 VOC 70.830 KKKK Metal Can 40201736 VOC 70.830 KKKK Metal Can 40201737 VOC 70.830 KKKK Metal Can 40201738 VOC 70.830 KKKK Metal Can 40201739 VOC 70.830 KKKK Metal Can 40201799 VOC 70.830 KKKK Metal Can 40201801 VOC 53.060 SSSS Metal Coil 40201802 VOC 53.060 SSSS Metal Coil 40201803 VOC 53.060 SSSS Metal Coil 40201804 VOC 53.060 SSSS Metal Coil 40201805 VOC 53.060 SSSS Metal CoilFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-21

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. SCC PLLTCODE CE_MACT SUBPART MACT CATEGORY DESCRIPTION
40201806 VOC 53.060 SSSS Metal Coil 40201807 VOC 53.060 SSSS Metal Coil 40201899 VOC 53.060 SSSS Metal Coil 40202001 VOC 73.070 RRRR Metal Furniture 40202002 VOC 73.070 RRRR Metal Furniture 40202003 VOC 73.070 RRRR Metal Furniture 40202004 VOC 73.070 RRRR Metal Furniture 40202005 VOC 73.070 RRRR Metal Furniture 40202010 VOC 73.070 RRRR Metal Furniture 40202011 VOC 73.070 RRRR Metal Furniture 40202012 VOC 73.070 RRRR Metal Furniture 40202013 VOC 73.070 RRRR Metal Furniture 40202014 VOC 73.070 RRRR Metal Furniture 40202015 VOC 73.070 RRRR Metal Furniture 40202020 VOC 73.070 RRRR Metal Furniture 40202021 VOC 73.070 RRRR Metal Furniture 40202022 VOC 73.070 RRRR Metal Furniture 40202023 VOC 73.070 RRRR Metal Furniture 40202024 VOC 73.070 RRRR Metal Furniture 40202025 VOC 73.070 RRRR Metal Furniture 40202031 VOC 73.070 RRRR Metal Furniture 40202032 VOC 73.070 RRRR Metal Furniture 40202033 VOC 73.070 RRRR Metal Furniture 40202034 VOC 73.070 RRRR Metal Furniture 40202035 VOC 73.070 RRRR Metal Furniture 40202036 VOC 73.070 RRRR Metal Furniture 40202037 VOC 73.070 RRRR Metal Furniture 40202038 VOC 73.070 RRRR Metal Furniture 40202039 VOC 73.070 RRRR Metal Furniture 40202099 VOC 73.070 RRRR Metal Furniture 40202101 VOC 74.000 QQQQ Wood Building Products 40202103 VOC 74.000 QQQQ Wood Building Products 40202104 VOC 74.000 QQQQ Wood Building Products 40202105 VOC 74.000 QQQQ Wood Building Products 40202106 VOC 74.000 QQQQ Wood Building Products 40202107 VOC 74.000 QQQQ Wood Building Products 40202108 VOC 74.000 QQQQ Wood Building Products 40202109 VOC 74.000 QQQQ Wood Building Products 40202110 VOC 74.000 QQQQ Wood Building Products 40202111 VOC 74.000 QQQQ Wood Building Products 40202117 VOC 74.000 QQQQ Wood Building Products 40202118 VOC 74.000 QQQQ Wood Building Products 40202131 VOC 74.000 QQQQ Wood Building Products 40202132 VOC 74.000 QQQQ Wood Building Products 40202133 VOC 74.000 QQQQ Wood Building Products 40202140 VOC 74.000 QQQQ Wood Building Products 40202199 VOC 74.000 QQQQ Wood Building Products 40202201 VOC 77.000 PPPP Plastic Parts Coating 40202202 VOC 77.000 PPPP Plastic Parts Coating 40202203 VOC 77.000 PPPP Plastic Parts Coating 40202204 VOC 77.000 PPPP Plastic Parts Coating 40202205 VOC 77.000 PPPP Plastic Parts CoatingFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-22

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. SCC PLLTCODE CE_MACT SUBPART MACT CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 40202206 VOC 77.000 PPPP Plastic Parts Coating 40202207 VOC 77.000 PPPP Plastic Parts Coating 40202208 VOC 77.000 PPPP Plastic Parts Coating 40202209 VOC 77.000 PPPP Plastic Parts Coating 40202210 VOC 77.000 PPPP Plastic Parts Coating 40202211 VOC 77.000 PPPP Plastic Parts Coating 40202212 VOC 77.000 PPPP Plastic Parts Coating 40202213 VOC 77.000 PPPP Plastic Parts Coating 40202214 VOC 77.000 PPPP Plastic Parts Coating 40202215 VOC 77.000 PPPP Plastic Parts Coating 40202220 VOC 77.000 PPPP Plastic Parts Coating 40202229 VOC 77.000 PPPP Plastic Parts Coating 40202230 VOC 77.000 PPPP Plastic Parts Coating 40202239 VOC 77.000 PPPP Plastic Parts Coating 40202240 VOC 77.000 PPPP Plastic Parts Coating 40202249 VOC 77.000 PPPP Plastic Parts Coating 40202250 VOC 77.000 PPPP Plastic Parts Coating 40202259 VOC 77.000 PPPP Plastic Parts Coating 40202270 VOC 77.000 PPPP Plastic Parts Coating 40202280 VOC 77.000 PPPP Plastic Parts Coating 40202299 VOC 77.000 PPPP Plastic Parts Coating 40202501 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Meta l Parts and Products 40202502 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Meta l Parts and Products 40202503 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Meta l Parts and Products 40202504 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Meta l Parts and Products 40202505 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Meta l Parts and Products 40202510 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Meta l Parts and Products 40202511 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Meta l Parts and Products 40202512 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Meta l Parts and Products 40202515 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Meta l Parts and Products 40202520 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Meta l Parts and Products 40202521 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Meta l Parts and Products 40202522 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Meta l Parts and Products 40202523 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Meta l Parts and Products 40202524 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Meta l Parts and Products 40202525 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Meta l Parts and Products 40202531 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Meta l Parts and Products 40202532 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Meta l Parts and Products 40202533 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Meta l Parts and Products 40202534 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Meta l Parts and Products 40202535 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Meta l Parts and Products 40202536 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Meta l Parts and Products 40202537 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Meta l Parts and Products 40202542 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Meta l Parts and Products 40202543 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Meta l Parts and Products 40202544 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Meta l Parts and Products 40202545 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Meta l Parts and Products 40202546 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Meta l Parts and Products 40202599 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Meta l Parts and Products 40202601 VOC 66.200 HHHHH Misc. Coating Manufacturing 40202602 VOC 66.200 HHHHH Misc. Coating Manufacturing 40202603 VOC 66.200 HHHHH Misc. Coating ManufacturingFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-23

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. SCC PLLTCODE CE_MACT SUBPART MACT CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 40202604 VOC 66.200 HHHHH Misc. Coating Manufacturing 40202605 VOC 66.200 HHHHH Misc. Coating Manufacturing 40202606 VOC 66.200 HHHHH Misc. Coating Manufacturing 40202607 VOC 66.200 HHHHH Misc. Coating Manufacturing 40202699 VOC 66.200 HHHHH Misc. Coating Manufacturing 40388801 VOC 65.630 UUU Petroleum Refineries 40388802 VOC 65.630 UUU Petroleum Refineries 40388803 VOC 65.630 UUU Petroleum Refineries 40388804 VOC 65.630 UUU Petroleum Refineries 40388805 VOC 65.630 UUU Petroleum Refineries 40399999 VOC 65.630 UUU Petroleum Refineries 50400101 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50400102 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50400103 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50400104 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50400150 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50400151 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50400201 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50400202 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410001 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410002 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410003 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410004 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410005 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410010 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410020 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410021 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410022 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410030 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410040 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410101 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410110 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410111 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410112 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410120 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410121 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410122 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410123 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410124 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410210 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410211 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410212 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410213 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410214 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410215 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410216 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410310 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410311 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410312 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410313 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410314 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410321 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site RemediationFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-24

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. SCC PLLTCODE CE_MACT SUBPART MACT CATEGORY DESCRIPTION
50410322 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410405 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410406 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410407 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410408 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410409 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410420 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410510 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410511 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410512 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410513 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410514 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410520 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410521 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410522 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410523 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410524 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410525 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410530 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410531 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410532 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410533 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410534 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410535 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410536 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410537 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410538 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410539 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410540 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410541 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410542 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410543 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410560 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410561 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410562 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410563 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410564 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410565 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410610 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410620 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410621 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410622 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410623 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410640 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410641 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410642 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410643 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410644 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410645 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410710 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410711 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410712 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site RemediationFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-25

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. SCC PLLTCODE CE_MACT SUBPART MACT CATEGORY DESCRIPTION
50410720 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410721 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410722 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410723 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410724 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410725 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410726 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410740 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410760 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410761 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410762 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410763 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410764 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410765 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410766 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50410780 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50480001 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50482001 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50482002 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50482599 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 50490004 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 62540001 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 62540010 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 62540020 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 62540021 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 62540022 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 62540023 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 62540024 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 62540025 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 62540030 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 62540040 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 62540041 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 62540042 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 62540050 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 62580001 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 62582001 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 62582002 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 62582501 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 62582502 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 62582503 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 62582599 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64130001 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64130010 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64130011 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64130025 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64130101 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64130110 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64130111 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64130112 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64130125 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64130201 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64130210 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and ProcFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-26

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. SCC PLLTCODE CE_MACT SUBPART MACT CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 64130211 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64130225 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64131001 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64131010 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64131011 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64131015 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64131020 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64131025 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64131030 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64132001 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64132010 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64132011 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64132020 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64132025 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64132030 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64133001 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64133010 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64133011 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64133020 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64133025 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64133030 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64180001 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64182001 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64182002 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64182599 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64420001 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64420010 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64420011 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64420012 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64420013 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64420014 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64420015 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64420016 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64420020 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64420021 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64420022 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64420030 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64420031 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64420032 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64420033 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64420034 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64420040 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64420041 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64420042 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64430001 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64430010 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64430011 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64430012 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64430013 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64430014 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64430015 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64430016 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose ProductsFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-27

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. SCC PLLTCODE CE_MACT SUBPART MACT CATEGORY DESCRIPTION
64430017 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64430030 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64431001 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64431010 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64431011 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64431012 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64431013 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64431014 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64431015 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64431016 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64431017 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64431030 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64450001 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64450010 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64450011 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64450012 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64450013 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64450014 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64450020 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64450021 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64450022 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64450030 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64450031 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64450032 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64450033 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64450034 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64450035 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64450036 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64450040 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64450041 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64450042 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64450050 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64450051 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64450052 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64450053 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64450060 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64450061 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64450062 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64520001 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64520010 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64520011 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64520020 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64520021 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64520022 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64520023 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64520030 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64520031 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64520032 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64520040 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64520041 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64521001 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64521010 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and ProcFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-28

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. SCC PLLTCODE CE_MACT SUBPART MACT CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 64521011 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64521020 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64521021 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64521022 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64521023 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64521040 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64521041 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64610001 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64610010 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64610011 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64610012 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64610020 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64610021 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64610022 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64610030 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64610031 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64610032 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64610040 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64610041 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64610050 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64610101 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64610110 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64610111 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64610112 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64610120 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64610121 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64610122 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64610130 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64610131 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64610132 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64610140 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64610141 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64610142 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64610143 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64610150 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64610201 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64610210 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64610211 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64610212 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64610220 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64610221 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64610222 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64610230 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64610231 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64610232 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64610240 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64610241 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64610242 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64610250 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64610301 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64610310 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64610311 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and ProcFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-29

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. SCC PLLTCODE CE_MACT SUBPART MACT CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 64610312 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64610320 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64610321 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64610322 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64610330 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64610331 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64610332 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64610340 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64610350 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64615001 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64615010 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64615011 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64615012 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64615020 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64615021 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64615022 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64615023 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64615030 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64620001 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64620011 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64620012 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64620013 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64620015 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64620016 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64620017 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64620018 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64620020 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64620021 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64620022 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64620025 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64620026 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64620027 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64620030 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64620031 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64620032 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64620033 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64620034 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64620035 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64620036 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64620037 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64620038 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64630001 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64630010 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64630011 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64630012 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64630015 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64630016 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64630025 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64630026 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64630030 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64630035 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64630040 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and ProcFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-30

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. SCC PLLTCODE CE_MACT SUBPART MACT CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 64630041 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64630042 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64630050 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64630051 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64630052 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64630053 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64630080 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64630081 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64630082 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64630083 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64631001 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64631010 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64631011 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64631012 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64631015 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64631016 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64631025 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64631026 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64631030 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64631040 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64631050 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64631051 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64631052 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64631053 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64631080 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64631081 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64631082 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64631083 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64632001 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64632010 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64632011 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64632015 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64632016 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64632020 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64632030 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64632040 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64632041 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64632042 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64632050 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64632051 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64632052 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64632053 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64632080 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64632081 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64632082 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64632083 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64680001 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64682001 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64682002 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64682501 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64682502 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64682599 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and ProcFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-31

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. SCC PLLTCODE CE_MACT SUBPART MACT CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 64820010 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64821001 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64821010 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64822001 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64822010 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64823001 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64823010 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64824001 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64824010 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64880001 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64882001 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64882002 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64882599 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 64920001 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64920010 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64920011 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64920012 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64920013 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64920020 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64920021 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64920022 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64920030 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64920031 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64920032 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64920033 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64920034 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64930001 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64930010 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64930011 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64930012 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64930020 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64930021 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64930030 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64930031 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64930035 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64930040 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64930041 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64930045 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64930050 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64931001 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64931010 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64931011 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64931012 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64931020 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64931021 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64931022 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64931030 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64931031 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64931032 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64931040 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64931041 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64931050 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose ProductsFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-32

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. SCC PLLTCODE CE_MACT SUBPART MACT CATEGORY DESCRIPTION
64980001 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64982001 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64982002 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 64982599 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 65135001 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 65140001 VOC 44.500 YY Generic MACT (Cyanide) 65140010 VOC 44.500 YY Generic MACT (Cyanide) 65140011 VOC 44.500 YY Generic MACT (Cyanide) 65140012 VOC 44.500 YY Generic MACT (Cyanide) 65140013 VOC 44.500 YY Generic MACT (Cyanide) 65140014 VOC 44.500 YY Generic MACT (Cyanide) 65140015 VOC 44.500 YY Generic MACT (Cyanide) 65140016 VOC 44.500 YY Generic MACT (Cyanide) 65140017 VOC 44.500 YY Generic MACT (Cyanide) 65140018 VOC 44.500 YY Generic MACT (Cyanide) 65140030 VOC 44.500 YY Generic MACT (Cyanide) 68430001 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 68430010 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 68430011 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 68430020 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 68430030 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 68430031 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 68430032 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 68445001 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 68445010 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 68445013 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 68445020 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 68445022 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 68445101 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 68445201 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 68510001 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 68510010 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 68510011 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 68580001 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 68582001 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 68582002 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 68582599 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and ProcFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-33

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. Table B-5 NonEGU Source Shutdowns

FIPS SITE ID FACILTY NAME EU ID UNIT DESCRIPTION

10003 1000300021 SUNCO INC R M 001 BOILER #1

10003 1000300021 SUNCO INC R M 002 BOILER #2

10003 1000300021 SUNCO INC R M 003 BOILER #3

10003 1000300016 MOTIVA ENTERPRISES LLC 072 METHANOL PLT HTR 41-H-1

10003 1000300004 WILMINGTON PIECE DYE CO ALL ALL

10003 1000300032 GENERAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION ALL ALL

10003 1000300074 METACHEM PRODUCTS LLC ALL ALL

10003 1000300127 VPI FILM LLC ALL ALL

10003 1000300129 LAFARGE NORTH AMERICA INC ALL ALL

10003 1000300350 KANEKA DELAWARE CORPORATION ALL ALL

25001 1200202 PARTYLITE WORLDWIDE ALL ALL

25001 1200614 BOURNE LANDFILL ALL ALL

25003 1170002 ADVANCED INFORMATION ALL ALL

25003 1170005 CATAMOUNT P ELLET FUE ALL ALL

25003 1170048 SPRAGUE NORTH ADAMS ALL ALL

25003 1170056 BERKSHIRE GAS STOCKB ALL ALL

25003 1170078 MACDERMID GRAPHIC AR ALL ALL

25003 1170091 LANE CONSTRUCTION CO ALL ALL

25005 1200009 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS ALL ALL

25005 1200031 CONDEA VISTA CO ALL ALL

25005 1200036 ELKAY REVERE CORP ALL ALL

25005 1200037 AEROVOX INCORPORATED ALL ALL

25005 1200065 ROSEMAR SILVER COMPA ALL ALL

25005 1200080 ATTLEBORO REFINING C ALL ALL

25005 1200116 STEDRO TEXTILES ALL ALL

25005 1200138 CLIFTEX CORPORATION ALL ALL

25005 1200169 PAUL DEVER STATE SCH ALL ALL

25005 1200209 PHARMACY SERVICE COR ALL ALL

25005 1200216 BRISTOL COUNTY JAIL ALL ALL

25005 1200235 SEA WATCH INTERNATIO ALL ALL

25005 1200393 OLSONS GREENHOUSES ALL ALL

25005 1200468 AA WILL MATERIALS-FR ALL ALL

25005 1200498 CRAPO HILL LANDFILL ALL ALL

25005 1200510 KREW INCORPORATED ALL ALL

25005 1200513 AEROVOX INCORPORATED ALL ALL

25005 1200542 LALLY COLUMN CORP ALL ALL

25005 1200673 HOMELAND BUILDERS ALL ALL

25005 1200824 JUSTIN CLOTHING CO ALL ALL

25005 1200880 VELVET DRIVE TRANSMI ALL ALLFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-34

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. FIPS SITE ID FACILTY NAME EU ID UNIT DESCRIPTION

25005 1192308 INTERSTATE MAT & RUB ALL ALL

25009 1210057 COASTAL METAL FINISH ALL ALL

25009 1210058 AMESBURY CHAIR ALL ALL

25009 1210075 HAMPSHIRE FABRICS ALL ALL

25009 1210099 WASTE MANAGEMENT HUN ALL ALL

25009 1210110 CUSTOM INDUST RIES IN ALL ALL

25009 1210114 SAGAMORE INDUSTRIAL ALL ALL

25009 1210143 LABELS INC ALL ALL

25009 1210154 NEWARK ATLANTIC PAPE ALL ALL

25009 1210208 TEK COATING COMPANY ALL ALL

25009 1210209 NATIONAL NORTHEAST ALL ALL

25009 1210223 STARENSIER INC ALL ALL

25009 1210400 SANMINA CORPORATION ALL ALL

25009 1210401 COVANTA HAVERHILL IN ALL ALL

25009 1210404 TEKE FURNITURE RESTO ALL ALL

25009 1190756 PERMAIR LEATHERS INC ALL ALL

25009 1190842 SLB SNACKS INC ALL ALL

25009 1190983 SALEM OIL & GREASE C ALL ALL

25009 1191036 JCR ELECTRONICS ALL ALL

25009 1195900 LEPAGES INC ALL ALL

25013 0420008 DELUXE FINANCIAL ALL ALL

25013 0420010 FRYE COPYSYSTEMS INC ALL ALL

25013 0420013 JAHN FOUNDRY CORPORA ALL ALL

25013 0420052 APW/WRIGHT LINE ALL ALL

25013 0420130 KODAK POLYCHROME GRA ALL ALL

25013 0420175 FIBERMARK DSI ALL ALL

25013 0420218 SPRINGFIELD PRINTING ALL ALL

25013 0420252 KODAK POLYCHROME GRA ALL ALL

25013 0420528 NATIONAL METAL INDUS ALL ALL

25015 0420060 BERKSHIRE GAS HATFIE ALL ALL

25015 0420105 INDUSTRIAL POWER SER ALL ALL

25015 0420170 TECHALLOY COMPANY IN ALL ALL

25015 0420424 MAGNAT MACHINETECH I ALL ALL

25015 0420463 INDUSTRIAL PROP OF E ALL ALL

25015 0420540 GENERAL CABLE CORP ALL ALL

25015 0420614 REXAM IMAGE PRODUCTS ALL ALL

25017 1210013 MERRIMACK MAGNETICS ALL ALL

25017 1210050 MAJILITE MFG INC ALL ALL

25017 1210064 FINISH UNLIMITED INC ALL ALL

25017 1190080 MASS BROKEN STONE CO ALL ALL

25017 1210127 USM CORPORATION ALL ALLFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-35

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. FIPS SITE ID FACILTY NAME EU ID UNIT DESCRIPTION

25017 1210147 UMASS LOWELL-RESIDEN ALL ALL

25017 1210182 JOAN FABRICS CORP ALL ALL

25017 1190203 SC WAKEFIELD 200 ALL ALL

25017 1190212 OLYMPUS SPECIALTY HO ALL ALL

25017 1190258 ROYAL INSTITUTIONAL ALL ALL

25017 1210334 T&T INDUSTRIAL ALL ALL

25017 1190465 PRINTED CIRCUIT CORP ALL ALL

25017 1190611 GEORGE MEADE FOUNDRY ALL ALL

25017 1190734 NEW ENGLAND CONFECTI ALL ALL

25017 1180794 SCHOTT CML FIBEROPTI ALL ALL

25017 1190984 SUNGARD AVAILABILITY ALL ALL

25017 1191008 RAYTHEON SYSTEMS CO ALL ALL

25017 1191217 BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CO ALL ALL

25017 1191267 AGFA DIVISION OF BAY ALL ALL

25017 1191351 MIT EDUCATIONAL FACI ALL ALL

25017 1191389 LONGVIEW FIBRE COMPA ALL ALL

25017 1191534 SWISSTRONICS INCORPO ALL ALL

25017 1191653 FOCAL INCORPORATED ALL ALL

25017 1191668 LEE PRODUCTS COMPANY ALL ALL

25017 1191735 TYCO ELECTRONICS COR ALL ALL

25017 1191897 GENZYME CORPORATION ALL ALL

25017 1194001 WF WOOD INC ALL ALL

25017 1194010 RR DONNELLEY & SONS ALL ALL

25017 1214012 PERFORMANCE CORRUGAT ALL ALL

25021 1190246 SOUTHWOOD COMMUNITY ALL ALL

25021 1190313 INNOVATIVE MEMBRANE ALL ALL 25021 1180359 BEVILACQUA PAVING CO ALL ALL

25021 1200515 FOXBOROUGH REALTY AS ALL ALL

25021 1200616 PLAINVILLE GENERATIN ALL ALL

25021 1190670 RAYTHEON ELECTRONIC ALL ALL

25021 1190714 TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL ALL ALL

25021 1190962 NIDEC AMERICA CORPOR ALL ALL

25021 1191562 BARCLAY HOUSE THE ALL ALL 25021 1191726 MWRA QUINCY PS ALL ALL

25021 1192130 CURRY WOODWORKING IN ALL ALL

25021 1199000 MEDFIELD STATE HOSPI ALL ALL

25023 1200637 FRANKLIN FIXTURES IN ALL ALL

25023 1200698 CRANBERRY GRAPHICS I ALL ALL

25023 1192101 GTR FINISHING CORPOR ALL ALL

25023 1192109 ALGER CORPORATION TH ALL ALL

25023 1192210 IMPERIA CORPORATION ALL ALLFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-36

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. FIPS SITE ID FACILTY NAME EU ID UNIT DESCRIPTION

25023 1199994 TEST-RADIUS-FITZGERA ALL ALL

25025 1190035 BOSTON WATER & SEWER ALL ALL

25025 1190057 NEPONSET RIVER VALLE ALL ALL

25025 1190101 UNIFIRST CORP ALL ALL

25025 1190357 DAMRELL EWER PARTNER ALL ALL

25025 1190478 WINTHROP COMMUNITY H ALL ALL

25025 1190649 ZAPCO READVILLE COGE ALL ALL

25025 1190808 PUBLIC HEALTH COMMUN ALL ALL

25025 1191551 BEACON CAPITAL PARTN ALL ALL

25025 1191566 NEW ENGLAND TRAWLER ALL ALL

25025 1191621 FEDERAL MOGUL FRICTI ALL ALL 25025 1191662 EQUITY OFFICE ALL ALL

25025 1191956 CHANNEL CENTER:PARCE ALL ALL

25025 1195596 SYNTHON IND INCORPOR ALL ALL

25027 1180010 CANTERBURY TOWERS ALL ALL

25027 1180014 ER BUCK CHAIR COMPAN ALL ALL

25027 1180029 GENERAL ELECTRIC FIT ALL ALL

25027 1180091 ANGLO FABRICS COMPAN ALL ALL

25027 1180100 ZAPCO ENERGY TACTICS ALL ALL

25027 1180111 CINCINATTI MILACRON ALL ALL

25027 1180114 NEW ENGLAND PLATING ALL ALL

25027 1180129 GF WRIGHT STEEL & WI ALL ALL

25027 1180132 STANDARDFOUNDRY ALL ALL

25027 1180174 WORCESTER TOOL & STA ALL ALL

25027 1180203 WORCESTER COUNTY HOS ALL ALL

25027 1180244 HI TECH METALS & FIN ALL ALL

25027 1180340 GHM INDUSTRIES INC ALL ALL

25027 1180353 ADVANCED MICROSENSOR ALL ALL

25027 1180355 NEWARK AMERICA ALL ALL

25027 1180373 ZYGO TERAOPTIX ALL ALL

25027 1180389 ETHAN ALLEN-DUDLEY ALL ALL

25027 1180439 INLAND PAPERBOARD & ALL ALL

25027 1180484 NELMOR COMPANY ALL ALL

25027 1180518 JAMESBURY INCORPORAT ALL ALL

25027 1180556 M&H TIRE CO INC ALL ALL

25027 1180568 CROFT CORPORATION ALL ALL

25027 1180796 LINCOLN PLAZA CENTER ALL ALL

25027 1180994 COZ PLASTICS INC ALL ALL

25027 1181045 WORCESTER TAPER PIN ALL ALL

33011 3301100093 BATESVILLE MANUFACTURING ALL ALL

33015 3301500058 VENTURE SEABROOK ALL ALLFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Appendix C – Area Source Growth Factors Page C-1

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### Appendix C – Area Source Growth Factors

Table C-1 Area Source Growth Factors by SCC Code

See Electronic File: MANE-VU_Area_gf_scc.xls

This table contains records with area source growth factors by county and SCC. The format for the
tables is as follows:

Column A – County FIPS code

Column B – Source Classification Code (SCC)

Column C – EGAS_02_09 this is the EGAS 5.0 factor for projecting from 2002 to 2009

Column D – AEO5_02_09 this is the DOE AEO 2005 factor for projecting from 2002 to 2009

Column E – ST_02_09 this is the state-supplied factor for projecting from 2002 to 2009

Column F – GF_02_09 this is the final factor actually used for projecting from 2002 to 2009 (it is the state-supplied factor, if available; if no state-supplied factor, then it is the AEO2005 factor; if no AEO2005 factor, then it is the default EGAS 5.0 factor)

Column G – EGAS_02_12 this is the EGAS 5.0 factor for projecting from 2002 to 2012

Column H – AEO5_02_12 this is the DOE AEO 2005 factor for projecting from 2002 to 2012

Column I – ST_02_12 this is the state-supplied factor for projecting from 2002 to 2012

Column J – GF_02_09 this is the final factor actually used for projecting from 2002 to 2012 (it is the state-supplied factor, if available; if no state-supplied factor, then it is the AEO2005 factor; if no AEO2005 factor, then it is the default EGAS 5.0 factor)

Column K – EGAS_02_18 this is the EGAS 5.0 factor for projecting from 2002 to 2018

Column J – AEO5_02_18 this is the DOE AEO 2005 factor for projecting from 2002 to 2018

Column M– ST_02_18 this is the state-supplied factor for projecting from 2002 to 2018

Column N – GF_02_09 this is the final factor actually used for projecting from 2002 to 2012 (it is the state-supplied factor, if available; if no state-supplied factor, then it is the AEO2005 factor; if no AEO2005 factor, then it is the default EGAS 5.0 factor)

Column O – SCC descriptionFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Appendix D –Area Source Control Factors Page D-1

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

### Appendix D – Area Source Control Factors

Table D-1 Area Source Control Factors for 2001 OTC VOC Model Rules

FIPSST SCC PLLTCODE CE_2009 CE_2012 CE_2018 SCC Description AIM Coatings
09 2401001000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Architectural Coatings;Surface Coating 09 2401008000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Traffic Markings;Surface Coating 10 2401002000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Architectural Coatings - Solvent-based;Surface Coating
10 2401003000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Architectural Coatings - Water-based;Surface Coating 10 2401008000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Traffic Markings;Surface Coating 10 2401102000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Industrial Maintenance Coatings- Solve;Surface Coating
10 2401103000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Industrial Maintenance Coatings- Water;Surface Coating
11 2401001000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Architectural Coatings;Surface Coating 11 2401008000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Traffic Markings;Surface Coating 11 2401100000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Industrial Maintenance Coatings;Surface Coating
11 2401200000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Other Special Purpose Coatings;Surface Coating
23 2401001000 VOC 29.50 29.50 29.50 Total: All Solvent Types;Architectural Coatings;Surface Coating 23 2401008000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Traffic Markings;Surface Coating 23 2401100000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Industrial Maintenance Coatings;Surface Coating
23 2401200000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Other Special Purpose Coatings;Surface Coating
24 2401002000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Architectural Coatings - Solvent-based;Surface Coating
24 2401003000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Architectural Coatings - Water-based;Surface Coating 24 2401008000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Traffic Markings;Surface Coating 24 2401008999 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Solvents: NEC;Traffic Markings;Surface Coating 24 2401100000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Industrial Maintenance Coatings;Surface Coating
24 2401200000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Other Special Purpose Coatings;Surface Coating
25 2401001000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Architectural Coatings;Surface Coating 25 2401008000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Traffic Markings;Surface Coating 25 2401100000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Industrial Maintenance Coatings;Surface CoatingFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Appendix D –Area Source Control Factors Page D-2

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. FIPSST SCC PLLTCODE CE_2009 CE_2012 CE_2018 SCC Description
25 2401200000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Other Special Purpose Coatings;Surface Coating
33 2401001000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Architectural Coatings;Surface Coating 33 2401008000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Traffic Markings;Surface Coating 33 2401100000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Industrial Maintenance Coatings;Surface Coating
33 2401200000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Other Special Purpose Coatings;Surface Coating
34 2401001000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Architectural Coatings;Surface Coating 34 2401008000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Traffic Markings;Surface Coating 34 2401100000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Industrial Maintenance Coatings;Surface Coating
34 2401200000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Other Special Purpose Coatings;Surface Coating
36 2401001000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Architectural Coatings;Surface Coating 36 2401008000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Traffic Markings;Surface Coating 42 2401001000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Architectural Coatings;Surface Coating 42 2401008000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Traffic Markings;Surface Coating 42 2401100000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Industrial Maintenance Coatings;Surface Coating
42 2401200000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Other Special Purpose Coatings;Surface Coating
44 2401001000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Architectural Coatings;Surface Coating 44 2401008000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Traffic Markings;Surface Coating 50 2401001000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Architectural Coatings;Surface Coating 50 2401008000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Traffic Markings;Surface Coating 50 2401100000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Industrial Maintenance Coatings;Surface Coating
50 2401200000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Other Special Purpose Coatings;Surface Coating

Consumer Products 09 2465000000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;All Products/Processes;Mi scellaneous Nonindustrial: Consumer 10 2460100000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: Al l Solvent Types;All Personal Care Products;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commerc

10 2460200000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;All Household Products;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Consumer and CommercFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Appendix D –Area Source Control Factors Page D-3

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. FIPSST SCC PLLTCODE CE_2009 CE_2012 CE_2018 SCC Description 10 2460400000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;All Automotive Aftermarket Products ;Miscellaneous Nonindustrial: Consumer and Commerc

10 2460500000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: Al l Solvent Types;All Coatings and Related Products;Miscella neous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commerc

10 2460600000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: Al l Solvent Types;All Adhesives and Sealants;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commerc

10 2460800000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: Al l Solvent Types;All FIFRA Related Products;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commerc

10 2460900000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;Miscellaneous Products (Not Otherwise Covered);Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commerc 11 2460100000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: Al l Solvent Types;All Personal Care Products;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commerc

11 2460200000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;All Household Products;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commerc 11 2460400000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;All Automotive Aftermarket Products ;Miscellaneous Nonindustrial: Consumer and Commerc

11 2460500000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: Al l Solvent Types;All Coatings and Related Products;Miscella neous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commerc

11 2460600000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: Al l Solvent Types;All Adhesives and Sealants;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commerc

11 2460800000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: Al l Solvent Types;All FIFRA Related Products;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commerc

11 2460900000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;Miscellaneous Products (Not Otherwise Covered);Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commerc 23 2460100000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: Al l Solvent Types;All Personal Care Products;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commerc

23 2460200000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;All Household Products;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commerc 23 2460400000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;All Automotive Aftermarket Products ;Miscellaneous Nonindustrial: Consumer and Commerc

23 2460500000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: Al l Solvent Types;All Coatings and Related Products;Miscella neous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commerc

23 2460600000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: Al l Solvent Types;All Adhesives and Sealants;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Consumer and CommercFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Appendix D –Area Source Control Factors Page D-4

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. FIPSST SCC PLLTCODE CE_2009 CE_2012 CE_2018 SCC Description
23 2460800000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: Al l Solvent Types;All FIFRA Related Products;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commerc

23 2460900000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;Miscellaneous Products (Not Otherwise Covered);Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commerc 24 2465000000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;All Products/Processes;Mi scellaneous Nonindustrial: Consumer 25 2460000000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;All Processes;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commerc 33 2460000000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;All Processes;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commerc 34 2460100000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: Al l Solvent Types;All Personal Care Products;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commerc

34 2460200000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;All Household Products;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commerc 34 2460400000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;All Automotive Aftermarket Products ;Miscellaneous Nonindustrial: Consumer and Commerc

34 2460500000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: Al l Solvent Types;All Coatings and Related Products;Miscella neous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commerc

34 2460600000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: Al l Solvent Types;All Adhesives and Sealants;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commerc

34 2460800000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: Al l Solvent Types;All FIFRA Related Products;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commerc

34 2460900000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;Miscellaneous Products (Not Otherwise Covered);Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commerc 34 2465000000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;All Products/Processes;Mi scellaneous Nonindustrial: Consumer 36 2460000000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;All Processes;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commerc 42 2465000000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;All Products/Processes;Mi scellaneous Nonindustrial: Consumer 44 2460100000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: Al l Solvent Types;All Personal Care Products;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commerc

44 2460200000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;All Household Products;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commerc 44 2460400000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;All Automotive Aftermarket Products ;Miscellaneous Nonindustrial: Consumer and CommercFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Appendix D –Area Source Control Factors Page D-5

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. FIPSST SCC PLLTCODE CE_2009 CE_2012 CE_2018 SCC Description
44 2460500000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: Al l Solvent Types;All Coatings and Related Products;Miscella neous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commerc

44 2460600000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: Al l Solvent Types;All Adhesives and Sealants;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commerc

44 2460800000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: Al l Solvent Types;All FIFRA Related Products;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commerc

44 2460900000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;Miscellaneous Products (Not Otherwise Covered);Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commerc 50 2460100000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: Al l Solvent Types;All Personal Care Products;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commerc

50 2460200000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;All Household Products;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commerc 50 2460400000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;All Automotive Aftermarket Products ;Miscellaneous Nonindustrial: Consumer and Commerc

50 2460500000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: Al l Solvent Types;All Coatings and Related Products;Miscella neous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commerc

50 2460600000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: Al l Solvent Types;All Adhesives and Sealants;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commerc

50 2460800000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: Al l Solvent Types;All FIFRA Related Products;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commerc

50 2460900000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;Miscellaneous Products (Not Otherwise Covered);Miscellaneous Non-industrial: Consumer and Commerc Mobile Equipment Repair and Refinishing
09 2401005000 VOC 38.00 38.00 38.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Auto Refinishing: SIC 7532;Surface Coating 10 2401005500 VOC 38.00 38.00 38.00 Surface Prep aration Solvents;Auto Refinishing: SIC 7532;Surface Coating 10 2401005600 VOC 38.00 38.00 38.00 Primers;Au to Refinishing: SIC 7532;Surface Coating 10 2401005700 VOC 38.00 38.00 38.00 Top Coats; Auto Refinishing: SIC 7532;Surface Coating 10 2401005800 VOC 38.00 38.00 38.00 Clean-up Solvents;Auto Refinishing: SIC 7532;Surface Coating
11 2401005000 VOC 38.00 38.00 38.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Auto Refinishing: SIC 7532;Surface Coating
23 2401005000 VOC 38.00 38.00 38.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Auto Refinishing: SIC 7532;Surface Coating
24 2401005000 VOC 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Auto Refinishing: SIC 7532;Surface CoatingFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Appendix D –Area Source Control Factors Page D-6

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. FIPSST SCC PLLTCODE CE_2009 CE_2012 CE_2018 SCC Description
25 2401005000 VOC 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Auto Refinishing: SIC 7532;Surface Coating
33 2401005000 VOC 38.00 38.00 38.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Auto Refinishing: SIC 7532;Surface Coating
34 2401005000 VOC 19.00 19.00 19.00 Total: All Solv ent Types;Auto Refinishing: SIC 7532;Surface Coating
36 2401005000 VOC 38.00 38.00 38.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Auto Refinishing: SIC 7532;Surface Coating
42 2401005000 VOC 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Auto Refinishing: SIC 7532;Surface Coating
44 2401005000 VOC 38.00 38.00 38.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Auto Refinishing: SIC 7532;Surface Coating
50 2401005000 VOC 38.00 38.00 38.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Auto Refinishing: SIC 7532;Surface Coating
Solvent Cleaning Operations
09 2415000000 VOC 66.00 66.00 66.00 Total: Al l Solvent Types;All Processes/All Industries;Degreasing
23 2415000000 VOC 66.00 66.00 66.00 Total: Al l Solvent Types;All Processes/All Industries;Degreasing
23 2415030000 VOC 66.00 66.00 66.00 Total: Al l Solvent Types;Electronic and Other Elec. (SIC 36): All Processes;Degreasing
23 2415045000 VOC 66.00 66.00 66.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Miscellaneous Manufacturing (SIC 39): All Processe;Degreasing 23 2415065000 VOC 66.00 66.00 66.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Auto Repair Services (SIC 75): All Processes;Degreasing 23 2415300000 VOC 66.00 66.00 66.00 Total: All Solvent Types;All Industries: Cold Cleaning;Degreasing 25 2415000000 VOC 7.00 7.00 7.00 Total: All Solvent Types;All Industries: Cold Cleaning;Degreasing 33 2415000000 VOC 66.00 66.00 66.00 Total: All Solvent Types;All Industries: Cold Cleaning;Degreasing
34 2415000000 VOC 17.00 17.00 17.00 Total: Al l Solvent Types;All Processes/All Industries;Degreasing
36 2415020000 VOC 66.00 66.00 66.00 Total: Al l Solvent Types;Fabricated Metal Products (SIC 34): All Processes;Degreasing 36 2415025000 VOC 66.00 66.00 66.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Industrial Machinery and Equipment (SIC 35): All P;Degreasing 36 2415035000 VOC 66.00 66.00 66.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Transportation Equipment (SIC 37): All Processes;Degreasing
36 2415045000 VOC 66.00 66.00 66.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Miscellaneous Manufacturing (SIC 39): All Processe;Degreasing 36 2415055000 VOC 66.00 66.00 66.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Automotive Dealers (SIC 55): All Processes;Degreasing
36 2415060000 VOC 66.00 66.00 66.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Miscellaneous Repair Services (SIC 76): All Proces;Degreasing
44 2415000000 VOC 66.00 66.00 66.00 Total: Al l Solvent Types;All Processes/All Industries;DegreasingFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Appendix D –Area Source Control Factors Page D-7

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. FIPSST SCC PLLTCODE CE_2009 CE_2012 CE_2018 SCC Description

Portable Fuel Containers

09 2501060300 VOC 41.3 63.8 75.0 Total;Portab le Containers: Residential & Com;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage 10 2501011010 VOC 41.3 63.8 75.0 Vapor Lo sses;Portable Containers: Residential;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage
10 2501011011 VOC 41.3 63.8 75.0 Permeati on;Portable Containers: Residential;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage
10 2501011012 VOC 41.3 63.8 75.0 Diurna l;Portable Containers: Residential;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage 10 2501011015 VOC 41.3 63.8 75.0 Spillage;Portable Containers: Residential;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage 10 2501011016 VOC 41.3 63.8 75.0 Transport;Portable Containers: Residential;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage 10 2501012010 VOC 41.3 63.8 75.0 Vapor Lo sses;Portable Containers: Commercial;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage
10 2501012011 VOC 41.3 63.8 75.0 Permeati on;Portable Containers: Commercial;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage
10 2501012012 VOC 41.3 63.8 75.0 Diurna l;Portable Containers: Commercial;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage 10 2501012015 VOC 41.3 63.8 75.0 Spillage;Portable Containers: Commercial;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage 10 2501012016 VOC 41.3 63.8 75.0 Transport;Portable Containers: Commercial;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage
11 2501011011 VOC 41.3 63.8 75.0 Permeati on;Portable Containers: Residential;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage
11 2501011012 VOC 41.3 63.8 75.0 Diurna l;Portable Containers: Residential;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage 11 2501011016 VOC 41.3 63.8 75.0 Transport;Portable Containers: Residential;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage
11 2501012011 VOC 41.3 63.8 75.0 Permeati on;Portable Containers: Commercial;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage
11 2501012012 VOC 41.3 63.8 75.0 Diurna l;Portable Containers: Commercial;Petroleum and Petroleum ProductFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Appendix D –Area Source Control Factors Page D-8

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. FIPSST SCC PLLTCODE CE_2009 CE_2012 CE_2018 SCC Description Storage

11 2501012016 VOC 41.3 63.8 75.0 Transport;Portable Containers: Commercial;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage 23 2501060300 VOC 41.3 63.8 75.0 Total;Portab le Containers: Residential & Com;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage
24 2501011011 VOC 48.8 71.3 75.0 Permeati on;Portable Containers: Residential;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage
24 2501011012 VOC 48.8 71.3 75.0 Diurna l;Portable Containers: Residential;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage 24 2501011016 VOC 48.8 71.3 75.0 Transport;Portable Containers: Residential;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage
24 2501012011 VOC 48.8 71.3 75.0 Permeati on;Portable Containers: Commercial;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage
24 2501012012 VOC 48.8 71.3 75.0 Diurna l;Portable Containers: Commercial;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage 24 2501012016 VOC 48.8 71.3 75.0 Transport;Portable Containers: Commercial;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage 25 2501011000 VOC 18.8 41.3 75.0 ;;

25 2501012000 VOC 18.8 41.3 75.0 ;;

33 2501060300 VOC 26.3 48.8 75.0 Total;Portab le Containers: Residential & Com;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage 34 2501000120 VOC 33.8 56.3 75.0 Gasoline;Al l Storage Types: Breathing Loss;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage
36 2501011011 VOC 48.8 71.3 75.0 Permeati on;Portable Containers: Residential;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage
36 2501011012 VOC 48.8 71.3 75.0 Diurna l;Portable Containers: Residential;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage 36 2501011016 VOC 48.8 71.3 75.0 Transport;Portable Containers: Residential;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage
36 2501012011 VOC 48.8 71.3 75.0 Permeati on;Portable Containers: Commercial;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage
36 2501012012 VOC 48.8 71.3 75.0 Diurna l;Portable Containers: Commercial;Petroleum and Petroleum Product StorageFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Appendix D –Area Source Control Factors Page D-9

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. FIPSST SCC PLLTCODE CE_2009 CE_2012 CE_2018 SCC Description 36 2501012016 VOC 48.8 71.3 75.0 Transport;Portable Containers: Commercial;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage 42 2501060300 VOC 48.8 71.3 75.0 Total;Portab le Containers: Residential & Com;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage 44 2501060300 VOC 18.8 41.3 75.0 Total;Portab le Containers: Residential & Com;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage 50 2501060300 VOC 18.8 41.3 75.0 Total;Portab le Containers: Residential & Com;Petroleum and Petroleum Product StorageFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Appendix D –Area Source Control Factors Page D-10

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. Table D-2 Area Source Control Factors for On-Board Vapor Recovery

FIPS SCC PLLTCODE CE_2009 CE_2012 CE_2018 SCC Description 09001 2501060101 VOC 23.81 28.57 38.10 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 09001 2501060102 VOC 23.81 28.57 38.10 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 09003 2501060101 VOC 23.81 33.33 38.10 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 09003 2501060102 VOC 23.81 33.33 38.10 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 09005 2501060101 VOC 23.81 33.33 38.10 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 09005 2501060102 VOC 23.81 33.33 38.10 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 09007 2501060101 VOC 23.81 33.33 38.10 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 09007 2501060102 VOC 23.81 33.33 38.10 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 09009 2501060101 VOC 23.81 33.33 38.10 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 09009 2501060102 VOC 23.81 33.33 38.10 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 09011 2501060101 VOC 23.81 33.33 38.10 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 09011 2501060102 VOC 23.81 33.33 38.10 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 09013 2501060101 VOC 23.81 33.33 38.10 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 09013 2501060102 VOC 23.81 33.33 38.10 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 09015 2501060101 VOC 23.81 33.33 38.10 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 09015 2501060102 VOC 23.81 33.33 38.10 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 10001 2501060100 VOC 40.54 48.65 56.76 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 10003 2501060100 VOC 40.54 48.65 56.76 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 10005 2501060100 VOC 40.54 48.65 56.76 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 11001 2501060100 VOC 40.54 48.65 56.76 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 23001 2501060100 VOC 53.68 67.65 79.41 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 23003 2501060100 VOC 53.80 68.35 79.75 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 23005 2501060100 VOC 28.57 33.33 42.86 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 23007 2501060100 VOC 53.80 68.35 79.75 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 23009 2501060100 VOC 53.80 68.35 79.75 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 23011 2501060100 VOC 53.68 67.65 79.41 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 23013 2501060100 VOC 53.68 67.65 79.41 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 23015 2501060100 VOC 53.68 67.65 79.41 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 23017 2501060100 VOC 53.80 68.35 79.75 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 23019 2501060100 VOC 53.80 68.35 79.75 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 23021 2501060100 VOC 53.80 68.35 79.75 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 23023 2501060100 VOC 28.57 33.33 42.86 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 23025 2501060100 VOC 53.80 68.35 79.75 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 23027 2501060100 VOC 53.80 68.35 79.75 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 23029 2501060100 VOC 53.80 68.35 79.75 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 23031 2501060100 VOC 28.57 33.33 42.86 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 24001 2501060100 VOC 54.24 68.36 80.23 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service StationsFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Appendix D –Area Source Control Factors Page D-11

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. FIPS SCC PLLTCODE CE_2009 CE_2012 CE_2018 SCC Description 24003 2501060100 VOC 26.09 34.78 43.48 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 24005 2501060100 VOC 26.09 34.78 43.48 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 24009 2501060100 VOC 26.09 34.78 43.48 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 24011 2501060100 VOC 54.24 68.36 80.23 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 24013 2501060100 VOC 26.09 34.78 43.48 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 24015 2501060100 VOC 26.09 34.78 43.48 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 24017 2501060100 VOC 26.09 34.78 43.48 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 24019 2501060100 VOC 54.24 68.36 80.23 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 24021 2501060100 VOC 26.09 34.78 43.48 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 24023 2501060100 VOC 54.24 68.36 80.23 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 24025 2501060100 VOC 26.09 34.78 43.48 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 24027 2501060100 VOC 26.09 34.78 43.48 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 24029 2501060100 VOC 53.53 68.24 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 24031 2501060100 VOC 26.09 34.78 43.48 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 24033 2501060100 VOC 26.09 34.78 43.48 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 24035 2501060100 VOC 53.53 68.24 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 24037 2501060100 VOC 54.24 68.36 80.23 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 24039 2501060100 VOC 54.24 68.36 80.23 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 24041 2501060100 VOC 54.24 68.36 80.23 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 24043 2501060100 VOC 54.24 68.36 80.23 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 24045 2501060100 VOC 54.24 68.36 80.23 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 24047 2501060100 VOC 54.24 68.36 80.23 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 24510 2501060100 VOC 26.09 34.78 43.48 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 25001 2501060102 VOC 38.24 47.06 55.88 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 25003 2501060102 VOC 38.24 50.00 55.88 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 25005 2501060102 VOC 38.24 47.06 55.88 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 25007 2501060102 VOC 38.24 47.06 55.88 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 25009 2501060102 VOC 38.24 47.06 55.88 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 25011 2501060102 VOC 38.24 50.00 55.88 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 25013 2501060102 VOC 38.24 50.00 55.88 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 25015 2501060102 VOC 38.24 50.00 55.88 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 25017 2501060102 VOC 38.24 47.06 55.88 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 25019 2501060102 VOC 38.24 47.06 55.88 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 25021 2501060102 VOC 38.24 47.06 55.88 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 25023 2501060102 VOC 38.24 47.06 55.88 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 25025 2501060102 VOC 38.24 47.06 55.88 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 25027 2501060102 VOC 38.24 47.06 55.88 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 33001 2501060100 VOC 53.75 68.13 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 33003 2501060100 VOC 53.75 68.13 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 33005 2501060100 VOC 53.75 68.13 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 33007 2501060100 VOC 53.75 68.13 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service StationsFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Appendix D –Area Source Control Factors Page D-12

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. FIPS SCC PLLTCODE CE_2009 CE_2012 CE_2018 SCC Description 33009 2501060100 VOC 53.75 68.13 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 33011 2501060100 VOC 38.24 50.00 55.88 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 33013 2501060100 VOC 38.24 50.00 55.88 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 33015 2501060100 VOC 38.24 50.00 55.88 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 33017 2501060100 VOC 38.24 50.00 55.88 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 33019 2501060100 VOC 53.75 68.13 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 34001 2501060100 VOC 38.89 47.22 58.33 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 34003 2501060100 VOC 38.89 47.22 58.33 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 34005 2501060100 VOC 38.89 47.22 58.33 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 34007 2501060100 VOC 38.89 47.22 58.33 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 34009 2501060100 VOC 38.89 47.22 58.33 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 34011 2501060100 VOC 38.89 47.22 58.33 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 34013 2501060100 VOC 38.89 47.22 58.33 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 34015 2501060100 VOC 38.89 47.22 58.33 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 34017 2501060100 VOC 38.89 47.22 58.33 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 34019 2501060100 VOC 38.89 47.22 58.33 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 34021 2501060100 VOC 38.89 47.22 58.33 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 34023 2501060100 VOC 38.89 47.22 58.33 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 34025 2501060100 VOC 38.89 47.22 58.33 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 34027 2501060100 VOC 38.89 47.22 58.33 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 34029 2501060100 VOC 38.89 47.22 58.33 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 34031 2501060100 VOC 38.89 47.22 58.33 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 34033 2501060100 VOC 38.89 47.22 58.33 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 34035 2501060100 VOC 38.89 47.22 58.33 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 34037 2501060100 VOC 38.89 47.22 58.33 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 34039 2501060100 VOC 38.89 47.22 58.33 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 34041 2501060100 VOC 38.89 47.22 58.33 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36001 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36003 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36005 2501060100 VOC 34.48 41.38 51.72 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36007 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36009 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36011 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36013 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36015 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36017 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36019 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36021 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36023 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36025 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36027 2501060100 VOC 53.80 67.72 79.75 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36029 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36031 2501060100 VOC 53.57 67.86 79.76 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36033 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36035 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36037 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36039 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36041 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36043 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36045 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service StationsFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Appendix D –Area Source Control Factors Page D-13

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. FIPS SCC PLLTCODE CE_2009 CE_2012 CE_2018 SCC Description 36047 2501060100 VOC 34.48 41.38 51.72 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36049 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36051 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36053 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36055 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36057 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36059 2501060100 VOC 34.48 41.38 51.72 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36061 2501060100 VOC 34.48 41.38 51.72 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36063 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36065 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36067 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36069 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36071 2501060100 VOC 34.48 41.38 51.72 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36073 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36075 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36077 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36079 2501060100 VOC 53.80 67.72 79.75 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36081 2501060100 VOC 34.48 41.38 51.72 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36083 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36085 2501060100 VOC 34.48 41.38 51.72 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36087 2501060100 VOC 34.48 41.38 51.72 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36089 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36091 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36093 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36095 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36097 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36099 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36101 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36103 2501060100 VOC 34.48 41.38 51.72 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36105 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36107 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36109 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36111 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36113 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36115 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36117 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36119 2501060100 VOC 34.48 41.38 51.72 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36121 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 36123 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 42001 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42003 2501060102 VOC 26.09 34.78 43.48 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 42005 2501060102 VOC 26.09 34.78 39.13 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 42007 2501060102 VOC 26.09 34.78 43.48 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 42009 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42011 2501060101 VOC 26.09 34.78 39.13 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42013 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline ServiceFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Appendix D –Area Source Control Factors Page D-14

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. FIPS SCC PLLTCODE CE_2009 CE_2012 CE_2018 SCC Description
Stations 42015 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42017 2501060102 VOC 30.43 34.78 43.48 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 42019 2501060102 VOC 26.09 34.78 43.48 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 42021 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42023 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42025 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42027 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42029 2501060102 VOC 30.43 34.78 43.48 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 42031 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42033 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42035 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42037 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42039 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42041 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42043 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42045 2501060102 VOC 30.43 34.78 43.48 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 42047 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42049 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42051 2501060102 VOC 26.09 34.78 43.48 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 42053 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42055 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42057 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42059 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42061 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42063 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42065 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42067 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42069 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42071 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42073 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline ServiceFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Appendix D –Area Source Control Factors Page D-15

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. FIPS SCC PLLTCODE CE_2009 CE_2012 CE_2018 SCC Description
Stations 42075 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42077 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42079 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42081 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42083 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42085 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42087 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42089 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42091 2501060102 VOC 30.43 34.78 43.48 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 42093 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42095 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42097 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42099 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42101 2501060102 VOC 30.43 34.78 43.48 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 42103 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42105 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42107 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42109 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42111 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42113 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42115 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42117 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42119 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42121 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42123 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42125 2501060102 VOC 26.09 34.78 43.48 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 42127 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42129 2501060102 VOC 26.09 34.78 43.48 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 42131 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 42133 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline ServiceFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Appendix D –Area Source Control Factors Page D-16

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. FIPS SCC PLLTCODE CE_2009 CE_2012 CE_2018 SCC Description
Stations
44001 2501060000 VOC 38.24 50.00 55.88 Total: All Gasolin e/All Processes;Gasolin e Service Stations
44003 2501060000 VOC 38.24 50.00 55.88 Total: All Gasolin e/All Processes;Gasolin e Service Stations
44005 2501060000 VOC 38.24 50.00 55.88 Total: All Gasolin e/All Processes;Gasolin e Service Stations
44007 2501060000 VOC 38.24 50.00 55.88 Total: All Gasolin e/All Processes;Gasolin e Service Stations
44009 2501060000 VOC 38.24 50.00 55.88 Total: All Gasolin e/All Processes;Gasolin e Service Stations 50001 2501060101 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 50001 2501060102 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 50001 2501060103 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Spillage;Gasoline Service Stations 50003 2501060101 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 50003 2501060102 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 50003 2501060103 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Spillage;Gasoline Service Stations 50005 2501060101 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 50005 2501060102 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 50005 2501060103 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Spillage;Gasoline Service Stations 50007 2501060101 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 50007 2501060102 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 50007 2501060103 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Spillage;Gasoline Service Stations 50009 2501060101 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 50009 2501060102 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 50009 2501060103 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Spillage;Gasoline Service Stations 50011 2501060101 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 50011 2501060102 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 50011 2501060103 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Spillage;Gasoline Service Stations 50013 2501060101 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 50013 2501060102 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 50013 2501060103 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Spillage;Gasoline Service Stations 50015 2501060101 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 50015 2501060102 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 50015 2501060103 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Spillage;Gasoline Service Stations 50017 2501060101 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 50017 2501060102 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 50017 2501060103 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Spillage;Gasoline Service Stations 50019 2501060101 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 50019 2501060102 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 50019 2501060103 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Spillage;Gasoline Service Stations 50021 2501060101 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline ServiceFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Appendix D –Area Source Control Factors Page D-17

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. FIPS SCC PLLTCODE CE_2009 CE_2012 CE_2018 SCC Description
Stations 50021 2501060102 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 50021 2501060103 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Spillage;Gasoline Service Stations 50023 2501060101 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 50023 2501060102 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 50023 2501060103 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Spillage;Gasoline Service Stations 50025 2501060101 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 50025 2501060102 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 50025 2501060103 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Spillage;Gasoline Service Stations 50027 2501060101 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Displ acement Loss/Uncontrolle d;Gasoline Service Stations 50027 2501060102 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Disp lacement Loss/Contro lled;Gasoline Service Stations 50027 2501060103 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Spillage;Gasoline Service StationsFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Appendix D –Area Source Control Factors Page D-18

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. Table D-3 Area Source Growth/Control Fa ctors for Residential Wood Combustion

Growth and Control Factor

SCC SCC Description Assumptions 2002- 2009 2002- 2012 2002- 2018 2104008000 Total: Woodstoves and Fireplaces 1 - 0.01056*(Year-2002) (Assumes 19.4% fireplaces 71.6%old woodstoves 9.1%new woodstoves) 0.926 0.894 0.831

2104008001 Fireplaces: General Increase 1%/yr: 1 + 0.01*(Year-2002) 1.070 1.100 1.160 2104008002 Fireplaces: Insert; non-EPA certified Decrease 2%/yr: 1 - 0.02*(Year-2002) 0.860 0.800 0.680

2104008003 Fireplaces: Insert; EPA certified; non-catalytic Increase 2%/yr: 1 + 0.02*(Year-2002) 1.140 1.200 1.320

2104008004 Fireplaces: Insert; EPA certified; catalytic Increase 2%/yr (same as 2104008003) 1.140 1.200 1.320

2104008010 Woodstoves: General Decrease 2% /yr (same as 2104008002) 0.860 0.800 0.680 2104008030 Catalytic Woodstoves: General Increas e 2%/yr (same as 2104008003) 1.140 1.200 1.320 2104008050 Non-catalytic Woodstoves: EPA certified Increase 2%/yr (same as 2104008003) 1.140 1.200 1.320

2104008051 Non-catalytic Woodstoves: NonEPA certified Decrease 2%/yr (same as 2104008002) 0.860 0.800 0.680

2104008052 Non-catalytic Woodstoves: Low Emitting Increase 2%/yr (same as 2104008003) 1.140 1.200 1.320

2104008053 Non-catalytic Woodstoves: Pellet Fired Increase 2%/yr (same as 2104008003) 1.140 1.200 1.320Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Appendix E – BOTW Source Control Factors Page E-1

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. Table E-1 NonEGU BOTW Control Factors for Adhesives and Sealants Application, Asphalt Production Plants, Cement Kilns, and Glass/Fiberglass Furnaces

FIPS SITEID EU ID PROCESS ID SCC PLLTCODE CE_2009 CE_2012 CE_2018 Control Measure: Adhesives and Sealants Application
09003 6484 R0131 01 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
09003 6484 R0132 01 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
09015 0647 P0085 01 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
10001 1000100004 003 2 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
10001 1000100004 005 2 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
10001 1000100004 005 3 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
10001 1000100004 005 4 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
10001 1000100004 005 5 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
10003 1000300365 002 2 40200706 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
10003 1000300365 002 1 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
23001 2300100076 003 2 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
24003 003-0250 232 01F232 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
24003 003-0250 232 01S232 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
24005 005-2407 17 01F17 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
24005 005-2407 17 01S17 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
24025 025-0006 45 01F45 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
24025 025-0006 45 01S45 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
24025 025-0423 5 01F5 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
24025 025-0423 5 01S5 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
24025 025-0423 6 01F6 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
24025 025-0423 6 01S6 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
24025 025-0423 7 01F7 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
24025 025-0423 7 01S7 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
24045 045-0082 12 01F12 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
24045 045-0082 12 01S12 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25005 1200077 12 0108 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25005 1200100 23 0111 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25005 1200100 26 0114 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25005 1200100 28 0116 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25005 1200101 08 0107 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25005 1200101 09 0108 40200706 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25005 1200101 10 0109 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25005 1200101 11 0110 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25005 1200101 12 0111 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25005 1200183 07 0203 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25005 1200388 04 0104 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25005 1200388 05 0105 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25005 1200388 05 0205 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25005 1200509 04 0104 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25005 1200585 02 0102 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25005 1200673 07 0107 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Appendix E – BOTW Source Control Factors Page E-2

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. FIPS SITEID EU ID PROCESS ID SCC PLLTCODE CE_2009 CE_2012 CE_2018
25005 1200707 08 0106 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25005 1200851 11 0110 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25009 1190683 03 0103 40200706 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25009 1190690 09 0108 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25009 1210026 15 0115 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25009 1210046 01 0101 40200706 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25009 1210083 05 0104 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25009 1210093 09 0209 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25009 1210110 01 0101 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25009 1210212 30 0321 40200706 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25009 1210212 30 0721 40200706 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25009 1210212 32 0322 40200706 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25009 1210212 32 0622 40200706 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25009 1210212 32 0922 40200706 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25009 1210276 03 0102 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25009 1210332 01 0101 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25009 1210332 02 0102 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25009 1210332 03 0103 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25009 1210341 10 0110 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25009 1211013 07 0105 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25009 1211013 08 0306 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25009 1211013 33 0331 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25009 1211013 72 0259 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25009 1211013 89 0253 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25013 0420145 16 0112 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25013 0420213 01 0201 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25013 0420260 02 0102 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25013 0420265 06 0105 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25013 0420561 01 0101 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25013 0420798 05 0105 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25013 0420821 10 0106 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25015 0420558 01 0101 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25017 1180795 02 0102 40200706 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25017 1180795 03 0103 40200706 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25017 1180795 04 0104 40200706 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25017 1180795 05 0105 40200706 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25017 1180795 06 0106 40200706 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25017 1180795 07 0107 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25017 1180795 08 0108 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25017 1180795 09 0109 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25017 1190355 05 0101 40200706 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25017 1190424 04 0104 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25017 1190424 08 0106 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25017 1190424 11 0107 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25017 1190424 20 0110 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25017 1190424 24 0111 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25017 1190424 28 0112 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Appendix E – BOTW Source Control Factors Page E-3

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. FIPS SITEID EU ID PROCESS ID SCC PLLTCODE CE_2009 CE_2012 CE_2018
25017 1190424 32 0213 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25017 1190424 37 0117 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25017 1190429 06 0106 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25017 1190560 02 0101 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25017 1190560 23 0106 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25017 1190585 08 0104 40200706 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25017 1190585 17 0106 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25017 1190692 09 0107 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25017 1190692 10 0108 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25017 1190692 11 0108 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25017 1190953 04 0104 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25017 1190999 11 0111 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25017 1190999 11 0211 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25017 1190999 13 0313 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25017 1191104 03 0103 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25017 1191192 05 0104 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25017 1191296 26 0116 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25017 1191296 27 0117 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25017 1191471 04 0103 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25017 1191564 08 0108 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25017 1191844 53 0135 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25017 1191844 53 0335 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25017 1192051 12 0107 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25017 1192051 26 0115 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25017 1210036 03 0103 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25017 1210036 05 0104 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25017 1210036 07 0105 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25017 1210373 01 0101 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25017 1210373 02 0102 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25017 1210373 03 0103 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25017 1210373 04 0104 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25017 1210373 04 0204 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25017 1210373 05 0105 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25017 1210373 05 0205 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25017 1210373 06 0106 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25017 1210373 06 0206 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25017 1210373 09 0109 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25017 1210373 10 0110 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25017 1210912 02 0202 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25021 1190319 04 0103 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25021 1190319 11 0111 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25021 1190569 23 0215 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25021 1192106 03 0103 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25021 1192121 07 0107 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25021 1192131 03 0103 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25021 1192491 07 0107 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25021 1192491 08 0108 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Appendix E – BOTW Source Control Factors Page E-4

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. FIPS SITEID EU ID PROCESS ID SCC PLLTCODE CE_2009 CE_2012 CE_2018
25021 1200125 55 0146 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25021 1200125 56 0147 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25021 1200127 10 0209 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25021 1200228 04 0203 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25021 1200452 04 0102 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25023 1192198 11 0107 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25023 1192198 12 0108 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25023 1192198 19 0109 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25023 1192198 23 0109 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25023 1192198 25 0109 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25023 1192198 26 0109 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25023 1192203 01 0101 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25023 1192237 08 0102 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25023 1192436 09 0105 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25023 1200177 05 0105 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25023 1200637 04 0104 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25023 1200637 07 0105 40200707 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25025 1191397 05 0106 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25025 1191397 06 0107 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25027 1180025 01 0301 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25027 1180115 17 0209 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25027 1180115 25 0311 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25027 1180115 36 0117 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25027 1180115 39 0118 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25027 1180115 77 0251 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25027 1180225 04 0104 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25027 1180265 05 0205 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25027 1180310 03 0203 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25027 1180310 03 0303 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25027 1180505 07 0107 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25027 1180505 23 0123 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25027 1180998 27 0111 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25027 1180998 30 0113 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25027 1200856 12 0110 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25027 1200856 13 0111 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
33011 3301100076 004 1 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
33011 3301100076 005 1 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
33011 3301100076 009 1 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
33017 3301700010 001 1 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
33017 3301700010 002 1 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
36063 9290900018 ADHES1 HM1FP 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
36069 8329900028 000005 WABFP 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
36103 1473000001 EI0001 E10EI 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
36103 1473000001 U00002 103FP 40200706 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
36115 5533000016 U00011 SL2FP 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
36117 8543600007 1MLDRB SC3FP 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
36117 8543600007 2KLZRS SC2FP 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Appendix E – BOTW Source Control Factors Page E-5

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. FIPS SITEID EU ID PROCESS ID SCC PLLTCODE CE_2009 CE_2012 CE_2018
42001 420010009 103 1 40200706 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
42013 420130480 101 2 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
42017 420171041 101 1 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
42019 420190029 104 1 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
42019 420190029 105 1 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
42019 420190090 102 1 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
42019 420190090 102 2 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
42019 420190090 102 3 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
42019 420190090 102 4 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
42019 420190090 102 5 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
42019 420190090 102 6 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
42035 420350429 P105 1 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
42035 420350429 P106 1 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
42039 420390013 106 1 40200707 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
42039 420390014 102 1 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
42039 420390014 103 1 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
42039 420390014 104 1 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
42039 420390014 105 1 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
42045 420450954 121 1 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
42055 420550022 100 1 40200706 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
42055 420550022 101 1 40200706 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
42061 420610016 104 1 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
42061 420610016 105 1 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
42061 420610032 101 2 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
42061 420610032 101 4 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
42061 420610032 101 6 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
42061 420610032 102 2 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
42061 420610032 102 4 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
42061 420610032 102 6 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
42061 420610032 103 2 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
42061 420610032 103 4 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
42069 420690023 107 1 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
42069 420690023 108 1 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
42071 420710802 102 1 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
42071 420710804 102 1 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
42077 420770071 101 1 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
42077 420770071 101 2 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
42077 420770071 102 1 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
42077 420770071 102 2 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
42077 420770071 103 1 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
42077 420770071 104 1 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
42077 420770071 105 1 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
42081 420810039 113 1 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
42081 420810559 P104 1 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
42091 420910826 002 1 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
42097 420970001 105 1 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
42097 420970001 201 1 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Appendix E – BOTW Source Control Factors Page E-6

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. FIPS SITEID EU ID PROCESS ID SCC PLLTCODE CE_2009 CE_2012 CE_2018
42097 420970001 202 1 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
42097 420970034 104 1 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
42097 420970034 105A 1 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
42101 4210101591 004 1 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
42101 4210102051 005 10 40200712 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
42101 4210102051 005 11 40200712 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
42101 4210102051 005 12 40200712 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
42101 4210102051 006 5 40200712 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
42101 4210102051 007 6 40200712 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
42101 4210102051 008 14 40200712 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
42101 4210102051 009 7 40200712 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
42101 4210103217 010 2 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
42109 421090001 113 1 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
42109 421090001 140 1 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
42119 421190477 P101 1 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
42129 421290071 105 1 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
42129 421290311 101 1 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
42133 421330034 103 1 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
42133 421330055 101 1 40200706 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
42133 421330055 101 2 40200706 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
44003 AIR1438 8 8 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
44007 AIR1859 2 2 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
44007 AIR3850 1 1 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
44007 AIR537 2 2 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
44009 AIR594 7 7 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
50005 9 4 1 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 Control Measure: Asphalt Production Plants
34001 70003 U101 OS1 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00
34001 70003 U101 OS2 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00
34001 70003 U12 OS0 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00
34001 70003 U13 OS0 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00
34001 70003 U6 OS1 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00
34001 70015 U401 OS1601 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00
34001 70015 U401 OS2101 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00
34001 70015 U401 OS401 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00
34007 50373 U11 OS1 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00
34007 50373 U6 OS1 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00
34009 73014 U9 OS3 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00
34009 73014 U9 OS7 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00
34013 05005 U2 OS1 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00
34015 55261 U4 OS1 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00
34017 11171 U2 OS1 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00
34021 60031 U6 OS1 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00
34023 15129 U7 OS1 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00
34025 20022 U1 OS1 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00
34025 20023 U2 OS1 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00
34025 20025 U26 OS1 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Appendix E – BOTW Source Control Factors Page E-7

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. FIPS SITEID EU ID PROCESS ID SCC PLLTCODE CE_2009 CE_2012 CE_2018
34025 20025 U3 OS2 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00
34027 25009 U13 OS1 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00
34027 25009 U2 OS1 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00
34027 25268 U100 OS101 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00
34027 25268 U1601 OS1601 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00
34027 25268 U1601 OS1602 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00
34029 78010 U1500 OS1501 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00
34029 78010 U1500 OS1502 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00
34029 78010 U1601 OS1601 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00
34029 78010 U900 OS1 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00
34029 78012 U101 OS1 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00
34029 78014 U2 OS1 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00
34031 30005 U100 OS113 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00
34031 30005 U2300 OS2301 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00
34031 30005 U2300 OS2332 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00
34031 30085 U100 OS201 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00
34031 30085 U100 OS901 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00
34031 30085 U100 OS903 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00
34035 35014 U100 OS113 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00
34035 35014 U100 OS2301 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00
34035 36009 U1000 OS1201 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00
34035 36009 U1000 OS1202 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00
34035 36009 U1000 OS1301 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00
34035 36009 U1000 OS1401 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00
34037 83008 U4 OS1 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00
36081 2630200138 D00001 P01FP 30500251 NOX 35.00 35.00 35.00
36085 2640300031 3ADRYR 302FP 30500251 NOX 35.00 35.00 35.00
36119 3550800247 1MIXER 001FP 30500205 NOX 35.00 35.00 35.00
Control Measure: Cement Kilns
23013 2301300028 001 1 30500706 NOX 60.00 60.00 60.00
24013 013-0012 39 01S39 30500606 NOX 46.67 46.67 46.67
24021 021-0013 21 01S21 30500706 NOX 46.67 46.67 46.67
24021 021-0013 22 01S22 30500706 NOX 46.67 46.67 46.67
24043 043-0008 24 01S24 30500606 NOX 46.67 46.67 46.67
36001 4012200004 U00002 OX1FP 30501202 NOX 70.00 70.00 70.00
36001 4012200004 U00003 FZ1FP 30501204 NOX 70.00 70.00 70.00
36001 4012200004 U00003 FZ2FP 30501204 NOX 70.00 70.00 70.00
36001 4012200004 U00003 SS1FP 30501206 NOX 70.00 70.00 70.00
36001 4012200004 U00012 OX2FP 30501202 NOX 70.00 70.00 70.00
36001 4012200004 U00013 FC2FP 30501204 NOX 70.00 70.00 70.00
36001 4012400001 041000 K12FP 30500706 NOX 20.00 20.00 20.00
36039 4192600021 U00K18 00CEP 30500706 NOX 20.00 20.00 20.00
36113 5520500013 0UKILN G02FP 30500606 NOX 20.00 20.00 20.00
42019 420190024 101 4 30500706 NOX 0.00 52.38 52.38
42019 420190024 121 4 30500706 NOX 0.00 52.38 52.38
42073 420730024 226 1 30500606 NOX 0.00 54.29 54.29
42073 420730024 227 1 30500606 NOX 0.00 60.00 60.00Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Appendix E – BOTW Source Control Factors Page E-8

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. FIPS SITEID EU ID PROCESS ID SCC PLLTCODE CE_2009 CE_2012 CE_2018
42073 420730024 228 1 30500606 NOX 0.00 54.18 54.18
42073 420730026 501 1 30500706 NOX 0.00 56.52 56.52
42073 420730026 502 1 30500706 NOX 0.00 56.52 56.52
42077 420770019 101 2 30500606 NOX 0.00 54.40 54.40
42079 420790013 101 1 30501201 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00
42079 420790013 102 1 30501201 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00
42079 420790013 103 1 30501204 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00
42079 420790013 104 1 30501204 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00
42079 420790060 104 1 30501301 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00
42095 420950006 102 1 30500606 NOX 0.00 57.04 57.04
42095 420950006 122 1 30500606 NOX 0.00 57.04 57.04
42095 420950012 101 2 30500706 NOX 0.00 45.21 45.21
42095 420950012 102 2 30500706 NOX 0.00 45.21 45.21
42095 420950045 142 1 30500606 NOX 0.00 32.20 32.20
42095 420950045 143 1 30500606 NOX 0.00 32.20 32.20
42095 420950127 101 1 30500606 NOX 0.00 32.20 32.20
42095 420950127 102 1 30500606 NOX 0.00 32.20 32.20
42095 420950127 103 1 30500606 NOX 0.00 32.20 32.20
42095 420950127 104 1 30500606 NOX 0.00 32.20 32.20
42133 421330060 200 4 39000602 NOX 0.00 45.21 45.21 Control Measure: Glass and Fiberglass Furnaces
24510 510-0285 10 01S10 30501402 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00
25027 1200856 04 0304 30501402 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00
25027 1200856 05 0304 30501402 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00
34005 45982 U6 OS0 39999991 NOX 0.00 20.00 20.00
34011 75475 U1 OS1 30501401 NOX 0.00 20.00 20.00
34011 75475 U3 OS1 30501401 NOX 0.00 20.00 20.00
34011 75475 U35 OS1 30501401 NOX 0.00 20.00 20.00
34011 75475 U37 OS1 30501401 NOX 0.00 20.00 20.00
34011 75475 U5 OS1 30501401 NOX 0.00 20.00 20.00
34011 75503 U2 OS1001 30501401 NOX 0.00 20.00 20.00
34011 75503 U3 OS1 30501401 NOX 0.00 20.00 20.00
34011 75503 U4 OS1 30501401 NOX 0.00 20.00 20.00
34011 75503 U5 OS1 30501401 NOX 0.00 20.00 20.00
34011 75505 U12 OS1 30599999 NOX 0.00 20.00 20.00
34011 75505 U143 OS1 30599999 NOX 0.00 20.00 20.00
34011 75505 U144 OS1 30599999 NOX 0.00 20.00 20.00
34011 75505 U146 OS1 30599999 NOX 0.00 20.00 20.00
34011 75505 U150 OS1 30599999 NOX 0.00 20.00 20.00
34011 75505 U151 OS1 30599999 NOX 0.00 20.00 20.00
34011 75505 U6 OS1 30599999 NOX 0.00 20.00 20.00
34011 75506 U1 OS1 30501401 NOX 0.00 20.00 20.00
34011 75506 U1 OS3 30501401 NOX 0.00 20.00 20.00
34023 18070 U1 OS1 30501401 NOX 0.00 20.00 20.00
34033 65499 U1 OS1 30501401 NOX 0.00 20.00 20.00
34033 65499 U2 OS1 30501401 NOX 0.00 20.00 20.00
34033 65499 U3 OS1 30501401 NOX 0.00 20.00 20.00Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Appendix E – BOTW Source Control Factors Page E-9

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. FIPS SITEID EU ID PROCESS ID SCC PLLTCODE CE_2009 CE_2012 CE_2018
36001 4010300016 KILNSG 10BEI 39001399 NOX 20.00 20.00 20.00
36001 4010300016 KILNSG KNFFP 39001399 NOX 20.00 20.00 20.00
36001 4012200004 EI0001 E20EI 39000689 NOX 70.00 70.00 70.00
36011 7055200004 AFURNC FRNFP 30501402 NOX 70.00 70.00 70.00
36015 8070400036 000001 O1AFP 30501402 NOX 70.00 70.00 70.00
36069 8320500041 UFURNC FURFP 30501403 NOX 70.00 70.00 70.00
36089 6403000002 U00001 101FP 30501401 NOX 70.00 70.00 70.00
36089 6403000002 U00003 300FP 30501416 NOX 70.00 70.00 70.00
36101 8460300008 PCCTNK GL2FP 30501416 NOX 70.00 70.00 70.00
42003 4200300164 003 1 30501404 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00
42003 4200300164 007 1 30501404 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00
42003 4200300164 008 1 30501404 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00
42003 4200300165 P01 1 30501402 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00
42003 4200300165 P02 1 30501402 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00
42003 4200300165 P04 1 30501402 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00
42003 4200300227 003 1 30590003 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00
42003 4200300227 003 2 30590003 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00
42003 4200300342 002 1 30501403 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00
42003 4200300342 002 3 30501403 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00
42007 420070012 103 1 30501402 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00
42007 420070012 104 1 30501408 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00
42007 420070012 105 1 30501408 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00
42007 420070022 102 1 30501799 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00
42027 420270021 P101 1 30501404 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00
42027 420270021 P102 1 30501404 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00
42027 420270021 P102 3 30501404 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00
42027 420270021 P103 1 30501404 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00
42031 420310009 102 1 30501402 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00
42031 420310009 S105A 1 30501402 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00
42039 420390012 101 1 30501403 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00
42039 420390012 102 1 30501403 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00
42041 420410013 101 1 30501403 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00
42041 420410013 102 1 30501403 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00
42045 420450041 101 1 30501410 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00
42051 420510020 101 1 30501402 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00
42051 420510020 102 1 30501402 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00
42065 420650003 110 1 30501402 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00
42065 420650007 103 1 30501402 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00
42065 420650007 104 1 30501402 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00
42079 420790008 101 1 30501704 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00
42079 420790008 102 1 30501704 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00
42079 420790008 103 1 30501701 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00
42079 420790018 101 1 30501402 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00
42079 420790018 101 2 30501402 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00
42079 420790018 102 1 30501402 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00
42079 420790018 102 2 30501402 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00
42079 420790018 103 1 30501402 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Appendix E – BOTW Source Control Factors Page E-10

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. FIPS SITEID EU ID PROCESS ID SCC PLLTCODE CE_2009 CE_2012 CE_2018
42083 420830002 101 1 30501402 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00
42083 420830002 201 1 30501402 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00
42083 420830006 101 1 30501402 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00
42083 420830006 102 1 30501402 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00
42083 420830006 103 1 30501402 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00
42095 420950047 101A 3 30501701 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00
42095 420950047 103A 3 30501701 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00
42117 421170020 P109 1 30501402 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00
42117 421170020 P124 1 30501404 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00
42117 421170020 P127 1 30501408 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00
42125 421250001 107 1 30501404 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00
42125 421250001 107 3 30501404 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00
42129 421290233 101 2 30501404 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00
42129 421290233 102 2 30501404 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00
42129 421290553 101 1 30501402 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00
42133 421330066 104 3 30501414 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007Appendix E – BOTW Source Control Factors Page E-11MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc.Table E-2 NonEGU BOTW Control Factors for ICI BoilersBoiler Size Range (mmBtu/hour)< 25 25 to 50 50 to 100 100 to 250 >250SCC CF0_25 CF25_50 CF50_100 CF100_250 CF250 SCC_L4 SCC_L310200104 10 50 10 40 0 Traveling Grate (Overfeed) Stoker Anthracite Coal10200202 10 50 10 40 0 Pulverized Coal: Dry Bottom Bituminous/Subbituminous Coal10200203 10 50 10 40 0 Cyclone Furnace Bituminous/Subbituminous Coal10200204 10 50 10 40 0 Spreader Stoker Bituminous/Subbituminous Coal10200205 10 50 10 40 0 Overfeed Stoker Bituminous/Subbituminous Coal10200206 10 50 10 40 0 Underfeed Stoker Bituminous/Subbituminous Coal10200212 10 50 10 40 0 Pulverized Coal: Dry Bottom (Tangential) Bituminous/Subbituminous Coal10200222 10 50 10 40 0 Pulverized Coal: Dry Bottom (Subbituminous Coal) Bituminous/Subbituminous Coal10200401 10 50 10 40 0 Grade 6 Oil Residual Oil10200402 10 50 10 40 0 10-100 Million Btu/hr ** Residual Oil10200403 10 50 10 40 0 < 10 Million Btu/hr ** Residual Oil10200404 10 50 10 40 0 Grade 5 Oil Residual Oil10200405 10 50 10 40 0 Cogeneration Residual Oil10200501 10 50 10 40 0 Grades 1 and 2 Oil Distillate Oil10200502 10 50 10 40 0 10-100 Million Btu/hr ** Distillate Oil10200503 10 50 10 40 0 < 10 Million Btu/hr ** Distillate Oil10200504 10 50 10 40 0 Grade 4 Oil Distillate Oil10200505 10 50 10 40 0 Cogeneration Distillate Oil10200601 10 50 10 75 0 > 100 Million Btu/hr Natural Gas10200602 10 50 10 75 0 10-100 Million Btu/hr Natural Gas10200603 10 50 10 75 0 < 10 Million Btu/hr Natural Gas10200604 10 50 10 75 0 Cogeneration Natural Gas10200701 10 50 10 75 0 Petroleum Refinery Gas Process Gas10200704 10 50 10 75 0 Blast Furnace Gas Process Gas10200707 10 50 10 75 0 Coke Oven Gas Process Gas10200710 10 50 10 75 0 Cogeneration Process Gas10200799 10 50 10 75 0 Other: Specify in Comments Process Gas10200802 10 50 10 40 0 All Boiler Sizes Petroleum Coke10200901 10 10 10 10 10 Bark-fired Boiler Wood/Bark Waste10200902 10 10 10 10 10 Wood/Bark-fired Boiler Wood/Bark WasteFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007Appendix E – BOTW Source Control Factors Page E-12MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc.Boiler Size Range (mmBtu/hour)< 25 25 to 50 50 to 100 100 to 250 >250SCC CF0_25 CF25_50 CF50_100 CF100_250 CF250 SCC_L4 SCC_L310200903 10 10 10 10 10 Wood-fired Boiler - Wet Wood (>=20% moisture) Wood/Bark Waste10200904 10 10 10 10 10 Bark-fired Boiler (<50,000 Lb Steam) ** Wood/Bark Waste10200905 10 10 10 10 10 Wood/Bark-fired Boiler (<50,000 Lb Steam) ** Wood/Bark Waste10200906 10 10 10 10 10 Wood-fired Boiler (<50,000 Lb Steam) ** Wood/Bark Waste10200907 10 10 10 10 10 Wood Cogeneration Wood/Bark Waste10200908 10 10 10 10 10 Wood-fired Boiler - Dry Wood (<20% moisture) Wood/Bark Waste10201001 10 50 10 75 0 Butane Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG)10201002 10 50 10 75 0 Propane Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG)10201003 10 50 10 75 0 Butane/Propane Mixture: Specify Percent Butane in Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG)10300101 10 50 10 40 0 Pulverized Coal Anthracite Coal10300102 10 50 10 40 0 Traveling Grate (Overfeed) Stoker Anthracite Coal10300103 10 50 10 40 0 Hand-fired Anthracite Coal10300203 10 50 10 40 0 Cyclone Furnace (Bituminous Coal) Bituminous/Subbituminous Coal10300206 10 50 10 40 0 Pulverized Coal: Dry Bottom (Bituminous Coal) Bituminous/Subbituminous Coal10300207 10 50 10 40 0 Overfeed Stoker (Bituminous Coal) Bituminous/Subbituminous Coal10300208 10 50 10 40 0 Underfeed Stoker (BituminousCoal) Bituminous/Subbituminous Coal10300209 10 50 10 40 0 Spreader Stoker (Bituminous Coal) Bituminous/Subbituminous Coal10300225 10 50 10 40 0 Traveling Grate (Overfeed) Stoker(Subbituminous C Bituminous/Subbituminous Coal10300226 10 50 10 40 0 Pulverized Coal: Dry Bottom Tangential (Subbitumin Bituminous/Subbituminous Coal10300401 10 50 10 40 0 Grade 6 Oil Residual Oil10300402 10 50 10 40 0 10-100 Million Btu/hr ** Residual Oil10300403 10 50 10 40 0 < 10 Million Btu/hr ** Residual Oil10300404 10 50 10 40 0 Grade 5 Oil Residual Oil10300501 10 50 10 40 0 Grades 1 and 2 Oil Distillate Oil10300502 10 50 10 40 0 10-100 Million Btu/hr ** Distillate Oil10300503 10 50 10 40 0 < 10 Million Btu/hr ** Distillate Oil10300504 10 50 10 40 0 Grade 4 Oil Distillate Oil10300601 10 50 10 75 0 > 100 Million Btu/hr Natural Gas10300602 10 50 10 75 0 10-100 Million Btu/hr Natural Gas10300603 10 50 10 75 0 < 10 Million Btu/hr Natural Gas10300701 10 50 10 75 0 POTW Digester Gas-fired Boiler Process Gas10300799 10 50 10 75 0 Other Not Classified Process GasFinal TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007Appendix E – BOTW Source Control Factors Page E-13MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc.Boiler Size Range (mmBtu/hour)< 25 25 to 50 50 to 100 100 to 250 >250SCC CF0_25 CF25_50 CF50_100 CF100_250 CF250 SCC_L4 SCC_L310300811 10 50 10 75 0 Landfill Gas Landfill Gas10300901 10 10 10 10 0 Bark-fired Boiler Wood/Bark Waste10300902 10 10 10 10 0 Wood/Bark-fired Boiler Wood/Bark Waste10300903 10 10 10 10 0 Wood-fired Boiler - Wet Wood (>=20% moisture) Wood/Bark Waste10300908 10 10 10 10 0 Wood-fired Boiler - Dry Wood (<20% moisture) Wood/Bark Waste10301002 10 50 10 75 0 Propane Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG)10301003 10 50 10 75 0 Butane/Propane Mixture: Specify Percent Butane in Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG)Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Appendix E – BOTW Source Control Factors Page E-14

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. Table E-3 Area Source BOTW Control Factors for Adhesives and Sealants Application, Asphalt Paving, Consumer Products, and Portable Fuel Containers

FIPSST SCC PLLTCODE CE_2009 CE_2012 CE_2018
Control Measure: Adhesives and Sealants
09 2440020000 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
10 2440020000 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
11 2440020000 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
23 2440020000 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
24 2440020000 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
25 2440020000 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
33 2440020000 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
34 2440020000 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
36 2440020000 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
42 2440020000 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40
44 2440020000 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 Control Measure: Asphalt Paving
09 2461022000 VOC 20.00 20.00 20.00
24 2461022000 VOC 20.00 20.00 20.00
25 2461022000 VOC 20.00 20.00 20.00
33 2461022000 VOC 20.00 20.00 20.00
34 2461022000 VOC 75.00 75.00 75.00
36 2461022000 VOC 20.00 20.00 20.00
42 2461022000 VOC 0.00 20.00 20.00
Control Measure: Consumer Products
09 2465000000 VOC 2.00 2.00 2.00
10 2460100000 VOC 2.00 2.00 2.00
10 2460200000 VOC 2.00 2.00 2.00
10 2460400000 VOC 2.00 2.00 2.00
10 2460500000 VOC 2.00 2.00 2.00
10 2460600000 VOC 2.00 2.00 2.00
10 2460800000 VOC 2.00 2.00 2.00
10 2460900000 VOC 2.00 2.00 2.00
11 2460100000 VOC 2.00 2.00 2.00
11 2460200000 VOC 2.00 2.00 2.00
11 2460400000 VOC 2.00 2.00 2.00
11 2460500000 VOC 2.00 2.00 2.00
11 2460600000 VOC 2.00 2.00 2.00
11 2460800000 VOC 2.00 2.00 2.00
11 2460900000 VOC 2.00 2.00 2.00
23 2460100000 VOC 2.00 2.00 2.00
23 2460200000 VOC 2.00 2.00 2.00
23 2460400000 VOC 2.00 2.00 2.00
23 2460500000 VOC 2.00 2.00 2.00
23 2460600000 VOC 2.00 2.00 2.00
23 2460800000 VOC 2.00 2.00 2.00Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Appendix E – BOTW Source Control Factors Page E-15

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. FIPSST SCC PLLTCODE CE_2009 CE_2012 CE_2018

23 2460900000 VOC 2.00 2.00 2.00
24 2465000000 VOC 2.00 2.00 2.00
25 2460000000 VOC 2.00 2.00 2.00
33 2460000000 VOC 2.00 2.00 2.00
34 2465000000 VOC 2.00 2.00 2.00
36 2460000000 VOC 2.00 2.00 2.00
42 2465000000 VOC 2.00 2.00 2.00
44 2460100000 VOC 2.00 2.00 2.00
44 2460200000 VOC 2.00 2.00 2.00
44 2460400000 VOC 2.00 2.00 2.00
44 2460500000 VOC 2.00 2.00 2.00
44 2460600000 VOC 2.00 2.00 2.00
44 2460800000 VOC 2.00 2.00 2.00
44 2460900000 VOC 2.00 2.00 2.00
Control Measure: Portable Fuel Containers
09 2501060300 VOC 5.80 23.20 58.00
10 2501011010 VOC 5.80 23.20 58.00
10 2501011011 VOC 5.80 23.20 58.00
10 2501011012 VOC 5.80 23.20 58.00
10 2501011015 VOC 5.80 23.20 58.00
10 2501011016 VOC 5.80 23.20 58.00
10 2501012010 VOC 5.80 23.20 58.00
10 2501012011 VOC 5.80 23.20 58.00
10 2501012012 VOC 5.80 23.20 58.00
10 2501012015 VOC 5.80 23.20 58.00
10 2501012016 VOC 5.80 23.20 58.00
11 2501011011 VOC 5.80 23.20 58.00
11 2501011012 VOC 5.80 23.20 58.00
11 2501011016 VOC 5.80 23.20 58.00
11 2501012011 VOC 5.80 23.20 58.00
11 2501012012 VOC 5.80 23.20 58.00
11 2501012016 VOC 5.80 23.20 58.00
23 2501060300 VOC 5.80 23.20 58.00
24 2501011011 VOC 5.80 23.20 58.00
24 2501011012 VOC 5.80 23.20 58.00
24 2501011016 VOC 5.80 23.20 58.00
24 2501012011 VOC 5.80 23.20 58.00
24 2501012012 VOC 5.80 23.20 58.00
24 2501012016 VOC 5.80 23.20 58.00
25 2501011000 VOC 0.00 23.20 58.00
25 2501012000 VOC 0.00 23.20 58.00
33 2501060300 VOC 5.80 23.20 58.00
34 2501000120 VOC 5.80 23.20 58.00
36 2501011011 VOC 5.80 23.20 58.00
36 2501011012 VOC 5.80 23.20 58.00
36 2501011016 VOC 5.80 23.20 58.00
36 2501012011 VOC 5.80 23.20 58.00Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Appendix E – BOTW Source Control Factors Page E-16

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. FIPSST SCC PLLTCODE CE_2009 CE_2012 CE_2018

36 2501012012 VOC 5.80 23.20 58.00
36 2501012016 VOC 5.80 23.20 58.00
42 2501060300 VOC 5.80 23.20 58.00
44 2501060300 VOC 5.80 23.20 58.00Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 Appendix E – BOTW Source Control Factors Page E-17

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. Table E-4 Area Source BOTW Control Factors for ICI Boilers

SCC Control Factor SCC_L4 SCC_L3 SCC_L2 2102001000 18.9 Total: All Boiler Types Anthracite Coal Industrial 2102002000 18.9 Total: All Boiler Types Bituminous/Subbituminous Coal Industrial

2102004000 18.9 Total: Boilers and IC Engines Distillate Oil Industrial

2102005000 18.9 Total: All Boiler Ty pes Residual Oil Industrial

2102006000 18.9 Total: Boilers and IC Engines Natural Gas Industrial

2102007000 18.9 Total: All Boiler Ty pes Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG) Industrial

2102008000 10.0 Total: All Boiler Types Wood Industrial

2102011000 10.0 Total: All Boiler Types Kerosene Industrial 2103001000 19.5 Total: All Boiler Types Anth racite Coal Comme rcial/Institutional 2103002000 19.5 Total: All Boiler Types Bituminous/Subbituminous Coal Commercial/Institutional

2103004000 19.5 Total: Boilers and IC Engines Distillate Oil Commercial/Institutional

2103004001 19.5 Distillate Oil Commercial/Institutional

2103004002 19.5 Distillate Oil Commercial/Institutional 2103005000 19.5 Total: All Boiler Types Re sidual Oil Commercial/Institutional

2103006000 19.5 Total: Boilers and IC Engines Natural Gas Commercial/Institutional

2103007000 19.5 Total: All Combustor Types Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG) Commercial/Institutional

2103008000 10.0 Total: All Boiler Type s Wood Commercial/Institutional

2103011000 10.0 Total: All Combustor Types Kerosene Commercial/Institutional1 

### Technical Memorandum


## Development of MANE-VU Mobile Source Projection Inventories for SMOKE/MOBILE6 Application

June 2006, NESCAUM

I. Background

The MANE-VU Emissions Inventory workgroup chose to utilize in-house expertise to develop future year mobile source emission estimates for us e in Ozone, PM 2.5 , and Regional Haze SIP modeling. Jung-Hun Woo, NESCAUM, and Megan Schuste r, MARAMA compiled all the information necessary to run Mobile6 with Sparse Ma trix Operator Kernel Emissions (SMOKE) based on the state submitted data. The purpose of t his document is to describe how member states and NESCAUM/MARAMA prepared the mobile sourc e activity data (i.e. non-link based VMT & Speed), Mobile6 scenario input files, and acc ompanying files in SMOKE/MOBILE6 format in support of future year projection invento ry development.



### II. Procedure

2.1. Base year (Y2002) inventory file

The MANE-VU 2002 base year SMOKE/M6-ready mobile so urce files served as a starting point for projection inventory development; hence, the pr ocedures employed for the development of these files are summarized here. E.H Pechan, a co ntractor for MANE-VU, compiled MANEVU 2002 mobile source inventories. The onroad emiss ions inventory was compiled from data supplied by the MANE-VU State agencies in the form of onroad emissions input data or emissions inventories either directly to MANE-VU or to EPA through their CERR submittal. States provided information in one or more of the f ollowing ways: (1) an onroad emission inventory submittal to EPA, (2) MOBILE6 inputs and VMT data in National Mobile Inventory Model (NMIM) format to EPA, (3) portions of MOBILE6 inputs or full MOBILE6 input files and supporting files plus VMT to EPA, or (4) portio ns of MOBILE6 inputs or full MOBILE6 input files and supporting files plus VMT to MANE-V U. Different procedures were followed in developing the MANE-VU 2002 onroad emission invento ry depending upon how the data were submitted. All States provided information on 2002 onroad activity in the form of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) estimates, although the level of det ail of the VMT data varied by State. After integration of all these data, Pechan compiled onro ad mobile source files in a SMOKE/Mobile6 ready format.

2.2. Preparing technical guidance to create SMOKE/M obile6 ready information

As described above, States had the ability and expe rience to develop their mobile source inventory data in NMIM, stand-alone Mobile6, and em issions inventory format. They, however,2

were not familiar with procedures for integrating f iles and converting them into a model ready format. To assist the State workgroup in the creati on of an inventory in (as close as possible to) the SMOKE/Mobile6–ready format, NESCAUM/MARAMA deve loped a technical guidance document ( http://www.marama.org/visibility/Inventory%20Summar y/FutureEmissionsInventory.htm ). In the document, we also explained how State workgroup could download the year 2002 files ( ftp.marama.org ) and update them to create projection inventory fi les.

In the technical guidance, States were requested to supply NESCAUM and MARAMA with the data described below, under Required Data. States also had the option to supply NESCAUM and MARAMA with the information listed under Option al Data.

REQUIRED DATA:

1) SMOKE/IDA Activity File

a. Go to MARAMA FTP site (above), click on Onroad/ Fin al Smoke Files/ MANEVU_2002_mbinv.txt b. Open the MANEVU_2002_mbinv.txt file

c. Delete all data that is not your state’s. d. Update file with new header and annual VMT by SCC f or 2009

e. Name file: state_2009_mbinv.txt f. Repeat steps ‘b’ through ‘e’ for years 2012 and 201 8

2) MOBILE6 input scenario files

a. Go to MARAMA ftp site, click on MANE-VU Onroad/ Fin al Smoke Files/ MANEVU_2002_SMOKE_M6_InputFiles_12032004.zip /m6_2002/month/statecounty.in b. Provide updated statecounty.in files for each month and year 2009, 2012 and 2018

c. Use same naming convention as the 2002 files – stat ecounty.in

OPTIONAL DATA:

1) If a state wants to, they can update registration data to either 2004 or 2005

a. Go to MARAMA FTP site - Onroad/ Final Smoke Files/MANEVU_2002_SMOKE_M6_ExternalFiles.zip b. As an example, open file 0900002.reg (or any files with extension .reg)

c. There is a long header followed by the real data. Real data starts at the line called REG DIST. (See example file below). d. States should update the registration data by vehic le class and age for 2004 or 2005.

e. If you update this data and change the name of the file, make sure the M6 input scenario file (required data from above) includes t he correct file name for registration data (REG DIST).3

2.3. States data submittal and compiling future inv entory

As States submitted their projected mobile source f iles as listed above, NESCAUM started to integrate Y2018 files and convert them into regiona l (i.e. MANE-VU) files. The following subsections summarize the compilation process for a ctivity input, scenario input files, external files and other SMOKE related files.

1) Activity input data (VMT/Speed) - All member states submitted VMT and speed data. T here were minor issues in data formatting but nothing major. - DE and MA re-submit VMT file at October, 2005 (MA change 2002 VMT, too) - Merge update 2002 MBINV file, ptpro/ptref, scenar io input files for CT and NJ 2) Scenario input files - VT used the same input file for all the counties. So, only 36 input files (i.e. 12months * 3 future years) were provided. VT set 050001 as a ref erence county (MCREF). - VT uses January as reference month for August pro cessing. VT has confirm that they want to change reference month for Apr-Sep as July instead of January. - ME submitted all monthly data in a file. NESCAUM split it by month. - MA submitted only three input files (Avg Summer d ay, Typ Ozon day, Avg Winter day) which were submitted to PECHAN to develop base year input files. NESCAUM created *.in files by copying MANE-VU 2002 base-year *.in files, then change years into 2009/2012/2018 and the link to the new external fil es (LEV2CERT.D, LEV2EVAP.D, LEV2EXH.D). - CT submitted *.IN files on 9/22/2005. The “> I/M DESC” file path had been removed. - RI scenario input files have 044yyc.IN name conve ntion that are supposed to be 044ccc.IN(yy stands for 2digit year and ccc stands for 3digit county FIPS). They are renamed and populated for 12months. - Some states(MD) put "REBUILT EFFECTS" after “SCEN ARIO RECORD” line. They were moved ahead of it. - PA put “ANTI-Tamp” records in external files that need to be in Scenario input files. NESCAUM wrote a Fortran code (pa_input_4_override.f ) and a C-shell script(cp_antitamp_4_pa.csh) to put those records i n scenario input files - NJ has 2012 year tag in 2009 scenario input files . NESCAUM put them back to 2009. - For 2002 scenario input files update (10/27/2006) , CT puts 0.07 Rebuild effect, NJ didn't put any. So, I put 0.1 to NJ 2002 input files. - Putting future year rebuild effect is a modeling decision that needs to be a constant throughout the region. So NESCAUM didn’t correct th at in file compilation. Modelers’ put 10% for the base year (2002) and 90% for the future years(2009/2012/2018). NYSDEC put 0.9 into year 2009 files and NESCAUM put 0.9 into y ear 2018 files before SMOKE/Mobile6 processing. 3) External files - VT uses some of NY state external files (e.g. N YLEV2.D, NYL2EXH.D, NYL2EVAP.D, and NYL2CERT.D) - RI didn't provide any future-specific external files. 2002 MANE-VU M6 external files were used4

- MA and ME used the same named files which have id entical contents to each other: LEV2CERT.D, LEV2EVAP.D, and LEV2EXH.D - DE, PA, and NJ submitted the same named files whi ch have identical contents to each other: NLEVNE.D - DC file produce warnings (but not errors) from SM OKE/Mobile6 test run “User Supplied HC IM240 Cutpoint of 0.500 for yea r 1 and Vehicle Type 1 is Too Low and has been Reset to 0.80 g/mi.” Consulted with D C and get a confirm that it’s ok to use it as-is.

4) Other SMOKE related files - MCREF/MVREF Update MANEVU_2002_mcref.txt for Maine because Penobscot county (23019) was not found from MAINE_pointerfile.xls. Tammy Gould @ Mai ne confirmed that Penobscot (019) has to be added where Piscataquis (021) is. Correct this problem on both MANEVU_2018_mcref.txt and MAINE_pointerfile.xls. MA NEVU_2018_mvref.txt is updated by deleting non-ref counties in ME. - MTPRO/MTREF Add CT and NJ's temporal profile/x-ref to 2018 MA NEVU files



### III. Sample model run

Even though NESCAUM had not run SMOKE/Mobile6 for a ny of the complete projection years, we ran a day worth of each year: 1) to test compatibility of compiled data with SMOKE/Mobile6 system and 2) to examine trends in su bmitted projection data. As seen in the Figure 1 and Figure 2, VMT increases 10~20% compare d to the base year (i.e. year 2002) for the most of states whereas speed remains the same excep t for NY and PA.

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

C o n n e c t i c u t

D e l a w a r e

D i s t r i c t o f C o l u m b i a M a i n e
M a r y l a n d

M a s s a c h u s e t t s

N e w H a m p s h i r e

N e w J e r s e y

N e w Y o r k

P e n n s y l v a n i a

R h o d e I s l a n d

V e r m o n t M i l l i o n s

M i l l i o n s

M i l l i o n s

M i l l i o n s

V M T

VMT_02 VMT_09 VMT_12 VMT_185 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

C o n n e c t i c u t

D e l a w a r e

D i s t r i c t o f C o l u m b i a M a i n e
M a r y l a n d

M a s s a c h u s e t t s

N e w H a m p s h i r e

N e w J e r s e y

N e w Y o r k

P e n n s y l v a n i a

R h o d e I s l a n d

V e r m o n t T h o u s a n d s

T h o u s a n d s

T h o u s a n d s

T h o u s a n d s

S p e e d

SPD_02 SPD_09 SPD_12 SPD_18
Figure 1. VMT(upper) and Speed (lower) for one day (August 1) of year 2002, 2009, 2012, and 2018

0

200 400 600 800 1000 1200

C o n n e c t i c u t

D e l a w a r e

D i s t r i c t o f C o l u m b i a M a i n e
M a r y l a n d

M a s s a c h u s e t t s

N e w H a m p s h i r e

N e w J e r s e y

N e w Y o r k

P e n n s y l v a n i a

R h o d e I s l a n d

V e r m o n t T P D

NOx_02 NOx_09 NOx_12 NOx_186 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000

C o n n e c t i c u t

D e l a w a r e

D i s t r i c t o f C o l u m b i a M a i n e
M a r y l a n d

M a s s a c h u s e t t s

N e w H a m p s h i r e

N e w J e r s e y

N e w Y o r k

P e n n s y l v a n i a

R h o d e I s l a n d

V e r m o n t T P D

CO_02 CO_09 CO_12 CO_18
Figure 2. NOx(upper) and CO (lower) emissions for o ne day (August 1) of year 2002, 2009, 2012, and 2018

Despite VMT increases, NO x and CO emissions decrease dramatically due to futu re-year control programs. Emissions decrease a bit more slo wly after 2009 given fewer anticipated controls during post-2009 years.

NOx reductions seen from Figure 2 can be verified i n the spatial (by county) NOx emission maps which were calculated using SMOKE/Mobile6 for August 1 of each year. As region wide emissions decreased by years, emissions from high e mission areas (e.g. urban centers) decreased, as well.7Figure 3. Spatial distribution of emissions from SMOKE/Mobile6 (August 1, NOx)