# APPENDIX C1

Technical Support Document for the Development of the

2007 Emission Inventories for Regional Air Quality Modeling

in the Northeast/Mid-Atlantic Region Version 3.3 (AMEC Environment & Infrastructure and SRA International, Inc. for MARAMA, January 2012)

Bureau of Air Quality Department of Environmental Protection

### [This page intentionally left blank.]

# Technical Support Document

for the

Development of the 2007

Emission Inventory
for Regional Air Quality Modeling

in the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region

Version 3.3

Prepared for:

Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association (MARAMA)

8600 LaSalle Road, Suite 636 Towson, MD 21286 (443) 901 -1882

January 23, 2012 MARAMA Contract Agreement FY2011-004

Submitted by

AMEC Environment & Infrastructure SRA International, Inc. 4021 Stirrup Creek Drive 652 Peter Jefferson Parkway

Suite 100 Suite 300 Durham, NC 27703 Charlottesville, VA 22911

919 381 -9900 571 499-0833

### Acknowledgements

This work was supported by funds provided to MARAMA by the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency under assistance agreement XA 97351101 – Regional Cooperation and Assistance for

Clean Air Act Implementation and by MARAMA’s Memorandum of Agreement with the Ozone

Transport Commission (OTC), which is funded by USEPA grant agreement XA973181 –

R egional Haze Planning in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic States (CFDA 66.034).

About MARAMA

The Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association, Inc. is a voluntary, non-profit

association of ten state and local air pollution control agencies. MARAMA's mission is to

strengthen the skills and capabilities of member agencies and to help them work together to

prevent and reduce air pollution in the Mid-Atlantic Region. MARAMA provides cost-effective

approaches to regional collaboration by pooling resources to develop and analyze data, share

ideas, and train staff to implement common requirements.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page i



## Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION

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

1.1 INVENTORY PURPOSE

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

1.2 POLLUTANTS

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

1.3 SOURCE CATEGORIES

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

1.4 DATA FORMATS

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

1.5 SUMMARY OF INVENTORY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

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

1.6 REPORT ORGANIZATION

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

2.0 ANNUAL 2007 INVENTORY FOR POINT SOURCES

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

2.1 INITIAL DATA SOURCES AND QA REVIEW

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

2.1.1 Initial State NIF Submittals

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

2.1.2 EPA CAMD Hourly Emissions Data

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

2.2 PM AUGMENTATION

................................ .................................................................... 9

2.2.1 EGU PM Augmentation

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

2.2.1.1 EGU Condensable Emission Factors

................................................................ . 12
2.2.1.2 EGU Heat Input

................................ ................................................................ . 14

2.2.1.3 EGU PM Emission Calculations

......................................................................... 14

2.2.2 NONEGU PM Augmentation

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

2.2.2.1 Initial QA and Remediation of PM Pollutants

...................................................... 17
2.2.2.2 Updating of PM Factor Ratios

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

2.2.2.3 NonEGU PM Emission Calculations

................................................................... 18

2.3 EMISSION RELEASE POINT QA CHECKS

................................................................... 20

2.3.1 QA Checks and Gap-Filling for Location Coordinates

............................................ 20

2.3.2 QA Checks and Gap-Filling for Emission Release Parameters

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

2.4 IDENTIFICATION OF EGU S 

### AND NONEGU S



### ............................................................... 26

2.5 VERSION 2

- STAKEHOLDER COMMENT AND RESPONSE

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

2.5.1 Connecticut Response to Stakeholder Comments

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

2.5.2 Maryland Response to Stakeholder Comments

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

2.5.3 Massachusetts Response to Stakeholder Comments

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

2.5.4 New Jersey Response to Stakeholder Comments

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

2.5.5 New York Response to Stakeholder Comments

.................................................... 30

2.5.6 Pennsylvania Response to Stakeholder Comments

............................................... 30

2.5.7 Virginia Response to Stakeholder Comments

........................................................ 31

2.6 VERSION 2

- ADDITIONAL STATE-SPECIFIC UPDATES

............................................ 32

2.6.1 Connecticut

............................................................................................................ 32

2.6.2 Delaware

............................................................................................................... 33

2.6.3 District of Columbia

................................ ................................................................ 33

2.6.4 Maine

..................................................................................................................... 33

2.6.5 Maryland

................................................................................................................ 33Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page ii



### 2.6.6 Massachusetts

....................................................................................................... 33

2.6.7 Maine

..................................................................................................................... 34

2.6.8 New Hampshire

................................ ..................................................................... 34

2.6.9 New Jersey

............................................................................................................ 34

2.6.10 Pennsylvania – Allegheny County

...................................................................... 34

2.6.11 Pennsylvania - Philadelphia

............................................................................... 35

2.6.12 Rhode Island

................................ ...................................................................... 35

2.6.13 Vermont

............................................................................................................. 35

2.6.14 Virginia

............................................................................................................... 35

2.7 VERSION 3 REVISIONS

................................ ............................................................... 36

2.7.1 Emission Offsets

................................ .................................................................... 36

2.8 ANNUAL 2007 POINT SOURCE EMISSION SUMMARY

............................................... 36

3.0 HOURLY 2007 INVENTORY FOR LARGE POINT SOURCES

.......................................... 44

3.1 DATA SOURCES FOR HOURLY EMISSIONS

.............................................................. 44

3.1.1 2007 Annual Emission Inventory

............................................................................ 44

3.1.2 EPA CAMD Hourly Database

................................................................................. 44

3.1.3 Virginia Hourly Data for Distributed Generation Units

............................................ 45

3.1.4 Maryland Hourly Data for Six Month Reporters

...................................................... 45

3.2 METHODOLOGY FOR DEVELOPING HOURLY SMOKE FILES

.................................. 46

3.2.1 Conversion of Annual NIF Inventory to SMOKE ORL Format for PTINV

................ 46

3.2.2 PTHOUR Methodology for 12 Month Reporters

..................................................... 49

3.2.3 PTHOUR Methodology for 6 Month Reporters

....................................................... 50

3.2.4 PTHOUR Methodology for Maryland 6 Month Reporters

....................................... 51

3.2.5 PTHOUR Methodology for Virginia Distributed Generation Units

........................... 52

3.2.6 QA of PTINV and PTHOUR Files

........................................................................... 52

3.3 DEVELOPMENT OF HOURLY PROFILES FOR 6-MONTH REPORTING UNITS

.......... 53

3.3.1 Annual Profile Preparation

..................................................................................... 53

3.3.2 Non-Annual Profile Development

........................................................................... 55

3.3.3 Issue for Consideration

.......................................................................................... 56

3.4 VERSION 2

- STATE AND STAKEHOLDER REVIEW

................................................... 56

3.4.1 Massachusetts

....................................................................................................... 56

3.4.2 New York

............................................................................................................... 56

3.4.3 Pennsylvania

......................................................................................................... 57

3.4.4 Virginia

.................................................................................................................. 57

3.5 VERSION 3 REVISIONS

................................ ............................................................... 58

3.5.1 Massachusetts Stony Brook Energy Center NH3 Emissions

.................................. 58

4.0 ANNUAL 2007 INVENTORY FOR AREA SOURC ES

........................................................ 59

4.1 AREA SOURCE CATEGORIES

..................................................................................... 59

4.2 USEPA AREA SOURCE DATA

..................................................................................... 64Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page iii



### 4.2.1 USEPA 2008 National Emission Inventory

............................................................. 65

4.2.2 EPA Residential Wood Combustion (RWC) Tool

................................................... 65

4.2.3 EPA CMU Agricultural Ammonia Model

................................................................ . 66

4.2.4 EPA SMARTFIRE Emissions Database

................................................................ . 66

4.3 STATE-SPECIFIC DATA

................................ ............................................................... 67

4.4 VERSION 2: STATE AND STAKEHOLDER REVIEW AND COMMENT

......................... 72

4.4.1 National Park Service Comments

.......................................................................... 72

4.4.2 Checks for Missing Categories, Double Counting, Outliers, and Differences

between 2002 and 2007 Inventories

.................................................................................. 72

4.5 VERSION 3 REVISIONS

................................ ............................................................... 73

4.5.1 Use of New USEPA Road Dust Equation

............................................................... 73

4.5.2 Use of MOVES Model to Estimate Stage II Emissions

........................................... 74

4.5.3 Connecticut Changes for Fuel Combustion

............................................................ 75

4.5.4 Connecticut Revisions for AIM Coatings and Auto Refinishing

............................... 76

4.5.5 District of Columbia Residential Wood Combustion

............................................... 77

4.5.6 Maryland Degreasing VOC Emisions

..................................................................... 77

4.5.7 Massachusetts NH3 Emisions

............................................................................... 77

4.5.8 New Jersey Bakeries and Auto Refinishing VOC Emisions

.................................... 77

4.5.9 New York VOC Emisions from Residential Wood Combustion

............................... 77

4.5.10 Pennsylvania Industrial Coal Combustion

.......................................................... 77

4.5.11 Pennsylvania Residential Distillate Oil Combustion

............................................ 77

4.5.12 Virginia Industrial Coal Combustion

................................................................... 77

4.5.13 Multiple States Open Burning and Commercial Cooking

.................................... 78

4.6 ANNUAL 2007 AREA SOURCE EMISSION SUMMARY

................................................ 78

5.0 ANNUAL 2007 INVENTORY FOR NONROAD SOURCES INCLUDED IN THE NONROAD

MODEL

..................................................................................................................................... 87

5.1 NONROAD MODEL CA TEGORIES

............................................................................... 87

5.2 VERSION 2 INVENTORY DEVELOPMENT

.................................................................. 87

5.2.1 State Review of NMIM Meteorology Data and Fuel Characteristics

....................... 87

5.2.2 Update of NMIM Allocation Files for Population and Housing

................................ 88

5.2.3 State-Specific Data Incorporated in NMIM

............................................................. 89

5.2.3.1 Connecticut

........................................................................................................ 89

5.2.3.2 Delaware

........................................................................................................... 89

5.2.3.3 Maryland

............................................................................................................ 90

5.2.3.4 New Hampshire

................................ ................................................................ . 90

5.2.4 New Jersey

............................................................................................................ 90

5.2.4.1 New York

........................................................................................................... 90

5.2.4.2 Pennsylvania

................................ ..................................................................... 91

5.2.5 NMIM Run Specification

........................................................................................ 91

5.2.6 State and Stakeholder Review of Version 2

........................................................... 92Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page iv



### 5.2.6.1 Connecticut

........................................................................................................ 92

5.2.6.2 New Jersey

........................................................................................................ 92

5.2.7 Removal of Airport Ground Support Equipment Emissions

.................................... 92

5.3 CHANGES MADE FOR VERSION 3

.............................................................................. 92

5.4 SUMMARY OF NMIM MODELING RESULTS FOR 2007

.............................................. 92

6.0 ANNUAL 2007 INVENTORY FOR NONROAD SO URCES –MARINE VESSELS,

AIRPORTS, AND RAIL

.......................................................................................................... 102

6.1 COMMERCI AL MARINE VESSELS

............................................................................. 102

6.2 AIRPORTS (AIRCRAFT AND GROUND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT)

............................. 104

6.3 RAILROAD LOCOMOTIVES AND RAILYARDS

.......................................................... 106

6.4 STAKEHOLDER REVIEW AND COMMENT

................................................................ 107

6.5 VERSION 3 REVISIONS

................................ ............................................................. 107

6.5.1 New Jersey MAR Revisions

................................................................................. 107

6.5.2 Adjustment of Rail VOC Emissions

...................................................................... 108

6.6 SUMMARY OF MAR INVENTORY FOR 2007

............................................................. 108

7.0 ANNUAL 2007 INVENTORY FOR ONROAD SOU RCES

................................................. 116

7.1 OVERALL PROCESS TO DEVELOP THE ONROAD INVENTORY

............................. 116

7.2 MOVES MODEL RUN SPECIFICATIONS AND DOCUMENTATION

........................... 116

7.3 SUMMARY OF ONROAD INVENTORY

....................................................................... 116

8.0 PREPARATION OF SMOKE MODEL FILES

................................................................... 124

8.1 PREPARATION OF SMOKE EMISSION FILES

........................................................... 124

8.1.1 Point Source SMOKE Emission Files

................................................................... 124

8.1.2 Area Source SMOKE Emission Files

................................................................... 125

8.1.3 Nonroad NMIM SMOKE Emission Files

............................................................... 127

8.1.4 Nonroad MAR SMOKE Emission Files

................................................................ 127

8.1.5 Onroad SMOKE Emission Files

........................................................................... 127

8.1.1 Biogenic SMOKE Emission Files

......................................................................... 127

8.1.1 SMOKE Emission Files for Areas Outside of the MANE-VU+VA Region

............. 127

8.2 REVIEW OF SMOKE AUXILIARY FILES

..................................................................... 127

8.2.1 SMOKE Speciation Files

...................................................................................... 128

8.2.2 SMOKE Spatial Allocation Files

........................................................................... 128

8.2.3 SMOKE Temporal Allocation Files

....................................................................... 129

9.0 FINAL DELIVERABL ES

................................ ................................................................... 131

10.0 REFERENCES

................................................................................................................ 136Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page v



## List of Appendices

Appendix A CAMD to NIF Crosswalk Aug12_2010.xls

Appendix B Technical Memorandum - EFs for CPM from EGUs.doc

Appendix C SCC_Control_Device_PM_Ratios.xls

Appendix D Stack_SCC_Defaults.xls

Appendix E VDEQ Conceptual Description for DG draft March 15, 2010.doc

Appendix F NESCAUM 2007 2020 MOVES modeling 20111209 PM.doc

Appendix G Stage_II_Controls.xlsx

Appendix H MANEVU_VA SMOKE QA Memo 17Dec2010.doc



## List of Exhibits

Exhibit 2. 1 – PM Compound Descriptions

Exhibit 2. 2 – PM Compounds Reported in State Initial Submittals

Exhibit 2. 3 - Emission Factors Used to Estimate EGU Condensable PM Emissions

Exhibit 2. 4 – Cases and Steps Required to Augment EGU PM Emissions

Exhibit 2. 5 – Cases and Steps Required to Augment nonEGU PM Emissions

Exhibit 2. 6 - Stack Parameter Data Replacement Matrix

Exhibit 2. 7 – 2002 and 2007 Point Source CO Emissions by State

Exhibit 2. 8 – EGU and nonEGU 2007 Point Source CO Emissions by State

Exhibit 2. 9 – 2002 and 2007 Point Source NH3 Emissions by State

Exhibit 2. 10 – EGU and nonEGU 2007 Point Source NH3 Emissions by State

Exhibit 2. 11 – 2002 and 2007 Point Source NOx Emissions by State

Exhibit 2. 12 – EGU and nonEGU 2007 Point Source NOx Emissions by State

Exhibit 2. 13 – 2002 and 2007 Point Source PM10-PRI Emissions by State

Exhibit 2. 14 – EGU and nonEGU 2007 Point Source PM10-PRI Emissions by State

Exhibit 2. 15 – 2002 and 2007 Point Source PM25-PRI Emissions by State

Exhibit 2. 16 – EGU and nonEGU 2007 Point Source PM25-PRI Emissions by State

Exhibit 2. 17 – 2002 and 2007 Point Source SO2 Emissions by State

Exhibit 2. 18 – EGU and nonEGU 2007 Point Source SO2 Emissions by State

Exhibit 2. 19 – 2002 and 2007 Point Source VOC Emissions by StateTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page vi



### Exhibit 2. 20 – EGU and nonEGU 2007 Point Source VOC Emissions by State

Exhibit 3.1 – SMOKE ORL Format for PTINV

Exhibit 3.2 – SMOKE EMS-95 Traditional Foramt for Individual Hour-Specific Files

Exhibit 3.3 – Example Application of Calculated Ratios for Actual 2007 by Month

Exhibit 3.4 - Example SMOKE Profile for Monthly Distribution of New York Annual Emissions Using Heat Input

Exhibit 3.5 - Example SMOKE profile for Adjusted Monthly Distribution of New York Seasonal Emissions Using Heat Input

Exhibit 4. 1 – Area Source Category Definitions

Exhibit 4.2 – Values Contained in the DATA_SOURCE Field of the EM Table

Exhibit 4.3 – Data Sources Generally Used by Each State for Each Area Source Category

Exhibit 4.4 – Comparison of 2007 Paved Road Dust PM10 and PM2.5 Emission Estimates

Exhibit 4.5 – Comparison of 2007 Vehicle Refueling Emissions using NMIM and MOVES

Exhibit 4.6 – 2002 and 2007 Area Source CO Emissions by State

Exhibit 4.7 – 2007 Area Source CO Emissions by Category and State

Exhibit 4.8 – 2002 and 2007 Area Source NH3 Emissions by State

Exhibit 4.9 – 2007 Area Source NH3 Emissions by Category and State

Exhibit 4. 10 – 2002 and 2007 Area Source NOx Emissions by State

Exhibit 4. 11 – 2007 Area Source NOx Emissions by Category and State

Exhibit 4.12 – 2002 and 2007 Area Source PM10-PRI Emissions by State

Exhibit 4.13 – 2007 Area Source PM10-PRI Emissions by Category and State

Exhibit 4.14 – 2002 and 2007 Area Source PM25-PRI Emissions by State

Exhibit 4.15 – 2007 Area Source PM25-PRI Emissions by Category and State

Exhibit 4.16 – 2002 and 2007 Area Source SO2 Emissions by State

Exhibit 4.17 – 2007 Area Source SO2 Emissions by Category and State

Exhibit 4.18 – 2002 and 2007 Area Source VOC Emissions by State

Exhibit 4.19 – 2007 Area Source VOC Emissions by Category and State

Exhibit 5.1 – Gasoline Fuel Record Types Add to MySQL NCD Database

Exhibit 5.2 – Sources of Population and Housing Data

Exhibit 5.3 – 2002 and 2007 NMIM/NONROAD CO Emissions by State

Exhibit 5.4 – 2007 NMIM Source CO Emissions by Category and State

Exhibit 5.5 – 2002 and 2007 NMIM/NONROAD NH3 Emissions by StateTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page vii



### Exhibit 5.6 – 2007 NMIM Source NH3 Emissions by Category and State

Exhibit 5.7 – 2002 and 2007 NMIM/NONROAD NOx Emissions by State

Exhibit 5.8 – 2007 NMIM Source NOx Emissions by Category and State

Exhibit 5.9 – 2002 and 2007 NMIM/NONROAD PM10-PRI Emissions by State

Exhibit 5.10 – 2007 NMIM Source PM10- PRI Emissions by Category and State

Exhibit 5. 11 – 2002 and 2007 NMIM/NONROAD PM25-PRI Emissions by State

Exhibit 5.12 – 2007 NMIM Source PM25- PRI Emissions by Category and State

Exhibit 5. 13 – 2002 and 2007 NMIM/NONROAD SO2 Emissions by State

Exhibit 5.14 – 2007 NMIM Source SO2 Emissions by Category and State

Exhibit 5. 15 – 2002 and 2007 NMIM/NONROAD VOC Emissions by State

Exhibit 5.16 – 2007 NMIM Source VOC Emissions by Category and State

Exhibit 6.1 – Data Sources for Commercial Marine Vessel Inventory

Exhibit 6.2 – Data Sources for Airport Inventory

Exhibit 6.3 – Data Sources for Railroad Locomotive and Railyard Inventory

Exhibit 6.4 – 2002 and 2007 MAR CO Emissions by State

Exhibit 6.5 – 2002 and 2007 MAR NH3 Emissions by State

Exhibit 6.6 – 2002 and 2007 MAR NOx Emissions by State

Exhibit 6.7 – 200 2 and 2007 MAR PM10-PRI Emissions by State

Exhibit 6.8 – 2002 and 2007 MAR PM25-PRI Emissions by State

Exhibit 6.9 – 2002 and 2007 MAR SO2 Emissions by State

Exhibit 6.10 – 2002 and 2007 MAR VOC Emissions by State

Exhibit 7.1 – MOVES Modeling Approach by State

Exhibit 7.2 – 2002 and 2007 Onroad CO Emissions by State

Exhibit 7.3 – 2002 and 2007 Onroad NH3 Emissions by State

Exhibit 7.4 – 2002 and 2007 Onroad NOx Emissions by State

Exhibit 7.5 – 2002 and 2007 Onroad PM10-PRI Emissions by State

Exhibit 7.6 – 2002 and 2007 Onroad PM25-PRI Emissions by State

Exhibit 7.7 – 2002 and 2007 Onroad SO2 Emissions by State

Exhibit 7.8 – 2002 and 2007 Onroad VOC Emissions by State

Exhibit 8.1 – Comparison of 2007 Area Source Emissions With and Without the Application of the Fugitive Dust Transport FactorTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page viii



### Exhibit 9.1 – NIF Data and Emission Summary Files for the 2007 MANE-VU+VA Emission Inventory

Exhibit 9.2 – SMOKE Files for the 2007 MANE-VU+VA Emission InventoryTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page ix



## Acronyms and Abbreviations

Acronym Description

CAMD Clean Air Markets Division ( US EPA)

CAP Criteria Air Pollutant

CEM Continuous Emission Monitoring

CMV Commercial Marine Vessel

CO Carbon Monoxide

EGU Electric Generating Unit

ERTAC Eastern Regional Technical Advisory Co mmittee

FIPS Federal Information Processing Standard

GSE Ground Support Equipment

MANE

- VU Mid

- Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union

MANE

- VU+VA MANE

- VU States plus Virginia

MAR Marine, Airport, Rail

MARAMA Mid

- Atlantic Regional Air Management Association

MOBILE6 USEPA model

MOVES Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator

NAICS North American Industry Classification System code

NCD National County Database

NEI National Emission Inventory

NESCAUM Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management

NH3 Ammonia

NIF3.0 National Emission Inventory Input Format Version 3.0

NMIM National Mobile Input Model

N O F3.0 National Emission Inventory Output Format Version 3.0

NONROAD USEPA model

NOx Oxides of nitrogen

OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (USEPA)

ORL One

- record

- per

- line (SMOKE Format)

OTAQ Office of Transportation and Air Quality ( US EPA)

PFC Portable Fuel Container

PM

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

PM

- FIL Primary PM, Filterable portion only

PM

- PRI Primary PM, includes filterables and condensable s

PM

- PRI= PM

- FIL + PM

- CON

PM10

- FIL Primary PM10, Filterable portion only

PM10

- PRI Primary PM10, includes filterables and condensable s

,

PM10

- PRI = PM0

- FIL + PM

- CONTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page x

Acronym Description

PM25

- FIL Primary PM2.5, Filterable portion only

PM25

- PRI Primary PM2.5, includes filterables and condens a bles

PM25

- PRI= PM25

- FIL + PM

- CON

RWC Residential Wood Combustion

SEMAP Southeast Modeling, Analysis and Planning

SIC Standard Industrial Classification code

SIP State Implementation Plan

SCC Source Classification Code

S/L State/local

SMOKE Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions

SO2 Sulfur Dioxide

USEPA U.S Environmental Protection Agency

VISTAS Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the Southeast

VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled

VOC Volatile O rganic C ompoundsTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 1



## 1.0 INTRODUCTION

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

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

the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic/Northeast region. The region includes the Mid-Atlantic /

Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU) area plus Virginia. In this document, this region

will be referred to as the MANE-VU+VA region. The MANE-VU+VA region includes

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

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

Local air planning agencies include Philadelphia and Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.

1.1 INVENTORY PURPOSE

The MANE-VU+VA regional inventory will be used to concurrently address national

ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) requirements for the new ozone and fine particle

ambient standards and to evaluate progress towards long-term regional haze goals. Similar

poll utant emissions and atmospheric processes control chemical formation and transport of

ozone, fine particles, and regional haze. Therefore, similar technical analyses are

necessary to evaluate air quality benefits of emissions controls. The emissions inventory

will support a single integrated, one-atmosphere air quality modeling platform to support

State air quality attainment demonstrations.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has provided guidance on

developing emission inventories to be used with models and other analyses for

demonstrating attainment of air quality goals for ozone, fine particles, and regional haze

( US EPA 2007a). According to the USEPA guidance, there are potentially two different

base year emissions inventories. One is the base case inventory which represents the actua l

emissions for the meteorological period that is being modeled. Th is inventory is generally

used for model performance evaluations. The second potential base year inventory is

c alled the baseline inventory, which is generally used as the basis for projecting emissions

to the future. The base case inventory may include day specific information (e.g. hourly

continuous emission monitoring data for point sources) that USEPA considers

in appropriate for using in future year projections. Therefore, the baseline inventory may

need to replace the day specific emissions with average or “typical” emissions (for certain

types of sources). For the 2007 MANE-VU+VA inventory, the base case and baseline

inventories are one in the same.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 2



### 1.2 POLLUTANTS

The inventory includes annual emissions for carbon monoxide (CO), ammonia (NH3),

oxides of nitrogen (NOx), particulate matter (PM), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and volatile

or ganic compounds (VOC). The PM species in the inventory are categorized as: filterable

and condensable particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10

and 2.5 micrometers (i.e., PM10-PRI and PM25-PRI); filterable particles with an

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

FIL and PM25-FIL); and condensable particles (PM-CON). Note that PM10-PRI equals

the sum of PM10-FIL and PM-CON, and PM25-PRI equals the sum of PM25-FIL and

PM -CON.

1.3 SOURCE CATEGORIES

Emission inventory data from five general categories are needed to support air quality

modeling: stationary point-sources, stationary area-sources, on -road mobile sources,

nonroad mobile sources (including aircraft, railroad, and marine vessels), and

biogenic/geogenic emissions. These sectors are described as follows:

Point Sources are individual facilities and are further subdivided by stack,

emission unit (“point”), and emission process (“segment”). The point source data

include source-specific information on the location of sources (e.g.,

latitude/longitude coordinates); stack parameters (stack diameter and height, exit

gas temperature and velocity); type of emission process (Source Classification

Code {SCC}); and annual emissions. Point sources were classified as electric

generating units (EGUs) and non-electric generating units (nonEGUs). Most point

source emissions data is certified by the facility and reported to the State agency or

USEPA.

Stationary Area Sources include sources that in and of themselves are small, but

in aggregate may comprise significant emissions. Examples include emissions

fr om small industrial/commercial facilities, residential heating furnaces, VOCs

volatizing from house painting or consumer products, gasoline service stations, and

agricultural fertilizer/pesticide application. Emissions were calculated using

e mission factors and activity data on a county and source category basis.

On -road Mobile Source emissions include sources of air pollution from internal

combustion engines used to propel cars, trucks, buses, and other vehicles on public

roadways. Emissions were calculated by the Northeast States for Coordinated AirTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 3



### Use Management (NESCAUM) using the USEPA Motor Vehicle Emission

Simulator (MOVES) model in concert with vehicle miles traveled (VMT) data.

Non-road Mobile Sources include internal combustion engines used to prope l

marine vessels, airplanes, and locomotives, or to operate equipment such as

forklifts, lawn and garden equipment, portable generators, etc. For activities other

than marine vessels, airplanes, and locomotives, the inventory was developed using

the most current version of US EPA’s NONROAD model as embedded in the

Na tional Mobile Inventory Model (NMIM). Since the NONROAD model does not

include emissions from marine vessels, airplanes, and locomotives, these emissions

were estimated using the latest USEPA guidance or by groups such as the Eastern

R egional Technical Advisory Committee (ERTAC).

Biogenic emissions are emitted by natural sources, such as plants, trees, and soils.

The sharp scent of pine needles, for instance, is caused by monoterpenes, which are

VOCs. The USEPA developed estimates of biogenic emissions from vegetation for

na tural areas, crops, and urban vegetation. The USEPA estimates take into account

the geographic variations in vegetation land cover and species composition, as well

as seasonal variations in leaf cover.

For all sectors, emissions data were compiled on an annual basis to represent 2007 actual

emissions and meteorology. For certain large EGUs and nonEGUs, actual hourly 2007

emissions data were adapted for use in the inventory. For sources with emissions

estimated by NONROAD model, emissions were compiled as monthly total emissions.

For sources included in the MOVES model, emissions will be compiled on an hourly basis.

1.4 DATA FORMATS

The annual mass emissions inventory files were prepared in the National Emissions

Inventory (NEI) Output Format Version 3.0 (NOF 3.0). The se annual emission inventories

will be converted (through the emissions modeling process) from their original resolution

(e .g., annual, county level) to input files for air quality models. These input files generally

require emissions to be specified by model grid cell, hour, and model chemical species.

The emission modelers in the MANE-VU+VA region are using the Sparse Matrix

Operator Kernel Emissions (SMOKE) modeling system and data formats. Ancillary files

(holding spatial, temporal, and speciation profile data) were prepared in SMOKE

compatible format. Various spreadsheets summarizing emissions by county, sector, SCC,

a nd pollutant were also prepared.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 4



### 1.5 SUMMARY OF INVENTORY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

Work on Version 1 of the 2007 MANE-VU+VA inventory began in April 2009.

Preparation of the consolidated inventory for point, area, onroad, and nonroad sources

started with the inventories submitted by State and local (S/L) as well as input files needed

by the NONROAD and MOVES models. For certain area and nonroad source categories,

the S/L submittals were supplemented 2008 NEI data. In addition, the Carnegie Mellon

Ammoni a model was exercised to calculate agricultural ammonia emissions. Work

pr oducts developed by ERTAC were used including the USEPA wood smoke tool and the

Ar ea Source emission factor harmonization project.

The USEPA’s format and content quality assurance (QA) programs (and other QA checks

not included in USEPA’s QA software) were run to identify format and/or data content

iss ues (EPA, 2004). The Contractor worked with the S/L agencies and the staff of the MidAtlantic Regional Air Management Association (MARAMA) to resolve QA issues and

augment the inventories to fill data gaps in accordance with the Quality Assurance Project

Plan prepared for this project.

W ork on Version 2 began with a stakeholder review process. Version 1 inventory and

summ ary files were provided for stakeholder review between October 2009 and August

2010. Stakeholder comments were reviewed by the S/L agencies and revisions to the

inventory files were made to incorporate stakeholder comments as approved by each S/L

a gency. Other corrections, revisions, or updates were supplied by the S/L agencies, which

resulted in the publication of Version 2 of the 2007 inventor y in February 2011

(MARAMA 2011).

Further revisions to the 2007 inventory were made in late 2011. The most significant

c hanges were to use an improved emission estimation methodology for re-entrained road

dust from paved roads, incorporate vehicle refueling emissions as calculated by MOVES,

amd correct errors used in the NMIM modeling of nonroad emissions. Other revisions

were made to correct minor errors or revisions to selected categories as identified by the

S/L agencies. These revisons resulted in the publication of Version 3 of the 2007

inventory in December 2011.

1.6 REPORT ORGANIZATION

This report documents the development of Version 1 of the 2007 inventory, as well as the

revisions made during the Version 2 and Version 3 update cycles. Sections 2 and 3 of this

TSD pre sent the general and State-specific methods and data sources used to develop the

MANE-VU+VA 2007 annual inventory for point sources and hourly emissions for largeTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 5



### point sources, respectively. Sections 4 through 7 present the methods and data used to

develop the inventory for area sources, nonroad marine vessel/airport/locomotive sources,

nonroad sources included in the NONROAD model, and onroad sources included in the

MOVES model. Section 8 documents the inventory, temporal allocation, speciation, and

spatial allocation modeling input files used for the MANE-VU+VA 2007 inventory for all

sectors. Section 9 identifies the file names for all final deliverable products. References

for the TSD are provided in Section 10.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 6



## 2.0 ANNUAL 2007 INVENTORY FOR POINT SOURCES

2.1 INITIAL DATA SOURCES AND QA REVIEW

The 2007 annual point source inventory was developed using the 2007 inventories that S/L

agencies submitted to MARAMA and data from the USEPA’s Clean Air Markets Division

(CAMD ) hourly emissions database.

2.1.1 Initial State NIF Submittals

State and local (S/L) agencies prepared and submitted emission inventory files in the

National Emissions Inventory (NEI) Input Format Version 3.0 (NIF 3.0). The NIF format

includes eight tables: Transmittal (TR), Site (SI), Emission Unit (EU), Emission Release

Point (ER), Emission Process (EP), Emission Period (PE), Emission (EM), and Control

Equipment (CE). States were requested to submitted 2007 data for those major sources

that they would normally submit to USEPA during the 3-year requirements of the

Consolidated Emission Reporting Rule. All 13 MANE-VU+VA agencies submitted point

source inventories to MARAMA. In addition, Allegheny and Philadelphia Counties in

Pennsylvania each submitted their own point source inventories.

Upon receipt of the NIF submittals, the Contractor performed an initial review of the S/L

inventor ies with the following QA checks:

EPA’s Basic Format and Content Checker tool was used to verify format and check

for referential integrity and duplicate record issues. Only very minor issues were

identified and were resolved by the Contractor without the need for S/L assistance.

Facility-level comparisons were made between the MANE- VU /V ISTAS Best and

Final 2002 inventories and the S/L 2007 submittals to identify facilities included in

the 2002 inve ntory but not in the 2007 inventory. For four S/L agencies (NY, PA,

Alleg heny and Philadelphia Counties), the number of facilities included in the 2007

were far less than the number of facilities reported in 2002. These S/L agencies

provided revised files with a lower facility emission cutoff level to ensure that all

major sources were included in the 2007 inventory. S/L agencies were asked to

review this list and confirmed that facilities not in the 2007 inventory were either

closed or included in the area source inventory.

Facility-level comparisons were made between the MANE- VU /V ISTAS 2002

inventories and the S/L 2007 submittals to identify facilities included in the 2007

inventory but not in the 2002 inventory. S/L agencies verified the reasonableness

of this list of sources.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 7



### Facility-level comparisons were made between the MANE- VU /V ISTAS 2002

inventories and the S/L 2007 submittals to identify facilities that were included in

both the 2002 inventory and 2007 inventory. Facility-level emission changes were

calculated, large differences between 2002 and 2007 emissions were flagged, and

S/L agencies reviewed and confirmed the reasonableness of the emission changes

be tween 2002 and 2007.

Facility-level ammonia emissions were obtained from the USEPA 2007 Toxic

Release Inventory (USEPA 2009a) and were compared to the ammonia emissions

in t he S/L agency submittal. S/L agencies review ed the TRI data to ensure tha t
large (> 100 tons per year) ammonia sources we re included in the 2007 MANEVU+VA inventory.

Following this initial QA review, these individual inventory files were consolidated into a

single NIF database. S/L responses and updates to the inventory files resulting from the

initial QA review are discussed later in this document.

2.1.2 EPA CAMD Hourly Emissions Data

The second source of data was the hourly emissions data reported to USEPA by facilities

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

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

infor mation from the CAMD web site in May 2009.

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

inventory to facilities and units in the 2002 MANE- VU Version 3 inventory. In the CAMD

inventor y, the Office of Regulatory Information Systems (ORIS) identification (ID) code

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

engines (i.e., turbines and reciprocating engines). MARAMA sent an Excel Workbook to

each S/L agencies that contained an initial crosswalk with the ORIS ID and unit ID in the

CAMD inventory matched to the state and county FIPS, state facility ID, and EU ID in the

2002 MAN E- VU Version 3 inventory. The crosswalk contained the annual 2007 NOx,

S O2, and heat input (except for those units that are required to report for only 6 months,

wherein the data were for the 6 month period). The crosswalk also included other

infor mation from the 2002 MANVEU inventory, including stack and location coordinates.

Agencies reviewed and confirm ed /cor rect ed /supplement ed the information in the

crosswalk, provided annual 2007 emissions for the 6-month CAMD reporting units, and

pr ovided 2007 annual emissions for other CAPs and NH3.

The crosswalk was provided to the Contractor who updated the crosswalk as follows:Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 8



### In most of the S/L inventories, the state and county FIPS and state facility ID

together identify unique facilities and the EU ID identifies 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. To

pr ovide a better linkage between the CAMD data and the S/L inventories, the

C ontractor worked with States to establish the crosswalk at the EU ID / EP ID / ER

ID. This effort resulted in a much better linkage between the CAMD and S/L

inventories.

In several cases, the EU ID / EP ID / ER ID identifiers in the 2002 MANVU

inventory were changed in the 2007 S/L agency submittals. The Contractor worked

with t he S/L agencies to correct these broken linkages by updating the EU ID / EP

ID /ER ID identifies as necessary.

The Contractor downloaded the 2007 CAMD hourly inventory containing hourly

NOx and SO2 emissions and heat input data from the CAMD website (USEPA

2009 b ). The Contractor summed the hourly emissions to the annual level (or 6-

month level for 6 -month reporting units) by emission unit. The summed hourly

data was compared to the annual summary data, which matched in virtually all

cases. This check was made because MARAMA is considering using the actual

2007 hourly data rather than average temporal profiles in the next round of regional

air quality modeling.

As another QA check, the Contractor compiled a list of sources with EGU SCCs of

1 -01 -xxx-xx and 2-01-xxx-xx in the State NIF tables that could not be linked to the

C AMD table. States review ed this list and verified that there are no large EGUs

mi ssing from the CAMD to NIF crosswalk.

The Contractor prepared a CAMD- to

- NIF crosswalk spreadsheet for each State.

Aagencies were asked to review this list and verify that (1) the linkages are correct, (2)

there are no large sources missing from the CAMD- to -NIF crosswalk, and (3) there are not

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

SEMAP database.

There are three types of possible linkages:

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

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

of the NOx and 0.07% of the SO2 emissions in the CAMD database.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 9



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

C AMD database. In most cases the sum of the emissions from the matching

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

S/L agencies verified that linkages were correct.

As another QA check, the Contractor compiled a list of sources with EGU SCCs of 1-01-

xxx -xx and 2-01-xxx-xx in the S/L agency NIF tables that could not be linked to the

C AMD CEM table to help resolve some of the linkage issues noted above. S/L agencies

made significant efforts to improve the crosswalk between the CAMD identifiers and the

S /L agency identifiers. Appendix A contains the current version of the crosswalk.

2.2 PM AUGMENTATION

PM compounds may be reported in several forms, as identified in Exhibit 2.1. Exhibit 2.2

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

S ubmittal by type of PM compound. The PM augmentations process was necessary to

g ap-fill missing PM pollutant complements. For example, if a S/L agency provided only

PM10-PRI emissions, the PM augmentation process filled in the PM25-PRI emissions.

A second aspect of the PM augmentation process wa s to utilize improved condensable

emission factors for EGUs. Condensable emissions were not calculated uniformly across

all states in the MANE -VU region in the 2002 emissions inventory. Because of the need to

model the effect of condensable emissions on regional haze and fine particles, MARAMA

instructed the Contractor to use recently updated emission factors for condensable

e missions from EGUs.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 10



### Exhibit 2.1

– PM Compound Descriptions

Pollutant Code Pollutant Pollutant Description

PM

- CON Primary PM

Condensable portion only (all < 1 micron) Material that is vapor phase at stack conditions, but which condenses and/or reacts upon cooling and dilution in the ambient air to form solid or liquid PM immediately after discharge from the stack.

PM

- FIL Primary PM, Filterable

portion only Particles that are directly emitted by a source as a solid or liquid at stack or release conditions and captured on the filter

of a stack test train.

PM

- PRI Primary PM, includes

filterables and

condensable s PM

- PRI=

PM

- FIL + PM

- CON Particles that enter the atmosphere as a direct emission from a stack or an open source. It is comprised of two components: Filterable PM and Condensable PM.

PM10

- FIL Primary PM10,

Filterable portion only Particles with an aerodynamic diameter equal to or less than 10 micrometers that are directly emitted by a source as a solid or liquid at stack or release conditions and captured on
the filter of a stack test train.

PM10

- PRI Primary PM10,

includes filterables and

condensable s, PM10

- PRI =

PM0

- FIL + PM

- CON Particles with an aerodynamic diameter equal to or less than 10 micrometers that enter the atmosphere as a direct emission from a stack or an open source. It is comprised of two components: Filterable PM and Condensable PM. (As specified in § 51.15 (a)(2), These two PM components are the components measured by a stack sampling train such as
USEPA Method 5.)

PM25

- FIL Primary PM2.5,

Filterable portion only Particles with an aerodynamic diameter equal to or less than 2.5 micrometers that are directly emitted by a source as a solid or liquid at stack or release conditions and captured on
the filter of a stack test train.

PM25

- PRI Primary PM2.5,

includes filterables and

condensable s PM25

- PRI=

PM25

- FIL + PM

- CON Particles with an aerodynamic diameter equal to or less than 2.5 micrometers that enter the atmosphere as a direct emission from a stack or an open source. It is comprised of two components: Filterable PM and Condensable PM. (As specified in § 51.15 (a)(2) , These two PM components are the components measured by a stack sampling train such as
USEPA Method 5.)Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 11



### Exhibit 2.2

– PM Compounds Reported in State Initial Submittals

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

Agency PM

- CON PM

- FIL PM

- PRI PM10

- FIL PM10

- PRI PM25

- FIL PM25

- PRI

CT 1

--- --- --- 122 1,300

--- 5

DE 449

--- --- 886 756 734 699

DC 70

--- --- 70 70 70 70

ME

--- 9

--- 1,150

--- 1,053

---

MD 1,265

--- --- 3,543 3,750 3,040 2,477

MA

--- --- 6 6,614

--- 5,930

---

NH

--- 463

--- 464

--- 461

---

NJ

--- --- 5,966

--- 5,848

--- ---

NY

--- --- 1,220

--- 1,201

--- ---

PA

--- --- --- --- 5,738

--- 3,949

Allegheny 2 434 881

--- 881

--- 836

---

Philadelphia

--- --- --- 1,178 27 351 21

RI 12 12 105 12 46 12 48

VT

--- 64

--- --- --- --- ---

VA 3

--- --- --- 5,204

--- 3,302

---

After reviewing the initial draft inventory that was posted in October, 2009, three agencies provided the

following changes to their initial submittals. These changes are reflected in the record counts in the above
table. The PM augmentation routine was re-executed to account for these changes.

1) Connecticut indicated that the PM records in their original submittal for oil and coal-fired boilers

should have been submitted as PM10-FIL and not PM10-PRI. All natural gas-fired units and oil-fired

turbines were correctly reported as PM10-PRI.
2) Allegheny County provided information on 31 additional facilities that were not included in their

original submittal.
3) Virginia indicated that all of the PM records in their original submittal used incorrect pollutant codes.

Records in the original submittal designated as PM10-PRI should have been submitted as PM10-FIL,

and PM25-PRI should have been PM25-FIL.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 12



### The PM augmentation process was divided into two components – the first applying to

EGUs and the second to all other point sources. EGUs were identified as those units that

supplied hourly data to USEPA’s CAMD database. Because of the differences in the

augmentation process for EGUs and nonEGUs, each process is discussed separately in the

following sections. The EGU process uses the updated condensable emission factors,

while the nonEGU process is essentially the same process used in developing the 2002

MANE-VU Version 3 inventory.

2.2.1 EGU PM A ugmentation

The EGU PM augmentation process utilized the recently updated condensable emission

fa ctors for EGUs developed for MARAMA in 2008. Appendix B contains the technical

memorandum describing how the emission factors were developed. The general process is

to use the emission factors and heat input to calculate the PM-CON emissions, and then to

perform the gap filling for compounds missing from the S/L submittal.

2.2.1.1 

### EGU Condensable Emission Factors

As described in Appendix B, two sets of emission factors were developed by 6-digit SCC

c orresponding to equipment type (boiler or IC engine) and fuel type. The first set is based

on all available source tests, while the second set includes only source tests where nitrogen

purging occurred. As described in more detail in Appendix B, in measuring condensable

PM from combustion of fuels containing sulfur, it has been shown by USEPA that SO2

collected in the impingers can be oxidized to sulfate and produce a variable sulfate artifact

that results in overestimation of condensable emissions. In this example, if impingers are

not purged with nitrogen, errors associated with the sulfate artifact may be inflated

resulting in an overestimation of condensable PM emissions.

Ex hibit 2.3 shows the emission factors considered for use in estimating EGU condensable

PM emissions. It shows the new emission factors developed using all available test data as

well as the emission factors based only on those tests that utilized a nitrogen purge. In

addition, emission factors are available from USEPA’s AP-42 emission factor document.

The emission factors actually used in the augmentation process are highlighted in bold in

Exhibit 2.3. Emission factors based on purged test were used where available; otherwis e

the e mission factors based on all tests were used. Since Appendix B did not provide a

condensable PM emission factors for residual oil, we used the AP-42 condensable PM

emission factor for residual oil.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 13



### Exhibit 2.3
- Emission Factors Used to Estimate EGU Condensable PM Emissions

Emission Factor (lbs/mmBtu)

SCC (6

- digit) SCC (6

- digit) Description MARAMA 1 All

Tests MARAMA 1

Purged Tests Only AP

- 42 2

1

- 01

- 001

1

- 02

- 001 Boiler / EGU / Anthracite Coal

Boiler / Industrial / Anthracite Coal 0.0084

--- ---

1

- 01

- 002

1

- 02

- 002

1

- 03

- 002 Boiler / EGU / Bituminous/ Sub

- butuminous Coal

Boiler / Industrial / Bituminous/Subbit. Coal

Boiler / Commercial / Bituminous/Subbit. Coal 0.022 0.013 0.04 to 0.37 3
depending
on sulfur

content

1

- 01

- 003

1

- 02

- 003 Boiler / EGU / Lignite

Boiler / Industrial / Lignite 0.039

--- 0.014

1

- 01

- 004

1

- 02

- 004 Boiler / EGU / #6 Fuel Oil

Boiler / Industrial / #6 Fuel Oil --- --- 0.01

1

- 01

- 005

1

- 02

- 005

1

- 03

- 005 Boiler / Industrial / #2 Fuel Oil

Boiler / Commercial / #2 Fuel Oil

Boiler / EGU / #2 Fuel Oil 0.014

--- 0.00928

1

- 01

- 006

1

- 02

- 006

1

- 03

- 006 Boiler / EGU / Natural Gas

Boiler / Industrial / Natural Gas

Boiler / Commercial / Natural Gas 0.00249

--- 0.00559

1

- 01

- 008 Boiler / EGU / Petroleum Coke 0.05

--- ---

2

- 01

- 001

2

- 01

- 009

2

- 02

- 009 IC Engine / EGU/ Fuel Oil

IC Engine / EGU/ Kerosene IC Engine / Industrial / Kerosene 0.013 0.01 0.0072

2

- 01

- 002

2

- 02

- 002

2

- 03

- 002 IC Engine / EGU / Natural Gas

IC Engine / Industrial/ Natural Gas IC Engine / Commercial / Natural Gas 0.005 0.0015 0.0047

1) Source: Emissions Factors for Condensable Particulate Matter Emissions from Electric Generating

Units ; memo dated August 20, 2008, from Arthur Werner (MACTEC) to Julie McDill (MARAMA). In accordance with USEPA guidance, CPM emissions determined from Method 202 tests that apply nitrogen purging are more reliable than results from tests where purging was not used. 2) Source: AP 42, Fifth Edition, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume 1: Stationary Point

and Area Sources

. 3) Based on typical bituminous sulfur content range of 0.7 to 4.0 % by weight. 4) Based on typical lignite sulfur content of 0.4 % by weight. 5) Bolded numbers are the emission factors actually used to calculated condensable emissions.

SCCs associated with CAMD units for which condensable emission factors were not available in the MARAMA report:

1- 01 -009 Boiler / EGU / Wood or Bark Waste

1- 01 -010 Boiler / EGU / LPG

1- 01 -012 Boiler / EGU / Solid Waste

1- 01 -013 Boiler / EGU / Liquid Waste

1- 02 -009 Boiler / Industrial / Wood or Bark Waste

1- 02 -010 Boiler / Industrial / LPG

1- 02 -014 Boiler / CO Boiler / Natural or Process Gas

3- 05 -007 Cement Manufacturing / Kilns

3- 06 -002 Petroleum Refining / Catalytic Cracking Units

3- 06 -012 Petroleum Refining / Fluid Coking Units

3- 90 -001 In -process Fuel / Anthracite Coal

3- 90 -012 In -process Fuel / Solid Waste

3- 99 -999 Misc. Industrial ProcessesTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 14



### While Appendix B only provides emission factors for electric generation SCCs (e.g., 1-01-

xxx -xx or 2-01-xxx-xx), a review of the S/L agency NIF submittals showed that several

other SCCs were used by EGUs. These additional SCCs are highlighted in italics in

Exhibit 3. Since these SCCs were associated with EGUs, it was assumed that emission

fa ctors would apply to these SCCs also.

Note also that there were several other SCCs associated with EGUs for which condensable

PM emission factors were not available. These SCCs are listed at the bottom of Exhibit

2.3. No special effort was made to evaluate condensable emissions for these SCCs; rather,

the State-supplied PM condensable emissions were used where available.

2.2.1.2 

### EGU Heat Input

In addition to the emission factors, the annual heat input in mm Btu/year by unit and fuel

type is also needed to calculate condensable PM emissions. Heat input was available from

two sources. The CAMD hourly database provides heat input, but there are two limitations

for each use in this analysis. First, the heat input is reported at the unit level and does not

provide a breakout of heat input for units using multiple fuels. Second, only a 6-month

heat input value is provided for those units only required to report for six months.

As an alternative to the CAMD heat input, the S/L NIF tables usually provide a fuel

process annual throughput which can be used to calculate the heat input using the heating

va lue of the fuel. By calculating the heat input using the NIF annual throughput, the

annual heat input is available by fuel type for both 6-month and 12-month reporting units.

Where NIF annual throughput was available, it was used to calculate the annual heat input

whic h was then used to calculate condensable PM emissions. In cases where the S/L NIF

tables do not provide an annual throughput, the CAMD heat input was assigned to the

primary fuel type and used in the condensable PM emission calculations.

2.2.1.3 

### EGU PM Emission Calculations

In addition to calculating the condensable PM emissions, the EGU PM augmentation also

gap-fills missing PM compounds. The gap-filling requires that the data be analyzed and

separated into cases. The cases determine which math steps and ratios of PM terms will be

applied. Exhibit 2.4 shows the various cases and the augmentation method that was

applied.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 15



### Exhibit 2.4

– Cases and Required Steps to Augment EGU PM Emissions

Case PM Reported Augmentation Methodology

1

--- None required; all PM compounds = 0

2 PM25

- PRI PM

- CON = HEAT_USED * EMIS_FACT

PM25

- PRI = PM

- CON (only if PM

- CON > PM25

- PRI)

PM25

- FIL = PM25

- PRI

- PM

- CON

PM10

- FIL = PM25

- FIL * F10_F25 ratio

PM10

- PRI = PM

- CON + PM10

- FIL

3 PM10

- PRI PM

- CON = HEAT_USED * EMIS_FACT

PM10

- PRI = PM

- CON (only if PM

- CON > PM10

- PRI)

PM10

- FIL = PM10

- PRI

- PM

- CON

PM25

- FIL = PM10

- FIL / F10_F25 ratio

PM25

- PRI = PM

- CON + PM25

- FIL

4 PM25

- PRI

PM10

- PRI PM

- CON = HEAT_USED * EMIS_FACT

PM10

- PRI = PM

- CON (only if PM

- CON > PM10

- PRI)

PM25

- PRI = PM

- CON (only if PM

- CON > PM25

- PRI)

PM10

- FIL = PM10

- PRI

- PM

- CON

PM25

- FIL = PM25

- PRI

- PM

- CON

5 PM10

- FIL PM

- CON = HEAT_USED * EMIS_FACT

PM10

- PRI = PM

- CON + PM10

- FIL

PM25

- FIL = PM10

- FIL / F10_F25 ratio

PM25

- PRI = PM

- CON + PM25

- FIL

6 PM10

- FIL

PM25

- FIL PM

- CON = HEAT_USED * EMIS_FACT

PM10

- PRI = PM

- CON + PM10

- FIL

PM25

- PRI = PM

- CON + PM25

- FIL

7 PM10

- FIL

PM10

- PRI

PM25

- FIL

PM25

- PRI PM

- CON = HEAT_USED * EMIS_FACT

8 PM

- PRI PM

- CON = HEAT_USED * EMIS_FACT

PM

- PRI = PM

- CON (only if PM

- CON > PM

- PRI)

PM

- FIL = PM

- PRI

- PM

- CON

PM10

- FIL = PM

- FIL * F10_FIL ratio

PM10

- PRI = PM

- CON + PM10

- FIL

PM25

- FIL = PM10

- FIL / F10_F25 ratio

PM25

- PRI = PM

- CON + PM25

- FIL

9 PM

- PRI

PM10

- PRI PM

- CON = HEAT_USED * EMIS_FACT

PM10

- PRI = PM

- CON (only if PM

- CON > PM10

- PRI)

PM10

- FIL = PM10

- PRI

- PM

- CON

PM25

- FIL = PM10

- FIL / F10_F25 ratio

PM25

- PRI = PM

- CON + PM25

- FIL

10 PM

- PRI

PM10

- FIL PM

- CON = HEAT_USED * EMIS_FACT

PM10

- PRI = PM

- CON + PM10

- FIL

PM25

- FIL = PM10

- FIL / F10_F25 ratio

PM25

- PRI = PM

- CON + PM25

- FILTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 16

Case PM Reported Augmentation Methodology

11 PM

- FIL PM

- CON = HEAT_USED * EMIS_FACT

PM10

- FIL = PM

- FIL * F10_FIL ratio

PM10

- PRI = PM

- CON + PM10

- FIL

PM25

- FIL = PM10

- FIL / F10_F25 ratio

PM25

- PRI = PM

- CON + PM25

- FIL

12 PM

- FIL

PM10

- FIL

PM25

- FIL PM

- CON = HEAT_USED * EMIS_FACT

PM10

- PRI = PM

- CON + PM10

- FIL

PM25

- PRI = PM

- CON + PM25

- FIL

13 PM

- CON

PM10

- FIL

PM25

- FIL PM10

- PRI = PM10

- FIL + PM

- CON

PM25

- PRI = PM25

- FIL + PM

- CON

14 PM

- CON

PM10

- FIL

PM10

- PRI PM25

- FIL = PM10

- FIL / F10_F25 ratio

PM25

- PRI = PMCON + PM25

- FIL

15 PM

- CON

PM10

- FIL

PM10

- PRI

PM25

- FIL

PM25

- PRI None required; all PM compounds present

16 PM

- CON

PM

- PRI None required; only one occurrence and emissions were trivial

17 PM

- CON

PM

- PRI

PM10

- FIL

PM10

- PRI

PM25

- FIL

PM25

- PRI None required; all PM compounds present

18 PM

- CON

PM

- FIL

PM

- PRI

PM10

- FIL

PM10

- PRI

PM25

- FIL

PM25

- PRI None required; all PM compounds presentTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 17



### 2.2.2 NONEGU PM Augmentation

The nonEGU PM augmentation process utilized the methodology developed for

MARAMA for the 2002 MANE-VU Version 3 inventory. The steps in the PM

augmentation process were as follows:

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

Step 2: Updating of PM factor ratios previously developed for MARAMA based on factors from the Factor Information and Retrieval (FIRE) Data System and the

USEPA PM Calculator (Appendix C provides the PM ratio table by SCC and

c ontrol device);

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

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

comment.

2.2.2.1 

### Initial QA and Remediation of PM Pollutants

Before we ran the nonEGU PM augmentation process, we review ed the data for

inconsistencies. Inconsistent values were be replaced. The consistency checks and

replacement actions were as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

inconsistencies did not involve significant emission sources. The replacement actions

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

2.2.2.2 

### Updating of PM Factor Ratios

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

particle size distribution data. These ratios are needed when only one PM term is available,Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 18



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

shown below:

PM -FIL × RatioCON/FIL = PM-CON

PM -PRI × RatioCON/PRI = PM-CON

PM -CON × RatioFIL/CON = PM-FIL

PM -CON × RatioPRI/CON = PM-PRI

For the MANE-VU 2002 inventory, a table of PM compound ratios was developed. The

development of this table is documented in the TSD for the 2002 MANE-VU SIP Modeling

Inventories, Version 3 . The primary deliverable of this step of the process was the

development of a table keyed by SCC, primary control device, and secondary control

device. This table is called the SCC Control Device Ratios table (Reference Tables

MANE- VU _PMAugmentation.mdb ). We updated this table to include SCC, primary

c ontrol device, and secondary control device codes found in the 2007 inventory that were

not contained in the 2002 MANE-VU inventory. Appendix C provides the PM ratio table

by SCC and control device.

2.2.2.3 

### NonEGU PM Emission Calculations

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

determine which math steps and ratios of PM terms will be applied. Exhibit 2.5 shows the

various cases and the augmentation method that was applied.

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

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

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

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

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

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

In these cases, PM10-PRI and PM25-PRI were set equal.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 19



### Exhibit 2.5

– Cases and Required Steps to Augment nonEGU PM Emissions

Case PM Reported Augmentation Methodology

1 PM25

- PRI PM

- CON = PM25

- PRI * CON_P25 ratio

PM25

- FIL = PM25

- PRI

- PM

- CON

PM10

- FIL = PM25

- FIL * F10_F25 ratio

PM10

- PRI = PM

- CON + PM10

- FIL

2 PM10

- PRI PM

- CON = PM10

- PRI * CON_P10 ratio

PM10

- FIL = PM10

- PRI

- PM

- CON

PM25

- FIL = PM10

- FIL / F10_F25 ratio

PM25

- PRI = PM

- CON + PM25

- FIL

3 PM25

- PRI

PM10

- PRI PM

- CON = PM10

- PRI * CON_P10 ratio

PM10

- FIL = PM10

- PRI

- PM

- CON

PM25

- FIL = PM25

- PRI

- PM

- CON

4 PM10

- FIL PM

- CON = PM

- CON * CON_F10 ratio

PM10

- PRI = PM

- CON + PM10

- FIL

PM25

- FIL = PM10

- FIL / F10_F25 ratio

PM25

- PRI = PM

- CON + PM25

- FIL

5 PM10

- FIL

PM25

- FIL PM

- CON = PM10

- FIL * CON_F10 ratio

PM10

- PRI = PM

- CON + PM10

- FIL

PM25

- PRI = PM

- CON + PM25

- FIL

6 PM10

- FIL

PM10

- PRI PM

- CON = PM10

- PRI

- PM10

- FIL

PM25

- FIL = PM10

- FIL * F25_F10 ratio

PM25

- PRI = PM

- CON + PM25

- FIL

7 PM25

- FIL PM

- CON = PM25

- FIL * CON_F25 ratio

PM10

- FIL = PM25

- FIL * F10

- F25 ratio

PM10

- PRI = PM

- CON + PM10

- FIL

PM25

- PRI = PM

- CON + PM25

- FIL

8 PM10

- FIL

PM10

- PRI

PM25

- FIL

PM25

- PRI PM

- CON = PM25

- PRI

- PM25

- FIL

9 PM

- PRI PM

- CON = PM

- PRI * CON_PRI ratio

PM

- FIL = PM

- PRI

- PM

- CON

PM10

- FIL = PM

- FIL * F10_FIL ratio

PM10

- PRI = PM

- CON + PM10

- FIL

PM25

- FIL = PM10

- FIL / F10_F25 ratio

PM25

- PRI = PM

- CON + PM25

- FIL

10 PM25

- FIL

PM25

- PRI PMCON = PM25

- PRI

- PM25

- FIL

PM10

- FIL = PM25

- FIL * F10_F25 ratio

PM10

- PRI = PM

- CON + PM10

- FIL

11 PM

- CON

PM10

- FIL

PM25

- FIL PM10

- PRI = PM

- CON + PM10

- FIL

PM25

- PRI = PM

- CON + PM25

- FILTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 20

Case PM Reported Augmentation Methodology

12 PM

- CON PM10

- FIL = PM

- CON * F10_CON ratio

PM25

- FIL = PM10

- FIL * F25_F10 ratio

PM10

- PRI = PM

- CON + PM10

- FIL

PM25

- PRI = PM

- CON + PM25

- FIL

13 PM

- CON

PM10

- FIL

PM10

- PRI PM25

- FIL = PM10

- FIL / F10_F25 ratio

PM25

- PRI = PMCON + PM25

- FIL

14 PM

- CON

PM10

- FIL

PM10

- PRI

PM25

- FIL

PM25

- PRI None required; all PM compounds present

15 PM

- CON

PM

- FIL PM10

- FIL = PM

- CON / CON_F10 ratio

PM25

- FIL = PM10

- FIL / F10_F25 ratio

PM10

- PRI = PM

- CON + PM10

- FIL

PM25

- PRI = PM

- CON + PM25

- FIL

16 PM

- CON

PM10

- PRI

PM25

- PRI PM10

- FIL = PM10

- PRI

- PM

- CON

PM25

- FIL = PM25

- PRI

- PM

- CON

17 PM

- FIL PM10

- FIL = PM

- FIL * F10_FIL ratio PM_CON = PM10

- FIL * CON_F10 ratio

PM25

- FIL = PM10

- FIL / F10_F25 ratio

PM10

- PRI = PM

- CON + PM10

- FIL

PM25

- PRI = PM

- CON + PM25

- FIL



### 2.3 EMISSION RELEASE POINT QA CHECKS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

parameters.

2.3.1 QA Checks and Gap-Filling for Location Coordinates

Because air quality modeling strives to replicate the actual physical and chemical processes

that occur in an inventory domain, it is important that the physical location of emissions be

determined as accurately as possible. The emission release (ER) point record is used to

re port the location and relevant physical attributes of the emission release point. LocationTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 21



### coordinates must be reported to identify where emissions are released to the ambient air,

via a stack or non-stack (e.g., fugitive release). For a non-stack, or fugitive release,

coordinates may represent the general location where emissions are released.

In the ER record, location data may be reported as x and y coordinates (X – Y) from either

of two coordinate systems - Latitude / Longitude (LATLON), or Universal TransMercator

(UTM). X - Y coordinates reported as Latitude and Longitude must be reported in the

decimal degree format. X - Y coordinates reported as UTM Easting and UTM Northing,

must be reported in kilometers.

UTM data received from MARAMA was processed by the Contractor Team and converted

to Latitude Measure and Longitude Measure in decimal degrees, as is required by the

SMOKE emissions processing system. All conversions of UTM to LATLON were made

using a spreadsheet 1 

### developed by Professor Steven Dutch, School of Natural and Applied

Sciences, University of Wisconsin - Green Bay. This spreadsheet tool allowed for batch

c onversion of UTM data to decimal degree format and was configured for WGS 84

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

more, the accuracy of the conversion is limited to the accuracy of the initial UTM data.

Once conversions were made to LATLON decimal degrees, reasonableness checks were

conducted on each release point relative to county centroids and min/max coordinates

associated with the FIPS codes assigned to each stack. If a stack was located outside the

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

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

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

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

was identified for further review.

2.3.2 QA Checks and Gap-Filling for Emission Release Parameters

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

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

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

proper air quality modeling. The USEPA’s QA guidance for diagnosing stack parameter

issues was generally 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

1 http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/FieldMethods/UTMSystem.htmTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 22



### fugitive), parameters with zero values, parameters not within the range of values specified

in t he USEPA’s QA procedures, and consistency checks (i.e., comparing calculated values

a gainst the values reported in the inventory). In many cases errors were caused by missing

or zero values.

The first step of our quality assurance (QA) involves review of the Emission Release Point

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

pa rameters, to replace values if necessary, and to fill-in missing data points. We employed

a routine that compared each emission release point parameter to a minimum and

maximum range of values and when that parameter was missing or was found to exist

outside of that range, we augmented the parameter. We also checked non-fugitive stack

parameters for internal consistency between:

stack height and diameter, and

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

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

parameters.

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

or internally inconsistent stack parameter s.

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

For fugitive emission release points (ERPTYPE=01), we first compared the existing

fugitive emission height against the following range thought to be representative of the

minimum and maximum values allowable for most fugitive emission release points.

F ugitive Release Height: 0.1 to 100 ft

In all but one case, the fugitive release height was valid. For that one case, we set the

fugitive release height to 100 feet. For all other cases, we kept the fugitive release height

and replaced all other stack parameters with the defaulted values listed below. In some

cases, the fugitive release height was blank but the S/L agency provided a stack height and

we retained the S/L supplied stack height. In other cases, the S/L agency provided a

temperature for the fugitive emissions and we retained the S/L supplied temperature. The

following summarizes the procedure for filling in stack parameters for fugitive emission

release points:Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 23



### Stack Height: use fugitive release height, if valid; if fugitive release height not

present and stack height provided, use the stack height; if neither fugitive release

height or stack height not present, use 10 feet as the default.

Stack Temperature: use temperature provided by S/L agency, if valid; otherwise

used 72 o 

### F.

Stack Diameter: use 0.003 feet for fugitive sources

Stack Velocity: 0.0003 feet per second for fugitive sources

Stack Flow: use 0.0 cubic feet per second for fugitive sources

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

missing stack heights and temperatures

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

set of the following ranges thought to be representative of the minimum and maximum

values allowable for most emission release points.

Stack Height: 0.1 to 1000 feet

Stack Temperature: 50 to 1,800 o 

### F

Stack Diameter: 0.1 to 50 f ee t

Missing or out-of range parameters were identified and evaluated. If not realistic, missing

or out-of range parameters were replaced using the procedures described below.

Stack Height: All stack heights were less than the maximum value of 1000 feet.

Numerous stack heights were zero or missing, in which case the stack height was

filled in using national default sets of physical parameter data based on the SCC.

The stack parameter national default database is included as Appendix D.

Stack Temperature: There were 30 records where the stack temperature exceeded

1,800 o 

### F. We reviewed the stack description table for these records, which

indicated that most of these stacks were for flares or furnaces. We deemed the S/L

supplied temperature data as plausible and retained the S/L provided value. There

were 100 records where the stack temperature was less than 50 o 

### F and not equal to

0 o 

### F or missing. We reviewed the stack description table for these records. Many

of these stacks were for refrigerated tanks or other sources where the S/L supplied

temperature data was deemed plausible. For example, a nylon manufacturing

facility in Virginia emits thousands of tons of NOx in 2007. Most of the NOx isTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 24



### emitted from a handful of fairly cold stacks, with exit gas temperatures generally

ranging from 40-60 degrees. Rather than replace these S/L supplied values that

seemed plausible with national defaults, we retained the S/L supplied data. Where

the stack temperature was reported as 0 o 

### F or missing, we replaced the stack

temperature with the national default based on the SCC.

Step 3: For non-fugitive emission release points, find and replace out-of-range or

m issing stack diameters, velocities, and flow rates

First, we evaluated the stack diameter to determine if it was within the valid range of 0.1 to

50 f ee t. There were 200 records where the stack diameter exceeded 50 f ee t. We reviewed

the stack description table for these records. Most of these were large storage tanks,

cooling towers, wastewater treatment ponds or area-type sources such as process

equipment leaks. Based on this review, we deemed the S/L supplied diameter data as

plausible and retained the S/L provided value.

There were 66 records with missing stack diameters where both the velocity and flow rate

were provided. For these records, the stack diameter was calculated using the following

equation:

Stack Diameter [ft] = SQRT ( 4 * Stack Flow [cu ft/sec] / (Stack Velocity [ft/sec] * π [Pi] ))



### For the remaining cases where the stack diameter was reported as zero or missing, we

replaced the stack diameter with the national default based on the SCC.

Next, the velocity and flow rate were evaluated. If the diameter, velocity and flow rate

were all non-zero, we assessed internal consistency between diameter, velocity and flow

rate using the following equation:

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



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

consistency was assumed and no additional steps were taken. If the internal consistency

was not met for velocity and flow rate, Exhibit 2.6 below provides details on the approach

taken to correct missing, out-of-range values, or internally inconsistent values for velocity

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

by calculation or the use of national defaults by SCC when necessary.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 25



### Exhibit 2.6 - Stack Parameter Data Replacement Matrix

(X = Data value present)

Diameter Velocity Flow Rate Action

- X X 1. Calculate diameter using velocity and flow rate.

2. Check that calculated diameter is within range.

- - - 1. Replace diameter, velocity, and flow rate with

national SCC default values.

- - X 1. Replace diameter, velocity, and flow rate with

national SCC default values.

- X

- 1. Replace diameter, velocity, and flow rate with

national SCC default values.

X

- - 1. Default velocity using national default sets.
2. Calculate flow rate using internal consistency

formula.

X

- X 1. Calculate velocity using internal consistency

formula.

2. Check that calculated velocity is within range (less than 150 ft/sec).
A. If calculated velocity is not within range, then default all 3 parameters using national

default sets.

X X

- 1. Check that velocity is within range (less than 150 ft/sec).
A. If velocity is within range, then:
> Calculate flow rate using internal consistency formula.
B. If velocity is not within range, then:
> Default all 3 parameters using national

default sets.

X X X 1. Check that velocity is within range (less than 150 ft/sec).

A. If velocity is within range and flow rate does not meet internal consistency for diameter, velocity and flow rate, then:
> Calculate flow rate using internal consistency formula.

B. If velocity is not within range, then:
> Calculate velocity using internal consistency

formula.

> C heck that calculated velocity is within range. If so, then default to calculated velocity.
> If calculated velocity is not within range, then default all 5 parameters using national default

set.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 26



### 2.4 IDENTIFICATION OF EGUs AND NONEGUs

In the past, point sources have been categorized as either EGUs or nonEGUs using a

variety of schemes. The SCC, standard industrial classification code (SIC), and North

American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code have been used to classify sources

as either EGU or nonEGU. Another scheme that has been used is to classify as EGU

sources that is required to report emissions to USEPA’s CAMD hourly emission database.

For consistency in both reporting and projecting emissions to the future, the MANEVU+VA inventory using the following scheme for classifying point sources:

CAMD EGU – these are units that report emissions to the USEPA CAMD hourly

emission database and have been classified by States as EGUs;

CAMD nonEGU - these are units that report emissions to the USEPA CAMD

hourl y emission database and have been classified by States as nonEGUs; and

OTHER – all other nonEGU point sources and small EGU point sources not

included in the above categories.

Data elements were add to the NIF EP table to include the above classification scheme.

This classification scheme was reviewed and approved by ERTAC.

2.5 VERSION 2 - STAKEHOLDER COMMENT AND RESPONSE

On O ctober 6, 2009, MARAMA provided a notice to stakeholders of the opportunity to

review the initial draft of the 2007 point source inventory data and documentation.

Stakeholders were invited to review and comment on the draft 2007 inventory of air

e missions from point sources to be used for regional air quality modeling. On October 20,

MARAMA hosted a conference call that provided an opportunity for stakeholders to ask

questions about the draft 2007 point source modeling inventory. Written comments were

reviewed by the State inventory staff and MARAMA, and result ed in several changes to

the draft documentation and inventory data. The changes requested by stakeholders and

approved by the States are summarized in the following subsections.

2.5.1 Connecticut Response to Stakeholder Comments

Sikorsky Aircraft provided comments on roughly ten sources regarding the SO2, PM, and

VO C emissions. The requested changes were very small (under a ton per year).

Connecticut accepted Sikorsky Aircraft’s comments.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 27



### Covanta Energy commented that the annual NOx emissions for the Covanta Bristol Unit

#1 (F acility ID 09003-0902, emission unit P0026) were abnormally low because of a

tempor ar y

pilot test of a NOx emission control technology. Covanta requested that 2005

emissions should be used since the 2007 actual emissions are not representative of

previous or subsequent years. Since the 2007 inventory is being used for air quality

modeling that will be tied to actual air quality data, Connecticut decided to use actual 2007

emission values rather than 2005 values as requested by Covanta. Connecticut will

consider this comment again during the development of the future year inventories to

ensure that reasonable future year emissions are estimated.

Hamilton Sundstrand commented that three emission units at its facility (Facility ID

09003-8602, emission units P0038, P0079, and R0097) were permanently shut down in

2008. Since the 2007 inventory is being used for air quality modeling that will be tied to

actual air quality data, Connecticut decided to use actual 2007 emission values.

C onnecticut will consider this comment again during the development of the future year

inventories to ensure that reasonable future year emissions are estimated.

NRG Energy provided very minor revisions to the SO2, NOx, CO, VOC, PM and NH3

emissions data for the Montville (Facility ID 09011-1505) and Norwalk (Facility ID

09001-4214) facilities. Connecticut accepted these changes.

2.5.2 Maryland Response to Stakeholder Comments

NRG Energy requested a change to the VOC emissions for the Vienna Power Generating

Station (Facility ID 019-0013, emission unit 4-0065). Maryland agreed to make the

change, revising the VOC emissions from 0.9455 to 0.9641 tons per year.

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company commented that the inventory for its facility in

Howard County (Facility ID 027-0223) has 12 internal combustion engines represented by

one grouped emission unit, which gives the impression that there is one large source when

there are actually 12 small er units. Maryland did not change the inventory based on this

comment since the 12 engines are nearly identical and identifying each engine individually

is not needed for the 2007 modeling inventory.

C ovanta Energy requested changes to the stack parameters for the three units at the

Montgomery County Resource Recovery Facility (Facility ID 031-1718). Maryland

agreed to make those revisions.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 28



### 2.5.3 Massachusetts Response to Stakeholder Comments

Saint Gobain Containers requested minor changes to the annual emissions and stack

parameters for its facility in Milford (Facility ID 25027-1200856). Massachusetts

accepted the changes and the 2007 inventory was updated to reflect the stakeholder

comments.

Verallia formerly (Saint Gobain Containers) also provided comments on the 2007 PM2.5

emissions for all sources and stated that they may not contain appropriate condensable

e missions. The company did not provide revised estimates or suggestions for improving

the estimates of condensable emissions. For facilities that did not report PM2.5 or

condensable emissions, the PM2.5 or condensable emissions were calculated using the

methodogy described in Section 2.2.2. MARAMA acknowledges that there is some

uncertainty regarding the methodology, but lacking source-specific data the methodology

is the best available technique at this time for filling in the missing PM2.5 or condensable

emissions.

Ve rallia formerly (Saint Gobain Containers) also indicated that stack flow rate data was

missing for their plants in Massachusetts. The facilities facilities did have stack velocity

data. This data gap was filled by calculating the flow rate using the stack diameter and the

stack exit velocity.

2.5.4 New Jersey Response to Stakeholder Comments

RRI Energy provided updated emissions and stack data for several of its facilities, mostly

minor changes to PM emission values and revisions to stack parameters. New Jersey

agreed to make the revisions provided by RRI Energy.

BASF identified that its plant in East Newark (Facility ID 34017-10419) was permanently

shut down and did not operate in 2007. New Jersey agreed and the 2007 emissions were

se t to zero.

Merck & Co., Inc indicated that its facility in Rahway, NJ (Facility ID 34039-41712)

emitted 3.42 tons/yr of ammonia emissions from their boilers in 2007. New Jersey agreed

and the ammonia emissions were added to the inventory.

Georgia Pacific Gypsum LLC submitted updates for its Camden facility (Facility ID

34007-51611) to correct the 2007 emissions based upon recent stack test data for board

dryer U7 and process emissions factors from kettles U3, U4 and U5. Total PM2.5

e missions were also updated using current AP-42 factors for the Gypsum industry. InTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 29



### addition, the ammonia emissions were missing from the inventory. New Jersey agreed to

make the requested changes.

E.R. Squibb & Sons, LLC, requested changes to the ammonia and PM2.5 emissions for its

facilities in Lawrenceville, NJ (Facility ID 34021-61052), New Brunswick, NJ (Facility ID

34023- 17739), and Hopewell (Facility ID 34021-61053). New Jersey agreed to make the

re que sted changes.

Schering Corporation supplied corrections to the ammonia emissions from its Kenilworth

facility (Facility ID 34039-41806). New Jersey agreed to make the requested changes.

ConocoPhillips Company provided revisions to ammonia and VOC emissions for the

Bayway Refinery (Facility ID 34039-41805). They also provided revisions to selected

SCCs for certain heaters, sulfur recovery units, truck loading activities, marine vessel

loading activities, and emergency flares. ConocoPhillips also requested that certain parts

of the refinery be modeled as area sources rather than point sources, and provided

rectangular grid coordinates to define the area sources. While this change would be

appropriate for a fence line modeling study, it cannot not be accommodated in a multiState regional air quality model since the SMOKE emission modeling system is not

capable of handling area sources that are smaller than the air quality model grid cell.

Therefore, this change was not made.

Covanta Energy requested minor revisions to the ammonia and PM emissions at the Union

County Resource Recovery Facility (Facility ID 34039-41814) and Warren Energy

Resource Facility (Facility ID 34041-85455). New Jersey agreed to make those revisions.

Air Engineering submitted comments on behalf of EF Kenilworth LLC (Facility ID 34029-

41741), requesting minor changes to PM emissions and revisions to stack parameters.

New Jersey agreed to make the requested changes.

Air Engineering submitted comments on behalf of Rowan University (Facility ID 34015-

55779), requesting adding ammonia emissions for its sources. New Jersey agreed to make

the requested changes.

Air Engineering submitted comments on behalf of The College of New Jersey (Facility ID

34021-61008), requesting adding ammonia emissions for its sources and revisions to stack

parameters. New Jersey agreed to make the requested changes.

Actavis requested the addition of 0.13 tons per year of ammonia for their facility (Facility

ID 34039-40295). New Jersey agreed to make the addition.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 30



### PSEG Power LLC requested changes to SCCs and stack parameters, as well as numerous

minor changes to emission estimates, for its facilities in New Jersey. New Jersey agreed to

make the revisions. PSEG also requested the units classified as “insignificant units” be

excluded from the modeling inventory. New Jersey elected to keep the emissions from

insignificant units in the inventory because the purpose of the inventory is to model all of

the emissions actually emitted in 2007.

MRPC/OEC-LES requested changes SCCs, ammonia and PM emissions, and stack

parameters for its facility (Facility ID 34029-78901). New Jersey agreed to make the

revisions.

2.5.5 New York Response to Stakeholder Comments

Covanta Energy provided updated PM emissions and stack data for several of its facilities,

mostly minor changes to PM emission values and revisions to stack parameters. New

York agreed to make the revisions provided by Covanta Energy.

NRG Energy provided updated PM emissions and stack data for its facilities. NRG Energy

a lso provided updated data for the individual turbine units at the Astoria Gas Turbine

P ower Plant (ORISID=55243). New York agreed to make the revisions provided by NRG

Energy. NRG Energy also noted that baghouses are being installed at the Dunkirk and

Huntley coal-fired plants. These changes were noted and will be accounted for in the

future year inventories.

2.5.6 Pennsylvania Response to Stakeholder Comments

Covanta Energy requested changes to stack parameters at the Delaware Valley (Facility ID

420450059), Lancaster County (Facility ID 420710145), Plymouth (420910295) and

Harrisburg (Facility ID 420430017) facilities. Covanta also requested minor changes to

the emission estimates at the Plymouth facility. Pennsylvania agreed to make those

revisions.

RRI Energy provided updated emissions and stack data for several of its facilities. The

most notable change was a significant increase in PM emissions at several coal-fired units.

Pennsylvania agreed to make the revisions provided by RRI Energy.

Saint Gobain Containers requested minor changes to the annual emissions and stack

parameters for its facility in Port Allegheny (Facility ID 420830006). Pennsylvania

accepted the changes and the 2007 inventory was updated to reflect the stakeholder

comments.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 31



### Verallia formerly (Saint Gobain Containers) also provided comments on the 2007 PM2.5

emissions for all sources and stated that they may not contain appropriate condensable

emissions. The company did not provide revised estimates or suggestions for improving

the estimates of condensable emissions. For facilities that did not report PM2.5 or

condensable emissions, the PM2.5 or condensable emissions were calculated using the

methodogy described in Section 2.2.2. MARAMA acknowledges that there is some

u ncertainty regarding the methodology, but lacking source-specific data the methodology

is the best available technique at this time for filling in the missing PM2.5 and condensable

emissions.

The National Lime Association requested changes to the PM emissions for four of their

member facilities: Mercer Lime & Stone (Facility ID 420190021), Graymont/Pleasant Gap

(Facility ID 420270003), Carmeuse Lime/Millard Lime (Facility ID 420750016), and

OWB Refractories (Facility ID 421330007). Pennsylvania accepted the changes and the

2007 inventory was updated to reflect the stakeholder comments.

Magnesita Refractories (formerly LWB Refractories) provided minor revisions to stack

data and PM emission estimates for the facility. Pennsylvania determined that no changes

to the 2007 inventory were needed since the PM2.5 emissions were small (about 20 tons

per year) and that PM2.5 emissions of this magnitude should not adversely impact the

results of regional air quality modeling analyses using these inventories.

Carmeuse Lime provided minor revisions to stack data and PM emission estimates for the

facility. Pennsylvania determined that no changes to the 2007 inventory were needed since

the PM2.5 emissions were small (about 10 tons per year) and that PM2.5 emissions of this

magnitude should not adversely impact the results of regional air quality modeling

analyses using these inventories.

2.5.7 Virginia Response to Stakeholder Comments

Virginia received comments from Covanta Energy and Transco requesting very minor

c hanges to the emissions for their facilities (generally less than 0.1 ton change in

emissions). Virginia decided not to make those changes because of the insignificant

impact on the regional modeling inventory.

BASF identified that its plant in Virginia is permanently shut down. Since it did operate in

2007, the actual 2007 emissions will be used for the 2007 modeling. Emissions from the

plant will be set to zero for future year inventories.

Michigan Cogen Systems requested minor changes to stack parameters for their facility.

Virg inia approved the requested changes.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 32



### Virginia received revised stack parameters for about 20 units at the Chemical Lime

Company’s Kimbalton Plant. Due to the location of this facility and the size of the

e missions in 2007, Virginia determined that the recommended changes should not affect

air quality modeling results for 2007.

Virginia received comments from Carmeuse Natural Chemicals regarding the PM2.5

emissions at two of its facilities in Virginia. Since the company did not provide PM2.5

e missions to Virginia, the PM2.5 emissions were calculated using the methodogy

described in Section 2.2.2. Virginia acknowledged that there is some uncertainty regarding

the methodology, but lacking sour ce -specific data the methodology is the best available

technique at this time for filling in the missing PM2.5 emissions. Virginia determined that

no changes to the 2007 inventory were needed since the PM2.5 emissions from these two

kilns were small (less than 20 tons per year) and that PM2.5 emissions of this magnitude

shoul d not adversely impact the results of regional air quality modeling analyses using

these inventories.

2.6 VERSION 2 - ADDITIONAL STATE-SPECIFIC UPDATES

S everal States and local agencies provided revisions and updates following their review of

the initial draft of the point source inventory posted in October, 2009. These changes are

summarized in the following subsections.

2.6.1 Connecticut

During the review of the initial draft 2007 inventory, Connecticut identified several

emission units with unexpectedly high emission values. Connecticut determined that its

original submittal had emissions adjusted for rule effectiveness. Since the 2007 inventory

is being used for air quality modeling that will be tied to actual air quality data,

Connecticut decided to use actual 2007 emission values rather than values that had been

artificially adjusted to account for rule effectiveness. The Contractor calculated the actual

emissions for all units with a non -zero rule effectiveness value by backing out the rule

effectiveness value. These actual emission values were supplied to Connecticut for review

and approval. Connecticut recommended that the actual emissions calculated by the

Contractor be used instead of the values originally supplied by Connecticut which included

rule effectiveness.

Connecticut indicated that some of the PM records in their original submittal used

incorrect pollutant codes. Connecticut indicated that the PM records in their original

submittal for oil and coal-fired boilers should have been submitted as PM10-FIL and not

PM10-PRI. All natural gas-fired units and oil-fired turbines were correctly reported asTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 33



### PM10-PRI. The PM augmentation routine described in Section 1.3 was re-executed for the

coal- and oil-fired units.

2.6.2 Delaware

No revisions to the initial inventory were requested or made.

2.6.3 District of Columbia

The District of Columbia made revisions to the emission inventory for Benning Road

(Facility ID 11001-0001). There are four emission units at the facility designated as Units

1, 2, 15, and 16. Units 15 and 16 report emissions to USEPA’s CAMD CEM database,

while units 1 and 2 do not. Units 1 and 2 were not included in the initial point source

inventory. These two units were added to the inventory and increased facility-wide SO2

emissions by about 100 tons per year and NOx emissions by 50 tons per year. Smaller

increases were added for the other pollutants.

2.6.4 Maine

Maine provided a small correction to the SO2 emissions for the Maine Independence

S tation (Facility ID 2301900115).

Maine provided small corrections to the SO2 and NOx emissions for Westbrook Energy

Center (Facility ID 2300500193). Also there was an error in the cross-reference between

the USEPA CAMD database and the State’s NIF database, which was corrected.

2.6.5 Maryland

No additional revisions beyond those requested by stakeholder were requested or made.

2.6.6 Massachusetts

An error in the PM augmentation routine was detected that incorrectly replaced Statereported PM25-FIL values. The Contractor reviewed the PM augmentation routine and

identifie d the error that affected “Case 5” nonEGU PM25-FIL and PM25-PRI values. This

error also affected numerous small sources in Massachusetts. The error was corrected and

the State-reported PM25-FIL values were retained during the PM augmentation process

and that the PM25-PRI values were correctly calculated using the State-reported PM25-

FIL value.

Massachusetts identified errors in the ammonia emissions for 2007 for the Stony Brook

Ene rgy Center (25013-0420001) and New Bedford Energy (25005 -1200634).

Massachusetts provided corrected ammonia emission estimates for these two facilities.

This change reduced ammonia emissions in Massachusetts by about 2,300 tons.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 34



### 2.6.7 Maine

Maine identified on error in the PM augmentation routine that incorrectly replaced Statereported PM25-FIL values. The Contractor reviewed the PM augmentation routine and

identifie d the error that affect ed “Case 5” nonEGU PM25-FIL and PM25-PRI values. The

error was corrected and the State-reported PM25-FIL values were retained during the PM

augmentation process and that the PM25-PRI values were correctly calculated using the

State-reported PM25-FIL value.

2.6.8 New Hampshire

An error in the PM augmentation routine was detected that incorrectly replaced Statereported PM25-FIL values. The Contractor reviewed the PM augmentation routine and

identifie d the error that affected “Case 5” nonEGU PM25-FIL and PM25-PRI values. This

error also affected numerous small sources in New Hampshire. The error was corrected

and the State-reported PM25-FIL values were retained during the PM augmentation

process and that the PM25-PRI values were correctly calculated using the State-reported

PM25-FIL value.

2.6.9 New Jersey

New Jersey identified numerous emission units that were inadvertently missing from their

initial submittal. Most of these units were flagged as “insignificant units” or “non-source

fug itive” sources in New Jersey’s data system and were excluded during the initial

conversion to NIF tables. New Jersey subsequently identified these “unmatched” units and

submitted pertinent data for inclusion in the 2007 modeling inventory. The Contractor

added these units and emissions to the NIF database. The emissions added to the inventory

fr om these units were about: 60 tpy of CO, 50 tpy of NOx, 672 tpy of PM10-PRI,257 tpy

of PM25-PRI, 5 tpy of SO2, and 1,477 tpy of VOC.

Ammoni a emissions were missing from New Jersey’s initial submittal. New Jersey

supplied the missing ammonia emissions, which added about 845 tpy of NH3 to the point

source inventory.

2.6.10 Pennsylvania – Allegheny County

Allegheny County’s initial 2007 submittal included only the five “very large” sources that

were submitted to USEPA for the 2007 NEI. After the release of the initial version of the

point source inventory in October, 2009, the agency provided a second submittal with an

addition 31 facilities. The second submittal was subjected to the QA and PM

augmentation procedures described previously in Sections 1.2 and 1.3 of this report.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 35



### 2.6.11 Pennsylvania - Philadelphia

P hiladelphia provided the following revisions to the initial draft inventory:

Boiler #3 at Sunoco Chemical Frankford Plant (Facility ID 4210101551 and

emission point 052) was linked to CAMD ORIS ID 880007 and boilerID 52.

VOC emissions at Cardone Industries (Facility ID 4210103887) were increased

from 75.96 to 143.98 tons per year.

2.6.12 Rhode Island

Rhode Island revised the emissions for Providence Metallizing Co. (Facility ID

44007AIR1230 and emission point 2). All emissions for this emission point were changed

to zero for 2007.

2.6.13 Vermont

No revisions to the initial inventory posted in October 2009 were requested or made.

2.6.14 Virginia

After the release of the initial version of the point source inventory in October, 2009, the

agency provided a second submittal with a number of addition al distributed generation

units. The second submittal was subjected to the QA and PM augmentation procedures

described previously in Sections 1.2 and 1.3 of this report. A flag was added to the EP

table to identify the distributed generation units for both the units in Virginia’s original

submittal as well as the new units.

Virginia indicated that all of the PM records in their original submittal used incorrect

pollutant codes. Records in the original submittal designated as PM10-PRI should have

been submitted as PM10-FIL, and PM25-PRI should have been PM25-FIL. The PM

augmentation routine described in Section 1.3 was re-executed after changing all PM10-

PRI to PM10-FIL and all PM25-PRI to PM25-FIL.

Virginia revised the PM data for the Mirant Potomac River Generating Station (SiteID:

51 -510-000 0 3 ) using 2007 condensable test data using the test method with the nitrogen

purge to replace the emission factors previously applied by the Contractor.

Virg inia requested that the plantID for the Dominion Leesburg Compressor Station be

changed from 51-107 -71978 to 51-107-01016.

Virginia requested that the plantID for the Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Station 175 be

changed from 51-065-40789 to 51-065-00016.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 36



### Virginia’s review of stack test data Greif Packaging LLC (51-009-00022) showed an

incor rect emissions factor applied in 2007. The 2007 emissions factor for CO was 54 lbs

CO/ton processed. The test factor was 5.6 lbs CO/ton processed. The 2007 data was

corrected using the lower emissions factor.

2.7 VERSION 3 REVISIONS

2.7.1 Emission Offsets

Mulitple states (CT, MA, MD, NH and NJ) added county level records account for account

e mission reduction credits (ERCs) issued to stationary sources pursuant to state regulation.

S tates provided ERCs on a county- by -county basis. Fictitious facilities with an identifier

of “OFFSET99999” were created for each county using SCC 23-99-000 -000

(miscellaneous industrial processes: not elsewhere classified) Stack data were developed

that a ssumed that emissions were released at the county centroid with an assumed release

height of 1 0 feet. For the 2007, ERC emissions were set to zero since the banked

e missions were not actually emitted in 2007. The ERCs will be included in the future year

inventor ies and air quality modeling analysis.

2.8 ANNUAL 2007 POINT SOURCE EMISSION SUMMARY

Exhibits 2. 7 to 2

. 20 present State-level summaries of 2002 and 2007 annual point source

e missions by pollutant and compare 2007 annual emissions from CAMD EGUs, CAMD

nonEG Us, and OTHER point sources. The 2002 emissions are those that were developed

previously for Version 3 of the MANE-VU and the VISTAS best-and-final inventory for

Virginia.

F or most States and pollutants, point source emissions have decreased from 2002 to 2007.

Notable exceptions are substantial increases in PM10 -PRI and PM25-PRI emissions in

Mar yland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. These increases are primarily due to a better

representation of condensable emissions in the 2007 inventory, especially for coal-fired

power plants. New data provided by these States confirm that condensable emissions were

underreported in the 2002 inventory.

In 2007, CAMD EGUs accounted for about 88% of SO2 emissions, 62% of NOx, 51% of

PM10-PRI, and 54% of PM25-PRI emissions. Non-CAMD reporting sources accounted

for 94% of VOC and 82% of CO emissions in 2007.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 37



### Exhibit 2.7

– 2002 and 2007 Point Source CO Emissions by State (tons/year)

STATE 2002 2007 Change

Connecticut 4,053 3,679

- 9%

Delaware 9,766 7,753

- 21%

District of Columbia 248 311 25%

Maine 17,005 14,483

- 15%

Maryland 99,032 81,770

- 17%

Massachusetts 21,641 10,108

- 53%

New Hampshire 2,725 3,164 16%

New Jersey 12,300 10,548

- 14%

New York 66,427 66,357 0%

Pennsylvania 121,524 101,440

- 17%

Rhode Island 2,234 1,653

- 26%

Vermont 1,078 2,146 99%

Virginia 70,688 70,353 0%

428,721 373,765

- 13%



### Exhibit 2.8

– EGU and nonEGU 2007 Point Source CO Emissions by StateTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 38



### Exhibit 2.9

– 2002 and 2007 Point Source NH3 Emissions by State (tons/year)

STATE 2002 2007 Change

Connecticut 0 0

Delaware 196 94

- 52%

District of Columbia 4 0

- 100%

Maine 845 665

- 21%

Maryland 305 137

- 55%

Massachusetts 1,578 6 47

- 59%

New Hampshire 74 128 73%

New Jersey 0 918

New York 1,861 2,417 30%

Pennsylvania 1,388 2,379 71%

Rhode Island 58 74 28%

Vermont 0 0

Virginia 3,230 1,830

- 43%

9,539 9,2 89

- 3%



### Exhibit 2.10

– EGU and nonEGU 2007 Point Source NH3 Emissions by StateTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 39



### Exhibit 2.11

– 2002 and 2007 Point Source NOx Emissions by State (tons/year)

STATE 2002 2007 Change

Connecticut 12,923 10,061

- 22%

Delaware 16,345 15,628

- 4%

District of Columbia 780 789 1%

Maine 19,939 17,746

- 11%

Maryland 95,369 74,890

- 21%

Massachusetts 48,607 23,628

- 51%

New Hampshire 9,759 7,441

- 24%

New Jersey 51,593 30,088

- 42%

New York 118,978 83,033

- 30%

Pennsylvania 297,379 258,379

- 13%

Rhode Island 2,764 1,444

- 48%

Vermont 787 811 3%

Virginia 147,300 112,938

- 23%

822,523 636,876

- 23%



### Exhibit 2.1 2

– EGU and nonEGU 2007 Point Source NOx Emissions by StateTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 40



### Exhibit 2.13

– 2002 and 2007 Point Source PM10-PRI Emissions by State (tons/year)

STATE 2002 2007 Change

Connecticut 1,617 1,350

- 17%

Delaware 4,217 3,465

- 18%

District of Columbia 161 59

- 63%

Maine 7,289 4,896

- 33%

Maryland 9,046 19,322 114%

Massachusetts 5,852 5,604

- 4%

New Hampshire 3,332 1,925

- 42%

New Jersey 6,072 7,642 26%

New York 10,392 9,507

- 9%

Pennsylvania 40,587 49,745 23%

Rhode Island 300 189

- 37%

Vermont 304 146

- 52%

Virginia 17,211 19,203 12%

106,380 123,053 16%



### Exhibit 2.14

– EGU and nonEGU2007 Point Source PM10-PRI Emissions by StateTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 41



### Exhibit 2.15

– 2002 and 2007 Point Source PM25-PRI Emissions by State (tons/year)

STATE 2002 2007 Change

Connecticut 1,283 1,242

- 3%

Delaware 3,666 3,107

- 15%

District of Columbia 132 53

- 60%

Maine 5,787 3,852

- 33%

Maryland 5,054 15,682 210%

Massachusetts 4,161 4,864 17%

New Hampshire 2,938 1,663

- 43%

New Jersey 4,779 6,821 43%

New York 7,080 5,999

- 15%

Pennsylvania 20,116 32,460 61%

Rhode Island 183 140

- 23%

Vermont 267 114

- 57%

Virginia 12,771 14,888 17%

68,217 90,885 33%



### Exhibit 2.16

– EGU and nonEGU 2007 Point Source PM25-PRI Emissions by StateTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 42



### Exhibit 2.17

– 2002 and 2007 Point Source SO2 Emissions by State (tons/year)

STATE 2002 2007 Change

Connecticut 15,988 7,971

- 50%

D elaware 73,744 43,088

- 42%

District of Columbia 963 612

- 36%

Maine 23,711 17,248

- 27%

Maryland 290,929 305,383 5%

Massachusetts 106,960 63,229

- 41%

New Hampshire 46,560 45,258

- 3%

New Jersey 61,217 40,703

- 34%

New York 294,729 152,751

- 48%

Pennsylvania 995,175 1,028,056 3%

Rhode Island 2,666 1,516

- 43%

Vermont 905 322

- 64%

Virginia 305,106 243,048

- 20%

2,218,653 1,949,185

- 12%



### Exhibit 2.18

– EGU and nonEGU 2007 Point Source SO2 Emissions by StateTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 43



### Exhibit 2.1 9

– 2002 and 2007 Point Source VOC Emissions by State (tons/year)

STATE 2002 2007 Change

Connecticut 4,907 1,590

- 68%

Delaware 4,755 3,489

- 27%

District of Columbia 69 59

- 14%

Maine 5,319 5,022

- 6%

Maryland 6,187 4,986

- 19%

Massachusetts 8,350 4,557

- 45%

New Hampshire 1,599 916

- 43%

New Jersey 16,547 10,526

- 36%

New York 11,456 10,891

- 5%

Pennsylvania 37,323 28,965

- 22%

Rhode Island 1,928 970

- 50%

Vermont 1,097 395

- 64%

Virginia 43,906 35,618

- 19%

143,443 107,984

- 25%



### Exhibit 2.2 0

– EGU and nonEGU 2007 Point Source VOC Emissions by StateTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 44



## 3.0 HOURLY 2007 INVENTORY FOR LARGE POINT SOURCES

The sources included in the hourly inventory include those that report hourly emissions to

USEP A’s CAMD database as required by market-based regulatory programs including the

USEP A Acid Rain and NOx Budget Trading Programs. In Virginia, the hourly inventory

a lso includes distributed generation (DG) units. These Virginia units are mainly internal

combustion engines that participate in a demand-response program. The hourly SO2,

NO x, and heat input data were used to prepare SMOKE files for modeling that used actual

2007 hourly emissions data.

3.1 DATA SOURCES FOR HOURLY EMISSIONS

The 2007 hourly point source inventory was developed using the 2007 annual emissions

inventory developed as discussed in Section 2 of this report, data from the USEPA’s

CAMD hourly emissions database, hourly emissions data provided by the Virginia

Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ), and hourly emissions data for 6-month

re porting units provided by the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE).

3.1.1 2007 Annual Emission Inventory

As described in Section 2 of this TSD, S/L agencies prepared and submitted emission

inventory files in the NIF format

. A crosswalk was developed to match facilities and units

in the USEPA CAMD hourly database to units in the 2007 Version 1 annual inventory.

This process is necessary because the data submitted by the S/L agencies and data

submitted by companies to CAMD do not use the same facility or boiler/unit identifiers to

identify a particular unit. The crosswalk matched a unit in the NIF annual inventory (using

the State, County, PlantID, PointID, StackID and SegmentID) with its counterpart in the

USEPA CAM D hourly database (using the ORISID and BoilerID ). As previously

discussed in Section 2, the final version of the crosswalk is included as Appendix A in this

TSD

. Complete documentation of the development of the annual inventory and crosswalk

table can be found in Section 2 of this report.

3.1.2 EPA CAMD Hourly Database

The second source of data was the hourly emissions data reported to USEPA by facilities

to comply with various provisions of the Clean Air Act. Affected facilities are required to

report hourly emissions of NOx and SO2, as well as other operational parameters such as

hourly emission rate, gross load and heat input. Some units are required to submit hourly

emissions data for both NOx and SO2 for the entire 12 month reporting period. Other

units are required to submit hourly emissions data only for NOx for the entire 12 month

reporting period. Still other units are required to submit hourly emissions data only forTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 45



### NOx for the 6 month ozone season. Finally, there are a very small number of units that

re port ed hourly emissions for a 9-month period. The USEPA CAMD hourly database is

subj ected to extensive QA/QC by both USEPA and the reporting facilities.

For this analysis, we used the “Part 75 Prepackaged Data Sets - hourly emissions data

for matted for use with the Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions (SMOKE) modeling

system”. The 2007 hourly data was obtained from the USEPA Clean Air Markets web site

(USEPA 2009c).

3.1.3 Virginia Hourly Data for Distributed Generation Units

The third set of data came from VDEQ. Distributed generation units are mainly internal

c ombustion engines that participate in a demand-response program. These are small units,

e ach usually no more than two or three megawatts in capacity, and they generally run on

distillate fuel oil. These units are not required to report hourly emissions to USEPA’s

C AMD. Most are permitted for well below 100 tons of NOx emissions annually and do

not run frequently. Annual emissions of NOx are usually not very large from these units.

However, ozone season daily emissions estimates from previous ozone SIPs show that

facilities that have one or more of these types of units can be quite significant NOx

emitters when examined on an ozone season daily basis.

In past modeling efforts, these units were either not included in the emission inventory, or

if they were included, were modeled using the SMOKE default temporal profile for the

given SCC. To improve the hourly temporal allocation for these units, VADEQ undertook

a substantial effort to develop hourly emission profiles using 2007 operations data obtained

from utilities for their demand response programs as well as other facility-specific data.

These data were used to create a 2007 profile for when these units generally operated.

VD EQ used these generic profiles to prepare SMOKE PTHOUR files for each DG unit

listed in the annual emissions inventory.

Complete documentation of the data sources and methods used by VDEQ is included as

Appendix E - VDEQ Conceptual Description for DG draft Feb 25, 2010.doc.

3.1.4 Maryland Hourly Data for Six Month Reporters

The final set of data came from the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE).

MDE f illed in the non-ozone season hourly emissions data for certain units that only

re ported ozone season hourly emissions to USEPA CAMD. MDE identified facilities

which reported only 6 months worth of data to CAMD and submitted requests to these

facilities for the missing 6 months of data. MDE provided the values in a CAMDformatted table similar to the Part 75 Prepackaged Data Set format.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 46



### 3.2 METHODOLOGY FOR DEVELOPING HOURLY SMOKE FILES

SMOKE requires two input files for processing hourly point source emissions:

PTINV File. Th is file contains annual emissions data, stack parameters,

geographic coordinates, and other information. This file can be in Inventory Data

Analyzer (IDA), Emission Modeling System-95 (EMS-95), or one-line-per record

(ORL) format. The ORL format from SMOKE Version 2.6 was selected for this

project and is shown in Exhibit 3. 1.

PTHOUR File. Th is file contains the hour-specific data. This file can be in either

EMS-95 format or Continuous Emissions Monitoring (CEM) format. The SMOKE

Version 2.6 EMS-95 traditional format was selected for this project and is shown in

Exhibit 3 .2

.

The following subsections describe how the PTINV ORL annual emissions file and the

PTHOUR EMS-95 hour-specific emission files were created.

3.2.1 Conversion of Annual NIF Inventory to SMOKE ORL Format for PTINV

The 2007 annual inventory was developed in NIF format. Flags were added to the NIF EP

table to indicate whether a unit was matched to a CAMD hourly unit or a Virginia DG unit.

Matching units in the NIF file were converted to SMOKE PTINV ORL format. To

facilitate QA of files and summarization of emissions, six different ORL files were created

for the following types of sources:

Annual emissions for units that reported hourly to USEPA CAMD for the entire 12 months of 2007;

Ozone season emissions for units that reported to USEPA CAMD for either 6 or 9

months of 2007 (except for 6 month reporting units in Maryland);

Non-ozone season emissions for units that reported to USEPA CAMD for either 6 or 9 months of 2007 (except for 6 month reporting units in Maryland);

Units that reported hourly to USEPA CAMD for the either 6 or 9 months of 2007 in Maryland;

Units that are classified as distributed generation units by VDEQ; and

All other units (these are not associated with the hourly PTHOUR files); temporal allocation for these units will be accomplished using the standard SMOKE V2.6 temporal allocation profiles.

The ORL files were quality assured to conform to the SMOKE PTINV ORL format and to

prevent double counting of emissions.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 47



### Exhibit 3. 1

–

SMOKE ORL Format for PTINV

Position Name Type Description

A FIPS Int Five digit FIPS code for state and county (required)

B PLANTID Char Plant Identification Code (15 characters maximum) (required; this is the same as the State Facility Identifier in the NIF)

C POINTID Char Point Identification Code (15 characters maximum) (re quired; this is the same as the Emission Unit ID in the NIF)

D STACKID Char Stack Identification Code (15 characters maximum) (recommended; this is the same as the Emissions Release Point ID in the NIF)

E SEGMENT Char DOE Plant ID (15 characters maximum) (recommended; this is the same as the Process ID in the NIF)

F PLANT Char Plant Name (40 characters maximum) (recommended)

G SCC Char Ten character SCC (required)

H ERPTYPE Char Emissions release point type (2 characters maximum); indicates type of stack (not used by SMOKE) 01 = fugitive

02 = vertical stack

03 = horizontal stack 04 = goose neck 05 = vertical with rain cap

06 = downward

- facing vent

I SRCTYPE Char Source type (not used)

J STKHGT Real Stack Height (ft) (required)

K STKDIAM Real Stack Diameter (ft) (required)

L STKTEMP Real Stack Gas Exit Temperature (°F) (required)

M STKFLOW Real Stack Gas Flow Rate (ft 3 /sec) (optional; automatically calculated by Smkinven from velocity and diameter if not given in file)

N STKVEL Real Stack Gas Exit Velocity (ft/sec) (required)

O SIC Int Standard Industrial Classification Code (recommended)

P MACT Char Maximum Available Control Technology Code (6 characters maximum) (optional)

Q NAICS Char North American Industrial Classification System Code (6 characters maximum) (optional)Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 48

Position Name Type Description

R CTYPE Char Coordinate system type (1 character maximum) (required) L = Latitude/longitude

S XLOC Real X location (required) ; Longitude (decimal degrees)

T YLOC Real Y location (required) ; Latitude (decimal degrees)

U UTMZ Int UTM zone ( not used )

V CAS Char Pollutant CAS number or other code (16 characters maximum) (required; this is called the pollutant code in the NIF)

W ANN_EMIS Real Annual Emissions (tons/year) (required)

X AVD_EMIS Real Average

- day Emissions (tons/average day) ( not

used )

Y CEFF Real Control Efficiency percentage (give value of 0

- 100) (recommended, if left blank, SMOKE default is 0)

Z REFF Real Rule Effectiveness percentage (give value of 0

- 100) (recommended, if left blank, SMOKE default is 100)

AA CPRI Int Primary Control Equipment Code (not used by SMOKE)

BB CSEC Int Secondary Control Equipment Code (not used by SMOKE)

CC NEI_UNIQUE_ID Char For units that report hourly emissions to CAMD, this

field contains a code to indicate how frequently the unit operated in 2007 (i.e., <15%, 15

- 50%, or >50% of available hours) For Virginia DG units, this field contains the descriptor “VA DG”.

For units that do not have an association in the PTHOUR file, this field contains the descriptor “NonHourly”.

DD ORIS_FACILITY_CODE Char DOE Plant ID (generally recommended, and required if matching to hour

- specific CEM data)

EE ORIS_BOILER_ID Char Boiler Identification Code (recommended)

Fields not currently used by SMOKE Version 2.6 after field position EE have been excluded from

the ORL file to reduce file size.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 49



### Exhibit 3.2

–

SMOKE EMS-95 Traditional Format for Individual Hour-Specific Files

Position Name Type Description

1

- 2 STID Int State FIPS Code (required)

3

- 5 CYID Int County FIPS Code (required)

6

- 20 FCID Char Facility ID (a.k.a. plant ID) (required )

21

- 32 SKID Char Point ID (required)

33

- 44 DVID Char Stack ID (required)

45

- 56 PRID Char Segment ID (required)

57

- 61 POLID Char Pollutant name (required)

62

- 69 DATE Char Date in MM/DD/YY format. Years less than 70 are treated as century 2000 (required)

70

- 72 TZONNAM Char Time zone name associated with emissions data. Valid entries are GMT, ADT, AST, EDT, EST, CDT, CST, MDT, MST, PDT, and PST. (required)

73

- 79 HRVAL1 Real Hourly emissions for hour 1 (short tons/hour) (required)

80

- 86 HRVAL2 Real Hourly emissions for hour 2 (short tons/hour) (required)

87

- 93 HRVAL3 Real Hourly emissions for hour 3 (short tons/hour) (required)

...

234

- 240 HRVAL24 Real Hourly emissions for hour 24 (short tons/hour) (required)

241

- 248 DAYTOT Real Daily emissions total (short tons/day)

249 Blank Blank Blank

250

- 259 SCC Char SCC (required).

261

- 276 DATNAM Char Blank



### 3.2.2 PTHOUR Methodology for 12 Month Reporters

For units that reported hourly data to USEPA CAMD for the entire 12 months of 2007, the

annual emissions in the PTINV ORL files were allocated to specific hours using the actual

NOx, SO2, and heat input-based hour-specific data in the USEPA CAMD database. This

ensured that the annual emission values provided by the S/L agencies were maintained and

distributed to specific hours using actual 2007 hourly data.

The methodology for creating the PTHOUR files is as follows. First, hourly SO2 and NOx

mass and heat input values in the USEPA CAMD database were summed for each unit toTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 50



### create annual values. Next, annual emission records in the ORL file were matched to a

corresponding hourly CAMD unit using the crosswalk file. The hourly values in the

PTHOUR file were calculated using the following equations, depending on the pollutant:

Hourly NOx emissions

Hourly PTHOUR NOx emissions = annual ORL NOx emissions * hourly CAMD NOx emissions

CAMD summed annual NOx emissions



### Hourly SO2 emissions for units with non-zero SO2 emissions in the CAMD database

Hourly PTHOUR SO2 emissions = annual ORL SO2 emissions * hourly CAMD SO2 emissions

CAMD summed annual SO2 emissions



### Hourly SO2 emissions for units with zero SO2 emissions in the CAMD database

Hourly PTHOUR SO2 emissions = annual ORL SO2 emissions * annual factor

Where annual factor = hourly CAMD heat input / annual summed CAMD heat input



### Hourly emissions for other pollutants (CO, NH3, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI, VOC)

Hourly PTHOUR POLL emissions = annual ORL POLL emissions * annual factor

Where annual factor = hourly CAMD heat input / annual summed CAMD heat input



### I f CAMD heat input data are not available, th e steam load was used instead, if available,

followed by gross load as a last resort.

3.2.3 PTHOUR Methodology for 6 Month Reporters

About 15 percent of the units in the 2007 CAMD hourly database only reported data for

the ozone season, i.e., the second and third quarters, as allowed by their reporting

requirements. The se units are referred to as 6-months units in this document. Two

separate PTINV ORL files were created – one for the 6-month ozone season and one for

the 6-month non-ozone season. The CAMD hourly data for these units were used to

de velop ozone season PTINV and PTHOUR files. For the non-ozone season, a PTINV file

was created and was used with re-adjusted SMOKE temporal profiles to develop hourly

e missions for the non-ozone season.

The CAMD hourly database for 6-month units contains NOx emissions, heat input and

other parameters for the 6 month period. The CAMD hourly data for April through

S eptember was used directly and was summed to calculate the ozone season NOx

emissions. To calculate the non-ozone season NOx emissions, total CAMD NOx

e missions for a 6-month unit was subtracted from the annual NOx emissions of the

corresponding unit in the S/L supplied NIF database. In some cases, the 6-month NOxTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 51



### emissions in the CAMD database were greater than the annual emissions in the S/L NIF

database. For those cases, non-ozone season emissions were set to zero.

Ozone season emissions of other pollutant are not available from the CAMD database.

These emissions were estimated based on a ratio of ozone season NOx emissions to annual

NOx emissions. This ratio was applied to the annual emissions from the NIF database. To

calculate the non-ozone season emissions for the other pollutants, the total ozone season

e missions for the 6-month unit was subtracted from the annual emissions reported for th at

unit in the S/L supplied NIF database. The PTHOUR files for the ozone season were

c reated as follows. First, hourly NOx mass and heat input values in the USEPA CAMD

database were summed for each unit to create ozone season values. Next, ozone season

emission records in the ORL file were matched to the hourly CAMD unit using the

crosswalk file. Hourly emissions were calculated using the following equations:

Hourly NOx emissions

Hourly PTHOUR NOx emissions = 6-month ORL NOx emissions * hourly CAMD NOx emissions

CAMD summed 6-month NOx emissions



### Hourly emissions for other pollutants (CO, NH3, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI, SO2, VOC)

Hourly PTHOUR POLL emissions = annual ORL POLL emissions * annual factor

Where annual factor = hourly CAMD heat input / 6-month summed CAMD heat input



### I f CAMD heat input data are not available, the steam load was used instead, if available,

fol lowed by gross load as a last resort.

Hour ly data for the non-ozone season was developed using the methodology discussed in

Section 3.4 of this TSD.

3.2.4 PTHOUR Methodology for Maryland 6 Month Reporters

MDE identified facilities that only reported 6 months of data to CAMD and requested data

from those facilities for the 6 months outside of the ozone season. MDE manually entered

hourl y values into a CAMD-formatted table similar to the Part 75 Prepackaged Data Set

format for the following units.

Plant Name ORIS UNIT S

Constellation Perryman 1556 CT1

, CT2

, CT3

, CT4

Constellation Riverside 1559 CT6

Constellation Westport 1560 CT5

Mirant Chalk Point 1571 GT2

, SMECO

Mirant Morgantown 1573 GT3

, GT4

, GT5

, GT6Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 52



### The PTHOUR files for the Maryland 6-month reporters were created as described here.

First, hourly SO2 and NOx mass and heat input in the MDE hourly database were summed

for each unit to create annual totals. Next, annual emission records for all pollutants in the

ORL file were matched to the hourly records using the crosswalk file. Hourly emissions in

the PTHOUR file were calculated using the following equations, depending on the

pollutant:

Hourly NOx emissions

Hourly PTHOUR NOx emissions = annual ORL NOx emissions * hourly MDE NOx emissions

MDE summed annual NOx emissions



### Hourly SO2 emissions for units with SO2 emissions in the MDE database

Hourly PTHOUR SO2 emissions = annual ORL SO2 emissions * hourly MDE SO2 emissions

MDE summed annual SO2 emissions



### Ho urly SO2 emissions for units without SO2 emissions in the MDE database

Hourly PTHOUR SO2 emissions = annual ORL SO2 emissions * annual factor

Where annual factor = hourly MDE heat input / annual summed MDE heat input



### Hourly emissions for other pollutants (CO, NH3, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI, VOC)

Hourly PTHOUR POLL emissions = annual ORL POLL emissions * annual factor

Where annual factor = hourly MDE heat input / annual summed MDE heat input



### I f MDE heat input data are not available, the steam load was used instead, if available,

followe d by gross load as a last resort.

3.2.5 PTHOUR Methodology for Virginia Distributed Generation Units

Complete documentation of the data sources and methods used by VDEQ is included as

Appendix E - VDEQ Conceptual Description for DG draft Feb 25, 2010.doc.

3.2.6 QA of PTINV and PTHOUR Files

A number of QA activities were undertaken to ensure that the PTINV and PTHOUR files

were complete, consistent with the 2007 NIF annual inventory, and did not double count

any emission source. Specific QA steps included:

The ORL annual emission files were quality assured to conform to the SMOKE

PTINV ORL format and match the values reported in the original NIF file.

The PTHOUR files were quality assured to conform to the SMOKE PTHOUR

EMS-95 traditional format, the sum of emissions in the PTHOUR file equals theTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 53



### ORL annual emissions, the number of hourly data records equals 8760, the number

of days equals 365, and that all pollutants were included in the PTHOUR file.

The se QA checks verified that the original NIF annual values and the annual sum of the

hourly values matched.

3.3 DEVELOPMENT OF HOURLY PROFILES FOR 6-MONTH

REPORTING UNITS

Since some CAMD units only report data for the ozone season, there was a need for a set

of actual 2007 hourly temporal profiles to be used in simulating hourly emissions for these

units in non-ozone season months. The following subsections describe the steps taken by

Alpine Geophysics in preparing this file.

3.3.1 Annual Profile Preparation

The 2007 hourly CEM data was obtained from CAMD’s “Data and Maps” website for

each State in the MANE-VU+VA region. Using these data, we filtered the individual

source list within each State to only those units reporting each hour of the year (i.e., 8,760

hours of data). This ensured that the resulting profiles are not influenced by units which

only report during summertime months for ozone season programs.

For this filtered source list, we summed three variables: total NOx and SO2 mass and heat

input as reported in these hourly files at both a State monthly and a State total basis. For

each of the three variables, monthly distribution ratios were calculated by dividing each

State’s monthly sum by their total annual sum as shown in Equation 1 below.

Equation 1. Monthly ratio calculation.

Monthly Ratio State, Var 

### = Monthly Sum State, Var 

### / Annual Sum State, Var



### Where,

Var = CEM-based variable of SO2, NOx or heat input

Exhibit 3.3 provides an example calculation for this step, both in tabular and graphical

format.

The resulting ratios were normalized for each variable to provide SMOKE with the

monthly distribution factors necessary to process annual emissions into a monthly result.

An example monthly profile using the data from Exhibit 3.3 is shown in Exhibit 3.4.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 54



### Exhibit 3.3 – Example Application of Calculated Ratios for Actual 2007 by Month

Actual Reported Value Sums [2007] Calculated Ratios

State Month SO2 Mass NOx Mass Heat Input SO2 NOx Heat Input

NY Jan 22,423,391 10,809,292 60,408,685 0.1046 0.0942 0.0809

NY Feb 29,299,033 12,448,052 67,590,104 0.1366 0.1084 0.0905

NY Mar 21,364,883 10,327,432 63,106,554 0.0996 0.0900 0.0845

NY Apr 16,454,881 9,221,500 55,568,488 0.0767 0.0803 0.0744

NY May 12,855,963 8,198,597 53,421,346 0.0600 0.0714 0.0715

NY Jun 14,525,239 9,282,277 65,577,304 0.0677 0.0809 0.0878

NY Jul 16,311,783 10,372,119 74,182,361 0.0761 0.0904 0.0993

NY Aug 17,757,143 11,156,733 82,322,615 0.0828 0.0972 0.1102

NY Sep 15,809,719 8,879,373 63,553,452 0.0737 0.0773 0.0851

NY Oct 15,055,032 7,390,952 55,149,951 0.0702 0.0644 0.0738

NY Nov 14,471,865 7,561,984 47,280,729 0.0675 0.0659 0.0633

NY Dec 18,092,057 9,155,587 58,804,999 0.0844 0.0798 0.0787

NY Total 214,420,988 114,803,899 746,966,587 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 55



### Exhibit 3.4 - Example SMOKE profile for monthly distribution of New York annual

e missions using heat input.

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total

Monthly

Ratio 0.0809 0.0905 0.0845 0.0744 0.0715 0.0878 0.0993 0.1102 0.0851 0.0738 0.0633 0.0787 1.0000

Monthly

Profile 809 905 845 744 716 878 994 1103 851 739 633 788 10005



### The profile in the above table can then be associated to the profile cross-reference lookup

either by State, State-SCC or some other combination allowing each non-CEM (PTHOUR)

reporting unit to have annual emissions allocated. Existing day of week and diurnal

profiles from the EPA CHIEF website were used to allocate emissions to finer smaller time

pe riods within each month.

3.3.2 Non-Annual Profile Development

A number of units were identified which require monthly distribution for timeframes

outside of the ozone season (when these units are not required to report CEMs). The

mont hly profiles described in 3.3.1 were modified for use with these units. To account for

emissions at these sources not included in prepared hourly (PTHOUR) SMOKE input files,

the monthly profiles were zeroed out during the months when hourly CAMD emissions

were reported. Concurrently, the TOTAL profile sum was adjusted to accurately reflect

the ratio of month to total distribution. An example of this adjustment is shown with

highlight in Exhibit 3.5.

Exhibit 3.5 - Example SMOKE profile for adjusted monthly distribution of New York

se asonal emissions using heat input.

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total

Monthly

Ratio 0.0809 0.0905 0.0845 0.0744 0.0715 0.0878 0.0993 0.1102 0.0851 0.0738 0.0633 0.0787 1.0000

Monthly

Profile 809 905 845 744 716 878 994 1103 851 739 633 788 10005

Adjusted
Profile 809 905 845 0 0 0 0 0 0 739 633 788 4719Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 56



### 3.3.3 Issue for Consideration

In the USEPA CAMD files only a few CAMD 6-month units reported emissions in April

2007. As a result, the April hourly CAMD data was not used in MARAMA’s simulation.

Instead, an adjusted profile for five month operation was prepared and used for these

sourc es.

3.4 VERSION 2 - STATE AND STAKEHOLDER REVIEW

On Ma rch 15, 2010, MARAMA invited States and stakeholders to review and comment on

the draft 2007 hourly inventory of air emissions from point sources. States and

stake holders were provided a 4-week comment period. Written comments were reviewed

by the State inventory staff and MARAMA, and result ed in several changes to the draft

documentation and inventory data. The changes requested by stakeholders and approved

by the States are summarized in the following subsections.

3.4.1 Massachusetts

Massachusetts commented that the majority of the Massachusetts facilities reviewed the

CAMD- to -NIF crosswalk and indicated they found no major errors. Some facilities

e xpressed concern that several dual fuel units appeared to have their total NOx emissions

doubled, reported separately for both oil and gas. The Contractor reviewed the database

a nd verified that no double counting of emissions occurs. For multiple-fuel units, the

Appendix A spreadsheet matches each CAMD record to ALL fuel records in the NIF

da tabase, making it a

ppear that the CAMD emissions are counted more than once.

MARAMA will use the NIF emissions from State database in regional modeling and the

hourly data from the matching CAMD unit to allocate NIF emissions to hourly data for

modeling. Emissions will not be double counted for units using multiple fuels.

3.4.2 New York

NRG Energy identified an issue with the hourly emissions for those units in the NIF

database when multiple units exhaust from a common stack. In NY’s database, multiple

unit s are represented by a single emission unit, whereas in the CAMD database each unit is

represented individually. That is why there is a CAMD BLR6ID with no equivalent NIF

labels in Appendix A. The Contractor discussed the issue with NRG and devised a

solut ion for the Huntley and Dunkirk Steam Generating Stations by adding emissions units

to the NIF tables in cases where there are combined stacks. Annual emissions in the NIF

da tabase will be apportioned to each unit based on annual heat input from the USEPA

C AMD database. This will allow a proper match to the hourly data for each Unit andTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 57



### ensure that the proper CAMD hourly emissions were used in developing the PTHOUR

files for the units at these two facilities.

New York State also worked to improve the linkages between the NIF annual emissions

a nd the CAMD hourly emissions. Not all cases could be resolved, and New York is

continuing to review the data.

3.4.3 Pennsylvania

R RI Energy commented that they agree with the approach for calculating hourly emissions

a s described in Section 3.3 of this report.

3.4.4 Virginia

Virginia reviewed the data in the hourly files and provided three updates needed for the

VA cross reference between NIF and CAMD information. These updates do not affect

large emission units, but they were made to make the cross reference as correct as possible,

as follows:

For ORIS CODE 55439, NIF ID 51-065-00021, facility name Tenaska Virginia

Ge nerating Station was added to CAMD Boiler ID CTGDB1 with the NIF

identifier Stack 1, Point 1, Segment 2. This stack point segment was left out of the

cross reference and represents the emissions from the duct burner on this turbine.

For ORIS CODE 55439, NIF ID 51-065-00021, facility name Tenaska Virginia

Ge nerating Station was added to CAMD Boiler ID CTGDB3 with the NIF

identifier Stack 3, Point 9, Segment 2. This stack point segment was left out of the

cross reference and represents the emissions from the duct burner on this turbine.

For ORIS CODE 52089, NIF ID 51 -071 -00062, facility name Duke Energy

Generation Services of Narrows was deleted for the NIF identifier Stack 1, Point 1,

Segment 3 from CAMD Boiler ID BLR007. This stack point segment represents

the emissions from the ash handling system for the boilers, and the emissions

would be better represented by generic profiles rather than CAMD profiles.

Virginia also commented that some facilities have empty date stamps (i.e., MM/DD/YY

field is listed as “xx/xx/xxEST“ where x is blank space). For example, in 12 month units

files, 51-033-00040 and 51-065-00021 combined have either 21 or 39 lines with empty

da te stamps. Similarly, in 6 month units files, 09-009-6614 (in New Haven, Connecticut)

ha ve 6 or 12 lines without date stamps. The Contractor identified errors in the CAMD to

N IF crosswalk that caused this situation to occur. Fixing the CAMD to NIF crosswalk

resolved all occurrences of this problem.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 58



### 3.5 VERSION 3 REVISIONS

3.5.1 Massachusetts Stony Brook Energy Center NH3 Emissions

Massachusetts identified errors in the ammonia emissions for 2007 for the Stony Brook

Energy Center (25013-0420001) and New Bedford Energy (25005-1200634).

Massachusetts provided corrected ammonia emission estimates for these two facilities.

This change reduced ammonia emissions in Massachusetts by about 2,300 tons.

New Bedford Energy does not report hourly emissions to CAMD, so no changes to the

PTHOUR files were needed for this source.

The Stony Brook Energy Center has three units that are 12-month CAMD reporters and

two units that are 5-month CAMD reporters. The PTHOUR monthly files for 5-month and

12 -month reporters were revised to provide corrected NH3 emissions for the Stony Brook

units.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 59



## 4.0 ANNUAL 2007 INVENTORY FOR AREA SOURCES

4.1 AREA SOURCE CATEGORIES

Area sources are relatively small sources of air pollutants that are diffused over a wide

geographical area. They include sources that individually are insignificant, but in

a ggregate may comprise significant emissions. Examples are emissions from home

he ating systems, house painting, consumer products usage, and small industrial or

c ommercial operations that are not permitted as point sources. There are 356 individual

a rea source categories in the MANE-VU+VA inventory, categorized by a 10-digit SCC.

Ma jor grouping (categories at the 7-digit SCC) included in the area source inventory are

shown in Exhibit 4.1.

The USEPA has develops area source emission estimation methodologies and estimates for

the N EI on a three-year cycle, and inventories are available for 2002, 2005, and 2008

(U SEPA 2010a).

For many categories, unless specifically instructed otherwise by the States, the Contractor

used the most recent data from US EPA. These sources included ammonia emissions from

livestock and fertilizers which came from a recent application of the Carnegie Mellon

University (CMU) ammonia model to produce 2007 emissions and output from a version

of the Residential Wood Combustion (RWC) model developed by USEPA and run with

upda ted 2007 data to produce emission estimates for that source category. In addition, a

number of States requested that the Contractor include USEPA data on wildfire emissions

developed as part of USEPA’s SMARTFIRE system.

I n the following sections, we describe the data that was available from USEPA and that

was used for categories where States did not submit data. Next we describe the State data

subm ittals that were used to override the USEPA data. We summarize the ultimate source

of the area source data that each State decided to use for each source category. Finally, we

present a State-level summary of emissions by pollutant.

Exhibit 4.1

– Area Source Category Definitions

7

- Digit SCC 7

- Digit SCC Description

21

- 01

- 001 Stationary Fuel; Electric Utility; Anthracite Coal

21

- 01

- 002 Stationary Fuel; Electric Utility; Bituminous/ Sub

- butuminousSub

- butuminous Coal

21

- 01

- 004 Stationary Fuel; Electric Utility; Distillate Oil

21

- 01

- 005 Stationary Fuel; Electric Utility; Residual Oil

21

- 01

- 006 Stationary Fuel; Electric Utility; Natural Gas

21

- 02

- 001 Stationary Fuel; Industrial; Anthracite CoalTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 60

7

- Digit SCC 7

- Digit SCC Description

21

- 02

- 002 Stationary Fuel; Industrial; Bituminous/ Sub

- butuminous Coal

21

- 02

- 004 Stationary Fuel; Industrial; Distillate Oil

21

- 02

- 005 Stationary Fuel; Industrial; Residual Oil

21

- 02

- 006 Stationary Fuel; Industrial; Natural Gas

21

- 02

- 007 Stationary Fuel; Industrial; Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG)

21

- 02

- 008 Stationary Fuel; Industrial; Wood

21

- 02

- 011 Stationary Fuel; Industrial; Kerosene

21

- 03

- 001 Stationary Fuel; Commercial/Institutional; Anthracite Coal

21

- 03

- 002 Stationary Fuel; Commercial/Institutional; Bituminous/ Sub

- butuminous Coal

21

- 03

- 004 Stationary Fuel; Commercial/Institutional; Distillate Oil

21

- 03

- 005 Stationary Fuel; Commercial/Institutional; Residual Oil

21

- 03

- 006 Stationary Fuel; Commercial/Instit utional; Natural Gas

21

- 03

- 007 Stationary Fuel; Commercial/Institutional; Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG)

21

- 03

- 008 Stationary Fuel; Commercial/Institutional; Wood

21

- 03

- 011 Stationary Fuel; Commercial/Institutional; Kerosene

21

- 04

- 001 Stationary Fuel; Residential; Anthracite Coal

21

- 04

- 002 Stationary Fuel; Residential; Bituminous/ Sub

- butuminous Coal

21

- 04

- 004 Stationary Fuel; Residential; Distillate Oil

21

- 04

- 006 Stationary Fuel; Residential; Natural Gas

21

- 04

- 007 Stationary Fuel; Residential; Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG)

21

- 04

- 008 Stationary Fuel; Residential; Wood

21

- 04

- 009 Stationary Fuel; Residential; Firelog

21

- 04

- 011 Stationary Fuel; Residential; Kerosene

22

- 94

- 000 Mobile Sources; Paved Roads; All Paved Roads

22

- 96

- 000 Mobile Sources; Unpaved Roads; All Unpaved Roads

23

- 01

- 000 Industrial Processes; Chemical Manufacturing: SIC 28; All Processes

23

- 01

- 030 Industrial Processes; Chemical Manufacturing: SIC 28; Process Emissions from Pharmaceutical

23

- 02

- 002 Industrial Processes; Food and Kindred Products: SIC 20; Commercial Cooking

– Charbroiling

23

- 02

- 003 Industrial Processes; Food and Kindred Products: SIC 20; Commercial Cooking

– Frying

23

- 02

- 040 Industrial Processes; Food and Kindred Products: SIC 20; Grain Mill Products

23

- 02

- 050 Industrial Processes; Food and Kindred Products: SIC 20; Bakery Products

23

- 02

- 070 Industrial Processes; Food and Kindred Products: SIC 20; Fermentation/Beverages

23

- 02

- 080 Industrial Processes; Food and Kindred Products: SIC 20; Miscellaneous Food and Kindred Prods

23

- 07

- 030 Industrial Processes; Wood Products: SIC 24; Millwork, Plywood, and Structural Members

23

- 07

- 060 Industrial Processes; Wood Products: SIC 24; Miscellaneous Wood Products

23

- 08

- 000 Industrial Process es; Rubber/Plastics: SIC 30; All Processes

23

- 09

- 100 Industrial Processes; Fabricated Metals: SIC 34; Coating, Engraving, and Allied Services

23

- 11

- 010 Industrial Processes; Construction: SIC 15

- 17; Residential

23

- 11

- 020 Industrial Processes; Construction: SIC 15

- 17; Industrial/Commercial/Institutional

23

- 11

- 030 Industrial Processes; Construction: SIC 15

- 17; Road Construction

23

- 25

- 000 Industrial Processes; Mining and Quarrying: SIC 14; All Processes

23

- 25

- 020 Industrial Processes; Mining and Quarrying: SIC 14; Crushed and Broken StoneTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 61

7

- Digit SCC 7

- Digit SCC Description

23

- 25

- 030 Industrial Processes; Mining and Quarrying: SIC 14; Sand and Gravel

23

- 90

- 008 Industrial Processes; In

- process Fuel Use; Wood

23

- 99

- 000 Industrial Processes; Industrial Processes: NEC; Ind ustrial Processes: NEC

23

- 99

- 010 Industrial Processes; Industrial Refrigeration; Refrigerant Losses

24

- 01

- 001 Solvent Utilization; Surface Coating; Architectural Coatings

24

- 01

- 002 Solvent Utilization; Surface Coating; Architectural Coatings

- Solvent

- based

24

- 01

- 003 Solvent Utilization; Surface Coating; Architectural Coatings

- Water

- based

24

- 01

- 005 Solvent Utilization; Surface Coating; Auto Refinishing: SIC 7532

24

- 01

- 008 Solvent Utilization; Surface Coating; Traffic Markings

24

- 01

- 015 Solvent Utilization; Surface Coating; Factory Finished Wood: SIC 2426 thru 242

24

- 01

- 020 Solvent Utilization; Surface Coating; Wood Furniture: SIC 25

24

- 01

- 025 Solvent Utilization; Surface Coating; Metal Furniture: SIC 25

24

- 01

- 030 Solvent Utilization; Surface Coating; Paper: SIC 26

24

- 01

- 040 Solvent Utilization; Surface Coating; Metal Cans: SIC 341

24

- 01

- 045 Solvent Utilization; Surface Coating; Metal Coils: SIC 3498

24

- 01

- 050 Solvent Utilization; Surface Coating; Miscellaneous Finished Metals: SIC 3 4

- (341 + 3498)

24

- 01

- 055 Solvent Utilization; Surface Coating; Machinery and Equipment: SIC 35

24

- 01

- 060 Solvent Utilization; Surface Coating; Large Appliances: SIC 363

24

- 01

- 065 Solvent Utilization; Surface Coating; Electronic and Other Electrical: SIC 36

- 363

24

- 01

- 070 Solvent Utilization; Surface Coating; Motor Vehicles: SIC 371

24

- 01

- 075 Solvent Utilization; Surface Coating; Aircraft: SIC 372

24

- 01

- 080 Solvent Utilization; Surface Coating; Marine: SIC 373

24

- 01

- 085 Solvent Utilization; Surface Coating; Railroad: SIC 374

24

- 01

- 090 Solvent Utilization; Surface Coating; Miscellaneous Manufacturing

24

- 01

- 100 Solvent Utilization; Surface Coating; Industrial Maintenance Coatings

24

- 01

- 102 Solvent Utilization; Surface Coating; Industrial Maintenance Coatings

24

- 01

- 103 Solvent Utilization; Surface Coating; Industrial Maintenance Coatings

24

- 01

- 200 Solvent Utilization; Surface Coating; Other Special Purpose Coatings

24

- 01

- 990 Solvent Utilization; Surface Coating; All Surface Coating Categ ories

24

- 15

- 000 Solvent Utilization; Degreasing; All Processes/All Industries

24

- 15

- 005 Solvent Utilization; Degreasing; Furniture and Fixtures (SIC 25): All Processes

24

- 15

- 010 Solvent Utilization; Degreasing; Primary Metal Industries (SIC 33): All Processes

24

- 15

- 020 Solvent Utilization; Degreasing; Fabricated Metal Products (SIC 34): All Processes

24

- 15

- 025 Solvent Utilization; Degreasing; Industrial Machinery and Equipment (SIC 35): All Processes

24

- 15

- 030 Solvent Utilization; Degreasing; Electronic and Other Elec. (SIC 36): All Processes

24

- 15

- 035 Solvent Utilization; Degreasing; Transportation Equipment (SIC 37): All Processes

24

- 15

- 040 Solvent Utilization; Degreasing; Instruments and Related Products (SIC 38): All Processes

24

- 15

- 045 Solvent Utilization; Degreasing; Miscellaneous Manufacturing (SIC 39): All Processes

24

- 15

- 050 Solvent Utilization; Degreasing; Transportation Maintenance Facilities (SIC 40

- 45): All Processes

24

- 15

- 055 Solvent Utilization; Degreasing; Automotive Dealers (SIC 55): All Processes

24

- 15

- 060 Solvent Utilization; Degreasing; Miscellaneous Repair Services (SIC 76): All Processes

24

- 15

- 065 Solvent Utilization; Degreasing; Auto Repair Services (SIC 75): All ProcessesTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 62

7

- Digit SCC 7

- Digit SCC Description

24

- 15

- 100 Solvent Utilization; Degreasing; All Industries: Open Top Degreasing

24

- 15

- 130 Solvent Utilization; Degreasing; Electronic and Other Elec. (SIC 36): Open Top Degreasing

24

- 15

- 200 Solvent Utilization; Degreasing; All Industries: Conveyerized Degreasing

24

- 15

- 230 Solvent Utilization; Deg reasing; Electronic and Other Elec. (SIC 36): Conveyerized Degreasing

24

- 15

- 300 Solvent Utilization; Degreasing; All Industries: Cold Cleaning

24

- 15

- 360 Solvent Utilization; Degreasing; Auto Repair Services (SIC 75): Cold Cleaning

24

- 20

- 000 Solvent Utilization; Dry Cleaning; All Processes

24

- 20

- 010 Solvent Utilization; Dry Cleaning; Commercial/Industrial Cleaners

24

- 25

- 000 Solvent Utilization; Graphic Arts; All Processes

24

- 25

- 010 Solvent Utilization; Graphic Arts; Lithography

24

- 25

- 020 Solvent Utilization; Graphic Arts; Letterpress

24

- 25

- 030 Solvent Utilization; Graphic Arts; Rotogravure

24

- 25

- 040 Solvent Utilization; Graphic Arts; Flexography

24

- 30

- 000 Solvent Utilization; Rubber/Plastics; All Processes

24

- 40

- 000 Solvent Utilization; Misc. Industrial; All Processes

24

- 40

- 020 Solvent Utilization; Misc. Industrial; Adhesive (Industrial) Application

24

- 60

- 000 Solvent Utilization; Misc. Non

- industrial: Consumer and Commercial; All Processes

24

- 60

- 100 Solvent Utilization; Misc. Non

- industrial: Consumer and Commercial; All Personal Care Products

24

- 60

- 200 Solvent Utilization; Misc. Non

- industrial: Consumer and Commercial; All Household Products

24

- 60

- 400 Solvent Utilization; Misc. Non

- industrial: Consumer and Commercial; All Automotive Afterma rket

24

- 60

- 500 Solvent Utilization; Misc. Non

- industrial: Consumer and Commercial; All Coatings and Related

24

- 60

- 600 Solvent Utilization; Misc. Non

- industrial: Consumer and Commercial; All Adhesives and Sealants

24

- 60

- 800 Solvent Utilization; Misc. Non

- industrial: Consumer and Commercial; All FIFRA Related Products

24

- 60

- 900 Solvent Utilization; Misc. Non

- industrial: Consumer and Commercial; Miscellaneous Products

24

- 61

- 020 Solvent Utilization; Misc. Non

- industrial: Commercial; Asphalt Application: All Processes

24

- 61

- 021 Solvent Utilization; Misc. Non

- industrial: Commercial; Cutback Asphalt

24

- 61

- 022 Solvent Utilization; Misc. Non

- industrial: Commercial; Emulsified Asphalt

24

- 61

- 023 Solvent Utilization; Misc. Non

- industrial: Commercial; Asphalt Roofing

24

- 61

- 200 Solvent Utilization; Misc. Non

- industrial: Commercial; Adhesives and Sealants

24

- 61

- 800 Solvent Utilization; Misc. Non

- industrial: Commercial; Pesticide Application: All Processes

24

- 61

- 850 Solvent Utilization; Misc. Non

- industrial: Commercial; Pesticide Application: Agricultural

24

- 61

- 870 Solvent Utilization; Misc. Non

- industrial: Commercial; Pesticide Application: Non

- Agricultural

24

- 65

- 000 Solvent Utilization; Misc. Non

- industrial: Consumer; All Products/Processes

24

- 65

- 800 Solv ent Utilization; Misc. Non

- industrial: Consumer; Pesticide Application

25

- 01

- 011 Storage and Transport; Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage; Residential PFCs

25

- 01

- 012 Storage and Transport; Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage; Commercial PFCs

25

- 01

- 030 Storage and Transport; Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage;

25

- 01

- 050 Storage and Transport; Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage; Bulk Terminals

25

- 01

- 055 Storage and Transport; Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage; Bulk Plants

25

- 01

- 060 Storage and Transport; Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage; Gasoline Service Stations

25

- 01

- 080 Storage and Transport; Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage; Airports : Aviation Gasoline

25

- 01

- 090 Storage and Transport; Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage;Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 63

7

- Digit SCC 7

- Digit SCC Description

25

- 01

- 995 Storage and Transport; Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage; All Storage Types

25

- 05

- 020 Storage and Transport; Petroleum and Petroleum Product Transport; Marine Vessel

25

- 05

- 030 Storage and Transport; Petroleum and Petroleum Product Transport; Truck

25

- 05

- 040 Storage and Transport; Petroleum and Petroleum Product Transport; Pipeline

25

- 30

- 010 Storage and Transport; Bulk Materials Storage; Commercial/Industrial

26

- 01

- 000 Waste Disposal; On

- site Incineration; All Categories

26

- 01

- 010 Waste Disposal; On

- site Incineration; Industrial

26

- 01

- 020 Waste Disposal; On

- site Incineration; Commercial/Institutional

26

- 01

- 030 Waste Disposal; On

- site Incineration; Residential

26

- 10

- 000 Waste Disposal; Open Burning; All Categories

26

- 10

- 030 Waste Disposal; Open Burning; Residential

26

- 10

- 040 Waste Disposal; Open Burning; Municipal (collected from residences, parks,other for central burn)

26

- 20

- 000 Waste Disposal; Landfills; All Categories

26

- 20

- 030 Waste Disposal; Landfills; Municipal

26

- 30

- 010 Waste Disposal; Wastewater Treatment; Industrial

26

- 30

- 020 Waste Disposal; Wastewater Treatment; Public Owned

26

- 30

- 050 Waste Disposal; Wastewater Treatment; Public Owned

26

- 40

- 000 Waste Disposal; TSDFs; All TSDF Types

26

- 60

- 000 Waste Disposal; Leaking Underground Storage Tanks; Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

26

- 80

- 001 Waste Disposal; Composting; 100% Biosolids (e.g., sewage sludge, manure, mixtures )

26

- 80

- 002 Waste Disposal; Composting; Mixed Waste (e.g., a 50:50 mixture of biosolids and green wastes)

28

- 01

- 000 Misc. Area Sources; Agriculture Production

- Crops; Agriculture

– Crops

28

- 01

- 001 Misc. Area Sources; Agriculture Production

- Crops;

28

- 01

- 002 Misc. Area Sources; Agriculture Production

- Crops;

28

- 01

- 500 Misc. Area Sources; Agriculture Production

- Crops; Agricultural Field Burning

- whole field

28

- 01

- 700 Misc. Area Sources; Agriculture Production

- Crops; Fertilizer Application

28

- 05

- 001 M isc. Area Sources; Agriculture Production

- Livestock; Beef cattle

- finishing / dry

- lots

28

- 05

- 002 Misc. Area Sources; Agriculture Production

- Livestock; Beef cattle production composite

28

- 05

- 003 Misc. Area Sources; Agriculture Production

- Livestock; Beef cattle

- finishing / pasture/range

28

- 05

- 007 Misc. Area Sources; Agriculture Production

- Livestock; Poultry production

- layers with dry mgmt

28

- 05

- 008 Misc. Area Sources; Agriculture Production

- Livestock; Poultry production

- layers with wet mgmt

28

- 05

- 009 Misc. Area Sources; Agriculture Production

- Livestock; Poultry production

– broilers

28

- 05

- 010 Misc. Area Sources; Agriculture Production

- Livestock; Poultry production

– turkeys

28

- 05

- 018 Misc. Area Sources; Agriculture Production

- Livestock; Dairy cattle composite

28

- 05

- 019 Misc. Area Sources; Agriculture Production

- Livestock; Dairy cattle

- flush dairy

28

- 05

- 020 Misc. Area Sources; Agriculture Production

- Livestock; Cattle and Calves Waste Emissions

28

- 05

- 021 Misc. Area Sources; Agriculture Production

- Livestock; Dairy cattle

- scrape dairy

28

- 05

- 022 Misc. Area Sources; Agriculture Production

- Livestock; Dairy cattle

- deep pit dairy

28

- 05

- 023 Misc. Area Sources; Agriculture Production

- Livestock; Dairy cattle

- dry

- lot/pasture dairy

28

- 05

- 024 Misc. Area Sources; Agriculture Production

- Livestock;

28

- 05

- 025 Misc. Area Sources; Agriculture Production

- Livestock; Swine production composite

28

- 05

- 026 Misc. Area Sources; Agriculture Production

- Livestock;Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 64

7

- Digit SCC 7

- Digit SCC Description

28

- 05

- 027 Misc. Area Sources; Agriculture Production

- Livestock;

28

- 05

- 028 Misc. Area Sources; Agriculture Production

- Livestock;

28

- 05

- 030 Misc. Area Sources; Agriculture Production

- Livestock; Poultry Waste Emissions

28

- 05

- 035 Misc. Area Sources; Agriculture Production

- Livestock; Horses and Ponies Waste Emissions

28

- 05

- 039 Misc. Area Sources; Agriculture Production

- Livestock; Swine production

- op s with lagoons

28

- 05

- 040 Misc. Area Sources; Agriculture Production

- Livestock; Sheep and Lambs Waste Emissions

28

- 05

- 045 Misc. Area Sources; Agriculture Production

- Livestock; Goats Waste Emissions

28

- 05

- 047 Misc. Area Sources; Agriculture Production

- Livestock; Swine production

- deep

- pit house

28

- 05

- 053 Misc. Area Sources; Agriculture Production

- Livestock; Swine production

- outdoor

28

- 06

- 010 Misc. Area Sources; Domestic Animals Waste Emissions; Cats

28

- 06

- 015 Misc. Area Sources; Domestic Animals Waste Emissions; Dogs

28

- 07

- 020 Misc. Area Sources; Wild Animals Waste Emissions; Bears

28

- 07

- 025 Misc. Area Sources; Wild Animals Waste Emissions; Elk

28

- 07

- 030 Misc. Area Sources; Wild Animals Waste Emissions; Deer

28

- 07

- 040 Misc. Area Sources; Wild Animals Waste Emissions; Birds

28

- 10

- 001 Misc. Area Sources; Other Combustion; Forest Wildfires

28

- 10

- 003 Misc. Area Sources; Other Combustion; Cigarette Smoke

28

- 10

- 005 Misc. Area Sources; Other Combustion; Managed Burning, Slash (Logging Debris)

28

- 10

- 010 Misc. Area Sources; Other Combustion; Human Perspiration and Respiration

28

- 10

- 014 Misc. Area Sources; Other Combustion; Prescribed Burning

28

- 10

- 015 Misc. Area Sources; Other Combustion; Prescribed Forest Burning

28

- 10

- 020 Misc. Area Sources; Other Combustion; Prescribed Rangeland Burning

28

- 10

- 025 Misc. Area Sources; Other Combustion; Charcoal Grilling

- Residential

28

- 10

- 030 Misc. Area Sources; Other Combustion; Structure Fires

28

- 10

- 035 Misc. Area Sources; Other Combustion; Firefighting Training

28

- 10

- 050 Misc. Area Sources; Other Combustion; Motor Vehicle Fires

28

- 10

- 060 Misc. Area Sources; Other Combustion; Cremation

28

- 10

- 090 Misc. Area Sources; Other Combustion; Open Fire

28

- 30

- 000 Misc. Area Sources; Catastrophic/Accidental Releases; All Catastrophic/Accidental Releases

28

- 30

- 010 Misc. Area Sources; Catastrophic/Accidental Releases; Transportation Accidents

28

- 70

- 000 Misc. Area Sources; ;



### 4.2 US EPA AREA SOURCE DATA

USEP A emissions inventories and emission estimation tools were used to create a

preliminary version of the 2007 area source inventory. States reviewed the data available

fr om USEPA and made a determination on a category by category basis of whether the

USEPA data was acceptable for their State. This section describes the data and tools

a vailable from USEPA.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 65



### 4.2.1 US EPA 2008 National Emission Inventory

Prior to preparation of the 2008 inventory, USEPA, in consultation with ERTAC, revised

the recommended emission factors and estimation methods for many area source

cat egories , as listed below. The goal was to provide standardized emission calculations

and related documentation across states. These were used by USEPA’s contractor to

develop 2008 emission estimates for fifteen area source categories to support developmen t
of the 2008 National Emission Inventory (NEI). In general, county-level criteria and HAP

pollutant emissions were estimated at the SCC level. In most cases, activity data was

collected for 2008. In cases where 2008 activity data did not exist, data from the most

recent year available was used, as reported in the documentation.

Agriculture Production - Livestock Asphalt Paving

Aviation Gasoline Distribution Commercial Cooking

Construction Dust

Commercial/Institutional Fuel Combustion Fertilizer Application

Gasoline Distribution

Industrial Fuel Combustion Open Burning

Road Dust Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) Residential Heating Solvent Usage - Surface Coatings Solvent Usage - Other

The emission factors from the ERTAC process and the resulting 2008 emissions developed

by USEPA were available for State use in this 2007 inventory development process

(U SEPA 2010a).

4.2.2 EPA Residential Wood Combustion (RWC) Tool

EPA worked with a group of State, local, and regional planning organization

representatives to develop a new methodology for estimating RWC emissions (USEPA

2010b)

. USEPA developed a Microsoft Access Tool to allow S/L agencies to calculate

annual emissions from RWC sources. The new methodology: 1) accounts for appliances

not included in the old methodology (e.g., outdoor hydronic heaters); 2) makes the

methodolog y easier for States to input location-specific knowledge; and 3) updates many

of the assumptions made to calculate emissions (for example, the percent conventional

versus USEPA certified wood stoves).Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 66



### EPA updated the RWC tool with 2007 population data and provided it to States to review

the input par ameters, including county populations, appliance profiles, burn rates, density

of cordwood by county, appliance populations, and emission factors by SCC. The only

changes that we re made to the model itself were for Vermont, which provided updated

burn rates and other appliance populations. The Contractor reran the revised 2007 RWC

tool for all states. The results of this run are included in the inventory with the exception

of New Jersey. New Jersey revised certain model inputs, re

- ran the RWC tool on their

own, and provided the Contractor with the resulting NIF files.

4.2.3 EPA CMU Agricultural Ammonia Model

In preparation for the 2008 NE I, USEPA used the Carnegie Mellon University (CMU)

Ammonia Model to generate an ammonia emission inventory for the continental United

States based on 2007 activity levels. No significant change was made to the emission

factors in the model. The primary sources of ammonia are two agricultural operations:

Livestock refers to domesticated animals intentionally reared for the production of

food, fiber, or other goods or for the use of their labor. The definition of livestock

in this category includes beef cattle, dairy cattle, ducks, geese, goats, horses,

poultry, sheep, and swine.

Fertilizer refers to any nitrogen-based compound, or mixture containing such a

compound, that is applied to land to improve plant fitness.

The Contractor obtained from USEPA a recent run of the CMU model for 2007 and

provided it to the States for their review (USEPA 2010c). The USEPA data provided to

MARAMA included emissions for livestock and fertilizer application. The CMU model is

also capable of estimating ammonia emissions from non-domestic animals (deer, bear, etc.)

and domesticated pets (dogs and cats) as well as other things such as human perspiration.

How ever, none of these sources were included in the runs of the CMU model that EPA

provided to MARAMA. Thus, unless a State supplied emission estimate s for those

categories, they were not included in the 2007 inventory.

4.2.4 EPA SMARTFIRE Emissions Database

SMARTFIRE is an algorithm and database system developed and built within a

geographic information system (GIS) framework that combines multiple sources of fire

information and reconciles them into a unified data set (SONOMA 2009). SMARTFIRE

da ta sources include satellite fire detects and ground reports of fire incidents for various

wild l and management agencies. SMARTFIRE was developed by the USDA Forest

S ervice AirFire Team and Sonoma Technology, Inc. under a grant from NASA.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 67



### SMARTFIRE interfaces with the BlueSky framework to estimate daily, location-specific

fir e emissions.

The Contractor obtained from USEPA a file of 2007 annual, county-level emissions data

for wild land fires as calculated using the SMARTFIRE methodology. The Contractor

pr ovided the inventory and documentation to States for their review and consideration.

4.3 STATE-SPECIFIC DATA

States reviewed the documentation and resulting emission files for each USEPA estimation

methodology. Each State made a decision of whether to accept the USEPA inventory (NEI

2008, RWC tool results, CMU ammonia model results, SMARTFIRE results) or to

develop their own emission estimates for these categories. Based on state choices, the

Contractor initiated collection of the State supplied data. Generally states provided their

da ta in NIF3.0 format; however some data was provided in spreadsheets in a State-specific

format or in the new EIS Emissions format. Where necessary, data was converted to NIF

for mat, filling in as many NIF fields as possible with state-supplied data.

State submitted emission files were augmented using USEPA data as directed by the

S tates. Where 2008 NEI data were used to fill missing categories in the 2007 MANE

VU+VA inventory, no growth adjustment was made to the emissions. This is because

States felt that activity in 2008 to 2007 was similar due to the economic downturn.

The emissions data is housed in NOF formatted files, which provide additional fields at the

e nd of each table to identify the data source and revision date. Those data elements

provide a the data lineage for each source category, thus improving the overall inventory

quality assurance (QA). The values in the DATA_SOURCE field in the EM table are

shown in Exhibit 4.2. Exhibit 4.3 summarizes the data sources used for each MARAMA

State and major source category.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 68



### Exhibit 4.2

– Values Contained in the DATA_SOURCE Field of the EM Table

EM Table DATA

SOURCE Value Description of Data Source

2005NEIv2 All of the records are for CT, which used this value in their

submittal to the Contractor

– data taken directly by CT from the

2005 NEI version 2

2008NEI Emissions based on USEPA ’s 2008 NEI using the USEPA data and methodologies described in Section 4.2.1 of this TSD

EPA Emissions based on USEPA ’s 2008 NEI using the USEPA data and methodologies described in Section 4.2.1 of this TSD

EPA NEI05 Emissions based on USEPA ’s 2005 NEI as a gap

- filling

measure where 2007 data were not available from State or

USEPA

EPA RWC Mo Emissions based on USEPA ’s Residential Wood Combustion

model

EPA/Ratio PM emissions were generated using USEPA

- supplied emission
values and ratios of condensable to PM

- PRI or other ratios as necessary to complete the PM spectrum of pollutants

EPA

- CMU Emissions based on USEPA ’s 2007 run of the CMU ammonia

model

MARAMA02BY Emissions based on MARAMA’s 2002 Ver sion 3 area source inventory as a gap

- filling measure where 2007 data were not

available from the State or USEPA

MARAMA2009 Emissions based on MARAMA’s 2009 Version 3 area source inventory as a gap

- filling measure where 2007 data not

available from Stat e or USEPA

MOVES Vehicle refueling emissions calculated by NESCAUM using the MOVES model in the inventory mode

NEI0508INT Emissions were linearly interpolated for 2007 based on values

in the 2005 NEI and the 2008 NEI

NEI08CTMOD All of the records are for CT, which used this value in their

submittal to the Contractor

– these records were based on the 2008 NEI data modified by CT air quality staff

SEMAP07 Emissions for Virginia are based on SEMAPs 2007 area source inventory

Sta te MOVES Vehicle refueling emissions calculated by the state using the MOVES model in the inventory mode

State RWC Emissions for New Jersey based on NJ

- specific application of

USEPA ’s Residential Wood Combustion model

State Emissions were provided directly by the State and represent

actual 2007 emissions

StateRatio PM emissions were generated using State

- supplied emission

values and ratios of condensable to PM

- PRI or other ratios as necessary to complete the PM spectrum of pollutantsTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 69



### Exhibit 4.3

– Data Sources Generally Used by Each State for Each Area Source Category

SCC4 Description CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT VA

2101 Fuel Comb. / Utility n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a State n/a n/a n/a n/a

2102 Fuel Comb. /

Industrial State State State n/a n/a State State State State State State State State

2103 Fuel Comb. /

Commercial State State State State State State State State State State State State State

2104 Residential

Other Fuels State State State State State State State State State State EPA State /

USEPA State

2104 Residential

Wood Comb. EPA

RWC State EPA

RWC State State EPA

RWC State State

RWC State State EPA

RWC EPA

RWC EPA

RWC

2294 Paved Road

Dust State State State State State State State State State State State State State

2296 Unpaved Road

Dust EPA n/a State State State EPA EPA State EPA EPA EPA State EPA

2302 Food & Kindred

Products EPA State State State State State EPA State State State EPA EPA State /

USEPA

2311 Construction EPA State State State State n/a State /

USEPA State EPA EPA EPA EPA EPA

2325 Mining & Quarrying State n/a n/a State n/a EPA

NEI05 EPA

NEI05 State MARAMA

09 EPA

NEI05 n/a EPA

NEI05 State

2399 Industrial Refrigeration State n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a State n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

2401 Surface Coating EPA State State State State State State State State State EPA EPA State

2415 Degreasing EPA State State State State State State State State State EPA EPA State

2420 Dry Cleaning EPA State State n/a State State EPA State n/a State EPA EPA State

2425 Graphic Arts EPA State State State State State State State State State EPA EPA StateTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 70

SCC4 Description CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT VA

2440 Industrial

Adhesives 2005NEI State n/a State State State n/a State MARAMA

09 n/a n/a n/a n/a

2460

Consumer/Comm

Products EPA State State State State State State State n/a State EPA EPA State

2461 Road Asphalt 2005NEI State State State State State State State State State State EPA State

2465 Consumer

Products n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a State n/a n/a n/a n/a

2501 Portable Fuel

Containers NEI0508

INT State State n/a State EPA EPA State State State State EPA EPA

2501 Gas Stations Stage 1 2008NEI State State State State State State State EPA State State State State

2501 Gas Stations Stage 2 MOVES MOVES MOVES MOVES MOVES MOVES MOVES MOVES State

M OVES State

MOVES MOVES MOVES State

MOVES

2501 Aviation Gas Stage 1/2 EPA State State State State State n/a State n/a n/a EPA State EPA

2505 Tank Truck Transport 2008NEI State State State State State n/a State EPA State State State State

2610 Open Burning EPA State State State State EPA State State EPA State /

USEPA EPA EPA EPA

2620 Landfills State State n/a State State State State State State n/a n/a n/a n/a

2630 Wastewater

Treatment EPA State State State State State State State State State EPA EPA EPA

2660 Leaking Underground Tanks State State n/a State State State State State n/a n/a n/a n/a State

2680 Composting State n/a n/a State n/a n/a State State n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

2801 Agriculture Tilling State State n/a State State State State State n/a EPA

NEI05 EPA

NEI05 State StateTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 71

SCC4 Description CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT VA

2801 Agriculture Field Burning n/a n/a n/a State n/a n/a n/a State n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

2801 Agriculture

Fertilizer EPA
CMU State n/a EPA
CMU EPA

CMU EPA

CMU EPA

CMU EPA

CMU EPA

CMU EPA

CMU EPA

CMU EPA

CMU EPA

CMU
2805 Agriculture

Livestock EPA

CMU State n/a EPA

CMU EPA

CMU EPA

CMU EPA

CMU EPA

CMU EPA

CMU EPA

CMU EPA

CMU EPA

CMU EPA

CMU

2810 Forest Wildfires n/a State n/a State State State n/a State State EPA n/a State SEMAP

07

2810 Prescribed

Fires n/a State State State State n/a n/a State State n/a n/a n/a SEMAP

07

2810 Structure Fires State State State State State State State State State n/a n/a State State

Note: this table provides a general indication of the data source used for each major source category. Refer to the NIF EM table for a comprehensive listing of the
Data Source for each individual county/SCC/pollutant.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 72



### 4.4 VERSION 2: STATE AND STAKEHOLDER REVIEW AND COMMENT

The draft MS Access area source files were provided to States and stakeholders for review

and comment. Within the Access database three queries were provided to allow the States

to summarize emissions by State, county, SCC and pollutant to assist with the review.

States and stakeholders provided comments and changes for incorporation and/or change.

The following subsections describe the comments received and other QA activities

performed that were ultimately incorporated into the final area source inventory.

4.4.1 National Park Service Comments

The only comments received from outside stakeholders came from the National Park

Service (NPS). The NPS requested that the documentation be updated to more clearly

identify the data sources used by each State for each category. Exhibits 4.2 and 4.3 were

prepared in response to this request. Note that Exhibit 4.2 provides only a general

indication of the data source used for each major source category. Reviewers are directed

to the NOF EM table for a comprehensive listing of the Data Source used for each

individual county/SCC/pollutant record

. The NPS also commented on the large

differences in emissions from some categories between 2002 and 2007. These differences

were evaluated and are addressed in Section 4.4.3 and 4.5 of this TSD.

4.4.2 Checks for Missing Categories, Double Counting, Outliers, and Differences

b etween 2002 and 2007 Inventories

As shown previously in Exhibit 4.3, a variety of data sources and methods are used by

States to develop the 2007 inventory. The potential exists for categories to be

inadvertently omitted, double counted (for example by including both State-specific and

USEPA estimates), or to have a large per-capita or per-employee variation from State- to

S tate.

To guard against omission or double counting, the Contractor and MARAMA p repared a

series of SCC level summary reports and manually reviewed them to determine potentially

missing source categories. Among the reports were the following:

“SCC in both 2002 and 2007” compares emissions by State and SCC for SCCs

contained in both the 2002 and 2007 inventories.

“2002 SCCs NOT in 2007” contains the SCCs that were in the 2002 inventory, but not in the first draft of the 2007 inventory.

“2007 SCCs NOT in 2002” contains the SCCs that were in the 2007 inventory, but not in the 2002 inventory.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 73



### There are both increases and decreases in emissions between 2002 and 2007 depending

upon the State and pollutant. In order to better understand these differences, we also

prepared charts to graphically depict the major differences between the 2002 and 2007 area

source inventories. Finally 4-digit SCC summaries were prepared to identify gaps.

States were asked to review these QA reports and provide responses to fill in gaps or

address potentially anomalous emission estimates. Several instances were found where a

S tate did not have emissions for a relatively important source category in the draft 2007

inventory. Examples are several SCCs related to PM emissions from construction,

agricultural tilling and mining & quarrying operations. These gaps were brought to the

attention of the affected States for resolution. In some cases, States provided data for the

missing categories or advised the Contractor to fill in the gap using available data from

existing USEPA or MARAMA inventories. In other cases, States indicated that emissions

fr om the missing categories were small and determined that the effort to fill the missing

category gap was not justified.

We reviewed SO2 and NOx emissions by State from industrial, commercial/institutional,

and residential fuel combustion. Since the OTC is considering additional control measures

for the industrial/commercial/institutional fuel combustion category, these values were

closely scrutinized. Pennsylvania showed a dramatic increase in emissions from 2002 to

2007 for both SO2 and NOx for the industrial fuel combustion category. New York

showed a substantial decrease in both the industrial and commercial/institutional categories

from 2002 to 2007. Pennsylvania provided updated estimates for Version 3 of the

inventory. New York did not provide an explanation of the possible reason for the

diff erences, and no changes to the 2007 values were made.

A comparison of 2002 and 2007 VOC emissions by State for three types of solvent

e vaporation categories revealed that two States – Maine and New York – appear to have

double -counted VOC emissions for this category using two different SCCs (24-60-xxx-xx

a nd 24-65-xxx-xx). Maine and New York reviewed the issue and provided updates to

e liminate the double counting issue.

4.5 VERSION 3 REVISIONS

4.5.1 Use of New USEPA Road Dust Equation

In January 2011, USEPA issued a new methodology (USEPA 2011) for developing

emission factors for re-entrained particulate matter from vehicles traveling over a paved

surface such as a road or parking lot. The new methodology was not used in Version 2 of

the MA NE-VU+VA 2007 inventory as it was not finalized in time.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 74



### This January 2011 version of the paved road emission factor equation only estimates

particulate emissions from suspended road surface material. Particulate emissions from

vehicle exhaust, brake wear, and tire wear are now estimated separately using USEPA's

MOVES model. This approach eliminates possible double counting of emissions resulting

from use of the previous version of the equation in this section and MOVES to estimate

pa rticulate emissions from vehicle traffic on paved roads.

All states (except Maine) submitted revised paved road emission estimates using the new

methodolog y for Version 3 of the 2007 MANE-VU+VA inventory. Exhibit 4.4 compares

the 2007 PM 10 and PM2.5 emissions using the new and previous methodology. PM10

emissions are lower using the new methodology, while PM2.5 emissions are higher.

Exhibit 4.4

– 2007 Paved Road Dust PM10 and PM2.5 Emission Estimates

State PM10

- PRI PM25

- PRI

Version2 (tons/yr) Version 3

New Method (tons/yr) Version2

(tons/yr) Version 3

New Method (tons/yr)

Connecticut 16,085 6,722 688 1,680

Delaware 10,217 4,556 724 1,143

District of Columbia 1,841 819 81 201

Maine* 16,536 16,536 1,665 1,665
Maryland** 12,813 13,798 3,160 3,387

Massachusetts 32,748 27,392 1,622 6,724
New Hampshire 8,821 7,985 524 1,960
New Jersey 38,210 19,914 1,142 4,979

New York 95,075 46,348 5,818 11,376
Pennsylvania 92,927 46,806 6,114 11,489

Rhode Island 4,387 3,833 204 941

Vermont 11,326 5,659 979 1,389
Virginia 50,827 29,637 2,966 7,275

Total 391,814 230,004 25,690 54,207

* Maine did not provide paved road emissions using the new method.

** Maryland used a draft version of the new AP-42 method for Version 2.



### 4.5.2 Use of MOVES Model to Estimate Stage II Emissions

S tates elected to use the Stage II emissions as calculated by the MOVES model, and to

include those emissions in the area source sector emission summaries. Stage II emissions

result from the refueling of motor vehicles at gasoline service stations. NESCAUM, PA,

NY, and VA each executed the MOVES model in inventory mode to calculate vehicle

refueling emissions. The MOVES estimates were used instead of the estimates providedTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 75



### by states for Version 2 of the inventory. The MOVES estimates are not included in the

onroa d sector summaries or modeling files so that the emissions will not be double

counted. Exhibit 4.5 compares the Stage II VOC emissions in the 2008 NEI to the

emissions calculated using the MOVES model. VOC emissions are higher using MOVES

in some states, lower in others. Appendix F contains NESCAUM’s documentation of the

MOVES modeling. Appendix G contains the VOC control efficiencies by county used in

the MO VES modeling for displacement losses and for spillage losses.

E xhibit 4.5 –Stage II Refueling VOC Emissions for 2007 Using NMIM and MOVES

State NEI2008 (tons/yr) 2007 Version 3 Using

MOVES (tons/yr)

Connecticut 483 286

Delaware 284 294

District of Columbia 71 52

Maine 809 709
Maryland 1,933 2,132

Massachusetts 980 807

New Hampshire 412 419
New Jersey 2,287 2,500

New York 7,604 8,787
Pennsylvania 5,313 6,581

Rhode Island 178 180

Vermont 128 122
Virginia 4,464 5,569

Total 24,947 28,437



### 4.5.3 Connecticut Changes for Fuel Combustion

Connecticut provided updated 2007 emission estimates for non-wood fuel combustion for

the residential, commercial/institutional and industrial source categories. Connecticut

previously relied on USEPA’s 2005 NEI-v2 (commercial/institutional and industrial) and

USEPA’s 2008 NEI (residential) for these categories. Prompted by reviews provided by

MARAMA, Connecticut subsequently discovered that USEPA’s inventory assumed a

2.25% sulfur level for residual fuel oil compared to a CT regulatory maximum of 1.0%

su lfur. In addition, Connecticut could not verify whether USEPA’s 2005 NEI-v2 adjusted

its area source estimates to avoid double counting of point sources. As a result,

Connecticut has decided to use emission estimates from its draft-2005 periodic emission s inventory (PEI) for the non-wood fuel combustion portions of the three cited categories.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 76



### The draft-2005 PEI includes only CO, VOC and NOx emissions, so fuel use values were

multiplied by USEPA emission factors obtained from the 2008 NEI to calculate estimates

of annual SO2 and PM2.5 emissions. Emissions for 2005 are assumed to be representative

of 2007, with no growth adjustments.

Connecticut identified errors in the Version 2 inventory that were corrected in Version 3.

The CO emissions for residential distillate oil combustion were incorrectly reported as

winter season emissions instead of annual emissions. Version 2 emissions for residential,

c ommercial/institutional, and industrial kerosene combustion were based on NEI 2008

values. Connecticut indicated that kerosene emissions in the state are included under the

distillate oil category. Emissions for the kerosene combustion SCCs were set to zero in

Version 3 to avoid double counting of emissions. For a few SCCs, the sum of the PM10-

FIL and PM-CON emissions did not equal the PM10-PRI emissions, and the sum of the

PM25-FIL and PM-CON emissions did not equal the PM25-PRI emissions. Revisions to

the PM10-PRI and PM25-PRI emissions were made to correct the error.

4.5.4 Connecticut Revisions for AIM Coatings and Auto Refinishing

Version 2 of the 2007 inventory for AIM coatings was based on USEPA 2008 NEI values,

which accounted for the implementation of the OTC model rule for AIM coatings in

Connecticut. Since Connecticut’s AIM rule did not go into place in time to produce 2007

reductions, the 2008 NEI values for those SCCs were increased for the Version 3

inventory. The emission factor used to calculate emissions was changed from 2.41 to 3.02

lbs/person to reflect the absence of reductions from the CT AIM rule in 2007.

Version 2 of the 2007 inventory for industrial maintenance coatings was based on USEPA

2008 NE I values, which accounted for the implementation of the OTC model rule for AIM

coatings in Connecticut. Since Connecticut’s AIM rule did not go into place in time to

produce 2007 reductions, the 2008 NEI values for those SCCs were increased for the

Version 3 inventory. The emission factor used to calculate emissions was changed from

0.15 to 0.96 lbs/person to reflect the absence of reductions from the CT AIM rule in 2007.

Ve rsion 2 of the 2007 inventory for auto refinishing coatings was based on USEPA 2008

NEI values, which did not account for the implementation of the OTC model rule for

mobile equipment repair and refinishing in Connecticut. A rule similar to the OTC rule

wa s in place in Connecticut in April 2006. Since Connecticut’s auto refinishing rule was

in place prior to 2007, the 2008 NEI values for those SCCs were reduced for the Version 3

inventory. The emission factor used to calculate emissions was changed from 89 to 55

lbs/employee to reflect the 38 percent reduction in VOC emissions from the Connecticut

auto refinishing rule in 2007.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 77



### 4.5.5 District of Columbia Residential Wood Combustion

Emi ssions for residential wood combustion in the District of Columbia were missing from

Version 2 of the 2007 MANE-VU+VA area source inventory. These emissions were

originally estimated using the USEPA RWC tool, but were inadvertently left out of the

2007 inventory. The 2007 emissions calculated by the USEPA RWC tool were added.

4.5.6 Maryland Degreasing VOC Emisions

Maryland provided revised estimates for VOC emissions for the degreasing category.

4.5.7 Massachusetts NH3 Emisions

Massachusetts added NH3 emissions from humans (SCC 28-10 -010 -000 ), cats (SCC 28-

06 -010-000 ), and dogs (SCC 28 -06 -015 -000 ) that were missing in Version 2.

4.5.8 New Jersey Bakeries and Auto Refinishing VOC Emisions

Ne w Jersey revised the VOC emissions for bakeries and auto refinishing.

4.5.9 New York VOC Emisions from Residential Wood Combustion

New York revised the CO and VOC emissions for all residential wood combustion SCCs.

4.5.10 Pennsylvania Industrial Coal Combustion

Pennsylvania revised the industrial coal emissions for SCCs 2102001000 and 2102002000.

This revision was accomplished using one of the two new preferred methods of point

subtraction based on activity throughputs (coal usage). The revised activity method is

performed by subtracting the point source coal usage from the state coal usage totals, and

then calculating the area source emissions, which is a more accurate calculation estimate.

4.5.11 Pennsylvania Residential Distillate Oil Combustion

Pennsylvania’s original submittal for SO2 emissions for residential distillate oil were

incorrectly underreported by a factor of 100. This error was corrected in Version 3.

4.5.12 Virginia Industrial Coal Combustion

Virginia identified an error in the Version 2 emissions from industrial coal combustion

(SCC=21-02-002 -000) resulting from a misinterpretation of activity data from the Energy

Information Administration. Virginia now believes that all industrial coal combustion is

accounted for in the point source inventory. All emissions for this SCC were zeroed out

for all counties in Virginia.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 78



### 4.5.13 Multiple States Open Burning and Commercial Cooking

USEPA updated their emissions estimates for the 2008 NEI in August, 2011. Several

states relied on the USEPA estimates for use in the 2007 MANE-VU+VA inventory.

These revisions included:

For commercial cooking (SCCs 23-02 -002 -xxx and 23-02 -003 -xxx), USEPA added

emission factors for PM -CON and emissions for PM25-PRI were recalculated.

For open burning (26-10-000 -100, 26 -10 -000 -400, 26-10-000 -500, 26 -10-030-

000), USEPA updated per capita waste generation and recalculated emissions.

Emissions for states using the USEPA estimates were updated to reflect these changes.

4.6 ANNUAL 2007 AREA SOURCE EMISSION SUMMARY

Overall, estimated area source emissions decreased from 2002 to 2007 in the region for all

pollutants. Area source emissions are generally a product of both activity and emission

factors. Changes in both activity and emission factors occurred between 2002 and 2007

for several categories resulting in changes in emission estimates.

Ex hibit 4.6 summarizes 2002 and 2007 area source CO emissions by State. Exhibit 4.7

presents the 2007 CO emissions by State and major source category. Most States show a

significant reduction in CO area source emissions between 2002 and 2007. The District of

Columbia, Rhode Island and Vermont show increases. Regionwide, area source emissions

of CO are estimated to be 33% lower in 2007 than was estimated in 2002. Most of the area

sourc e CO emissions result from residential wood combustion and open burning, and the

emission estimation methods used for these categories changed between 2002 and 2007.

Th erefore, the substantial changes in CO emissions from 2002 to 2007 are primarily due to

different emission estimation methodologies used for the 2002 and 2007 inventories.

Exhibit 4.8 summarizes 2002 and 2007 area source NH3 emissions by State. Exhibit 4.9

presents the 2007 NH3 emissions by State and major source category. Most States show a

reduction in NH3 area source emissions between 2002 and 2007, except for the District of

Columbia, which show substantial percentage increase. It should be noted that the

magnitude of NH3 emissions in the District are very small in comparison to regional

emissions, and the large percentage increase is insignificant in the context of regional air

quality modeling. Regionwide, area source emissions of NH3 are estimated to be 15 %

lowe r in 2007 than was estimated in 2002. Nearly all area source NH3 emissions result

from agricultural livestock and fertilizer categories which were calculated by USEPA

using the CMU ammonia model. Reductions in animal populations and fertilizer usage

between 2007 and 2002 are the reason for the change.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 79



### Exhibit 4.10 summarizes 2002 and 2007 area source NOx emissions by State. Exhibit 4.11

presents the 2007 NOx emissions by State and major source category. Most States show

decreases between 2002 and 2007, except for Pennsylvania and Vermont, which show

increases. Regionwide, area source emissions of NOx are estimated to be 28% lower in

2007 than w as estimated in 2002. Nearly all area source NOx emissions are from the

industrial, commercial, and residential (non-wood fuel) categories.

Exhibit 4.12 summarizes 2002 and 2007 area source PM10-PRI emissions by State.

Exhibit 4.13 presents the 2007 PM10-PRI emissions by State and major source category.

Regionwide, area source emissions of PM10-PRI are estimated to be 29% lower in 2007

than w as estimated in 2002. PM10-PRI emissions are attributable to the paved/unpaved

road dust, construction activity, mining & quarrying, and agricultural tilling categories.

Changes in the emission calculation methodology for road dust from paved roads accounts

for a substantial portion of the decrease.

Exhibit 4.14 summarizes 2002 and 2007 area source PM25-PRI emissions. Exhibit 4.15

presents the 2007 PM25-PRI emissions by State and major source category. Regionwide,

a rea source emissions of PM25-PRI are estimated to be 19% lower in 2007 than was

estimated in 2002. PM25-PRI emissions result from residential wood combustion,

paved/unpaved road dust, construction activity, mining & quarrying, and open burning

ca tegories. Changes in the emission calculation methodology for road dust from paved

roads and residential wood combustion accounts for a substantial portion of the changes.

Exhibit 4.16 summarizes 2002 and 2007 area source SO2 emissions by State. Exhibit 4.17

presents the 2007 SO2 emissions by State and major source category. Most States show

decreases between 2002 and 2007, except for Connecticut and Pennsylvania, which show

increases. Regionwide, area source emissions of SO2 are estimated to be 42 % lower in

2007 than was estimated in 2002. Nearly all area source SO2 emissions are from the

industrial, commercial, and residential (non-wood fuel) categories.

Exhibit 4.18 summarizes 2002 and 2007 area source VOC emissions by State. Exhibit

4.19 presents the 2007 VOC emissions by State and major source category. All States

show subst antial reductions in VOC emissions from 2002 to 2007. Regionwide, area

source emissions of VOC are estimated to be 45% lower in 2007 than was estimated in

2002. Part of the difference can be explained by post-2002 control measures for

a rchitectural coatings, consumer products, degreasing and portable fuel containers. But, as

was discuss for CO emissions, part of the difference is due to differences in the

methodologies used to estimate emissions from residential wood combustion.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 80



### Exhibit 4.6

– 2002 and 2007 Area Source CO Emissions by State (tons/year)

STATE 2002 2007 Change

Connecticut 70,198 41,496

- 41%

Delaware 14,052 8,266

- 41%

District of Columbia 2,300 5,488 139%

Maine 109,223 50,496

- 54%

Maryland 141,179 74,188

- 47%

Massachusetts 137,496 79,226

- 42%

New Hampshire 79,647 39,677

- 50%

New Jersey 97,657 77,687

- 20%

New York 356,254 205,055

- 42%

Pennsylvania 266,935 217,079

- 19%

Rhode Island 8,007 15,419 93%

Vermont 43,849 51,109 17%

Virginia 155,873 132,098

- 15%

1,482,669 997,285

- 33%



### Exhibit 4.7

– 2007 Area Source CO Emissions by Category and State

(tons/year)Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 81



### Exhibit 4.8

– 2002 and 2007 Area Source NH3 Emissions by State (tons/year)

STATE 2002 2007 Change

Connecticut 5,318 4,421

- 17%

Delaware 13,278 12,382

- 7%

District of Columbia 14 183 1188%

Maine 8,747 5,736

- 34%

Maryland 25,835 26,006 1%

Massachusetts 18,809 13,791

- 27%

New Hampshire 2,158 1,500

- 30%

New Jersey 17,572 15,736

- 10%

New York 67,422 45,693

- 32%

Pennsylvania 79,911 72,569

- 9%

Rhode Island 883 625

- 29%

Vermont 9,848 8,013

- 19%

Virginia 43,905 43,394

- 1%

293,699 250,049

- 15%



### Exhibit 4.9

– 2007 Area Source NH3 Emissions by Category and State

(tons/year)Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 82



### Exhibit 4.10

– 2002 and 2007 Area Source NOx Emissions by State (tons/year)

STATE 2002 2007 Change

Connecticut 12,689 12,422

- 2%

Delaware 2,608 2,237

- 14%

District of Columbia 1,644 1,547

- 6%

Maine 7,360 6,656

- 10%

Maryland 15,678 10,312

- 34%

Massachusetts 34,281 20,252

- 41%

New Hampshire 10,960 4,737

- 57%

New Jersey 26,692 24,175

- 9%

New York 98,803 72,053

- 27%

Pennsylvania 47,591 47,545 0%

Rhode Island 3,886 3,469

- 11%

Vermont 3,208 3,996 25%

Virginia 51,418 19,056

- 63%

316,817 228,458

- 28%



### Exhibit 4.11

– 2007 Area Source NOx Emissions by Category and State

(tons/year)Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 83



### Exhibit 4.12

– 2002 and 2007 Area Source PM10-PRI Emissions by State (tons/year)

STATE 2002 2007 Change

Connecticut 48,281 30,577

- 37%

Delaware 13,039 10,499

- 19%

District of Columbia 3,269 4,873 49%

Maine 168,953 54,445

- 68%

Maryland 95,060 72,454

- 24%

Massachusetts 192,860 148,756

- 23%

New Hampshire 43,329 27,742

- 36%

New Jersey 61,601 39,140

- 36%

New York 369,595 272,674

- 26%

Pennsylvania 391,897 287,998

- 27%

Rhode Island 8,295 11,361 37%

Vermont 56,131 47,993

- 14%

Virginia 237,577 183,341

- 23%

1,689,886 1,191,853

- 29%



### Exhibit 4.1 3

– 2007 Area Source PM10-PRI Emissions by Category and State

(tons/year)Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 84



### Exhibit 4.14

– 2002 and 2007 Area Source PM25-PRI Emissions by State (tons/year)

STATE 2002 2007 Change

Connecticut 14,247 10,606

- 26%

Delaware 3,204 3,031

- 5%

District of Columbia 805 1,542 91%

Maine 32,774 12,526

- 62%

Maryland 27,318 19,789

- 28%

Massachusetts 42,083 30,438

- 28%

New Hampshire 17,532 8,623

- 51%

New Jersey 19,350 18,299

- 5%

New York 87,155 63,906

- 27%

Pennsylvania 74,925 73,514

- 2%

Rhode Island 2,064 3,896 89%

Vermont 11,065 13,106 18%

Virginia 43,989 44,102 0%

376,510 303,378

- 19%



### Exhibit 4.1 5

– 2007 Area Source PM25-PRI Emissions by Category and State

(tons/year)Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 85



### Exhibit 4.1 6

– 2002 and 2007 Area Source SO2 Emissions by State (tons/year)

STATE 2002 2007 Change

Connecticut 12,419 16,083 30%

Delaware 1,588 1,144

- 28%

District of Columbia 1,336 1,241

- 7%

Maine 13,149 9,812

- 25%

Maryland 12,393 5,960

- 52%

Massachusetts 25,488 19,859

- 22%

New Hampshire 7,072 5,283

- 25%

New Jersey 10,744 8,811

- 18%

New York 130,409 70,044

- 46%

Pennsylvania 63,679 66,584 5%

Rhode Island 4,557 3,897

- 14%

Vermont 4,088 3,752

- 8%

Virginia 105,890 17,098

- 84%

392,812 229,569

- 42%



### Exhibit 4.1 7

– 2007 Area Source SO2 Emissions by Category and State

(tons/year)Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 86



### Exhibit 4.1 8

– 2002 and 2007 Area Source VOC Emissions by State (tons/year)

STATE 2002 2007 Change

Connecticut 87,302 57,253

- 34%

Delaware 15,520 9,482

- 39%

District of Columbia 6,432 5,568

- 13%

Maine 100,621 31,966

- 68%

Maryland 120,254 64,429

- 46%

Massachusetts 155,557 85,870

- 45%

New Hampshire 65,371 22,343

- 66%

New Jersey 167,882 98,121

- 42%

New York 507,291 195,976

- 61%

Pennsylvania 240,785 176,781

- 27%

Rhode Island 31,402 24,214

- 23%

Vermont 23,266 14,108

- 39%

Virginia 172,989 142,218

- 18%

1,694,670 928,330

- 45%



### Exhibit 4.1 9

– 2007 Area Source VOC Emissions by Category and State

(tons/year)Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 87



## 5.0 ANNUAL 2007 INVENTORY FOR NONROAD SOURCES

INCLUDED IN THE NONROAD MODEL

5.1 NONROAD MODEL CATEGORIES

The USEPA’s NONROAD model estimates emissions from equipment such as

re creational marine vessels, recreational land-based vehicles, farm and construction

machinery, lawn and garden equipment, aircraft ground support equipment (GSE) and rail

maintenance equipment. This equipment is powered by diesel, gasoline, compressed

natural gas or liquefied petroleum gas engines.

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

c ounty-level emissions for certain types of nonroad equipment. NMIM uses the current

ve rsion the NONROAD model. The NMIM national county database contains monthly

input data to reflect county specific fuel parameters and temperatures. Most of the work

associated with executing NMIM involved updating the NMIM county database with

State-specific information. For this analysis, we used the NMIM2008 software (version

NM IM20090504), the NMIM County Database (version NCD20090531), and

NONROAD2008a (July 2009 version) as a starting point (USEPA 2009d). Changes were

made to the NCD20090531 based on State review.

5.2 VERSION 2 INVENTORY DEVELOPMENT

The following subsections describe how Version 2 of the inventory was prepared.

5.2.1 State Review of NMIM Meteorology Data and Fuel Characteristics

The Contractor obtained from USEPA the National County Database (NCD20090531) for

use as a starting point for preparing the modeling data sets. NCD20090531contains the

2007 year-specific meteorology data set that USEPA used to calculate 2007 emissions in

addition to fuel revisions for years 2006-2011. These fuel values are updates to those in

the 2007 USEPA NMIM run which used NCD20090327. It was decided to use

NCD20090531 as a starting point for development of the NONROAD input files for the

2007 modeling inventory. NCD20090531 was made available for state comment.

Several States commented on fuel characteristics data and changes were made to the

unde rlying MySQL database to incorporate those changes into the model. These included

changes to Reid Vapor Pressure, sulfur and oxygenate fractions. Where changes were

made, the Contractor created new gasoline types and IDs using the NMIM MySQL NCD

database default entries as a starting point. Only information related to criteria pollutant

emission calculations was changed. Information related to air toxics that was contained inTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 88



### the initial default fuel characteristic tables was not adjusted. Thus the fuel types created

for the NMIM modeling should NOT be used for air toxics modeling. To further separate

the data in the fuel characteristics tables from other modeling efforts, the Contractor

created a separate NCD for use exclusively for this modeling effort.

Exhibit 5.1 shows the number of added gasoline fuel record types added to the “gasoline”

table in the MySQL NCD database. The total number of added fuel records was 118 new

gasoline types. These records were given GasolineID values of 4462 to 4479 inclusive.

Exhibit 5.1

– Gasoline Fuel Record Types Add to MySQL NCD Database

State Number of revised

gasoline records

CT 10

MD 48

NH 15

NJ 20

NY 25



### Although records were added for NY, they were not used since NY performed their own

NONROAD modeling (see below).

5.2.2 Update of NMIM Allocation Files for Population and Housing

Several NONROAD categories use housing unit or population data to allocate the

emissions to the county level from State calculations. States identified some discrepancies

in the housing and population data contained in the NONROAD model and requested that

the Contractor update the allocation files for those categories. As a consequence, the

C ontractor obtained 1 and 2 unit housing information and updated 2007 population

e stimates. Data were obtained from the sources listed in Exhibit 5.2. :

Exhibit 5.2 – Data Sources for Population and Housing Data

Source Type Data Source

2007 Population Data Source http://www.census.gov/ popest/counties/CO

- EST2008

- 01.html

Total Housing Data Source http://www.census.gov/popest/housing/HU

- EST2007

- CO.html

1 yr

- 1 and 2 Unit Housing

Data 2007 American Community Survey 1

- Year Estimates

3 yr

- 1 and 2 Unit Housing

Data B25024. UNITS IN STRUCTURE

- Universe: HOUSING UNITS

Data Set: 2005

- 2007 American Community Survey 3

- Year Estimates, Survey: American Community Survey



### Three sources for the housing unit data were required to evaluate all counties within the

region. Census data are frequently withheld when the data reporting can lead to disclosureTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 89



### of confidential business information or due to incomplete survey response. For the 1 and 2

unit housing data, the predominant source was the 1 year 1 and 2 unit housing data. If that

was unavailable due to either confidentiality issues or lack of survey response, then the 3

year data was used by determining an average value for the three year period. Finally if no

data were available for the 3 year 1 and 2 unit housing information, total housing unit data

were utilized. The revised housing unit data affected the allocation of residential lawn and

garden equipment. Revised allocation files for all MARAMA States (except NY) were

developed and utilized in the NMIM modeling for this category.

For the population data, the latest county estimates of population were obtained from the

C ensus Bureau. These estimates were available for all counties within the MARAMA

region. Again, revised allocation files were developed for all States within the MARAM A

region with the exception of NY. These revised allocation files applied to railroad

maintenance equipment and AC/refrigeration equipment.

A revised population allocation file was prepared for NH as part of this effort, but those

data were not obtained from the Census Bureau. The NH population data were provided

b y NH and were obtained from the "2007 Population Estimates of New Hampshire Cities

and Towns", New Hampshire Office of Energy and Planning, June 2008.” Those data

were used in lieu of the Census Bureau data.

In addition, Pennsylvania provided changes to the values for 1 and 2 unit housing for 2007.

The source of these data was not cited.

5.2.3 State-Specific Data Incorporated in NMIM

In addition to the global updates to the housing and population allocation files in the

MARAMA r egion, several States submitted additional information used to update the

underlying data used to calculate emissions from nonroad sources. The data submitted and

the updates resulting from these submittals are discussed below by State.

5.2.3.1 

### Connecticut

Connecticut only provided updated information related to the gasoline characteristics. No

additional changes were submitted.

5.2.3.2 

### Delaware

Delaware provided revised values for several additional allocation files beyond those for

population and housing units. Data for 2005 were submitted and updated files were

developed for the following allocation categories: golf courses, recreational marine vessels,

snow blowers, number of wholesale establishments, landscaping employees, andTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 90



### manufacturing employees. In addition, Delaware also submitted data on the engine

populations for 2005 for the following recreational marine vessels:

2282005010 2

- Str Outboard

2282005015 2

- Str Personal Water Craft

2282010005 4

- Str Inboard/Sterndrive

2282020005 Dsl

- Inboard

2282020010 Dsl

- Outboard



### The updated population values for 2005 were added to the corresponding file for the

NONROAD model and were used for the 2007 runs. Because of the way NONROAD

ha ndles missing data, if data for 2007 are not found, the most current data (in this case

2005) are used to assist in determining a 2007 value.

5.2.3.3 

### Maryland

Maryland only provided information to update the gasoline characteristics. No additional

changes were submitted.

5.2.3.4 

### New Hampshire

As indicated above, New Hampshire provided State-specific population data from their

own data source for their counties for use in preparing the population allocation files. A

revised population allocation file was prepared for NH as part of this effort, but those data

were not obtained from the Census Bureau. The NH population data were provided by NH

and were obtained from the "2007 Population Estimates of New Hampshire Cities and

Towns", New Hampshire Office of Energy and Planning, June 2008. Those data were

used in lieu of the Census Bureau data.

5.2.4 New Jersey

New Jersey provided revised gasoline characteristics values as well as NONROAD

equipment population data with revised data on equipment population values for Airport

Ground Support Equipment. In addition, NJ provided revised human population data for

2002, 2005, 2010, 2015 and 2020. These data (along with the 2007 data generated from

the Census Bureau) were added to the NJ population allocation file.

5.2.4.1 

### New York

New York opted to not have the Contractor calculate emissions using NMIM for their

S tate. Instead, NY calculated their own emissions for the nonroad category and submitted

the output files to the Contractor for post processing. The output files submitted by NY

we re monthly output runs from the NONROAD model for each county. The ContractorTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 91



### simply post-processed these files to combine emissions and throughput values for each

county into an annual emissions number. Summary annual files were submitted to NY by

the Contractor for approval. No other work on the NY emissions was performed by the

C ontractor.

5.2.4.2 

### Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania provided revised data for the 1 and 2 unit housing information for 2007.

Those data were used in lieu of the Census Bureau data for 2007 in the allocation file. The

sourc e of these data was not cited.

5.2.5 NMIM Run Specification

The run specifications for each NMIM run were developed on a State- by -State basis. The

settings for each specification panel within the NMIM model are detailed below.

Description: A short descriptive term for the run was entered for each State specific

run.

Geography: The “county” option was selected for each State specific run. All

counties within a State were selected for the run.

Time: On the time panel, the year 2007 was selected in the drop down box and

added to the year selections area. The Use Yearly Weather Data check box was

also selected. Every month in the Months check box area was selected.

Vehicles/Equipment: Only the nonroad vehicle/equipment area was selected. All

fuels and all vehicle types were selected for each State run.

Fleet: No selections or information was entered in this panel.

Pollutants: All criteria pollutants (with HC reported as VOC) were selected except

for CO 2 

### . Exhaust PM10 and PM2.5 were also selected.

Advanced features: Only the server and database were selected in this panel.

Output: Under the Geographic Representation panel the County selection was

made. In the General Output area, a new database was selected on the server for

the output.

All added external files for use in each State run were placed in the external files directory

of the NCD. Entries for all external files included were added to the countynrfiles table of

the NCD.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 92



### 5.2.6 State and Stakeholder Review of Version 2

The Contractor completed the NMIM modeling runs in October of 2009. The results were

made available to States and Stakeholders for review and comment. Based on the

c omments received, the following issues were addressed, and in some cases, changes were

made to the 2007 nonroad inventory for sources included in NMIM.

5.2.6.1 

### Conn ecticut

Connecticut requested several changes to the NMIM inputs, which were incorporated into

a new 2007 NMIM run. Connecticut indicated that the RFG areas were not applied to

counties correctly. RV P values were modified by a small amount to reflect USEPA RFG

sa mple averages for the appropriate mapping of Connecticut counties to RFG areas.

Connecticut identified discrepancies in the RFG average sulfur values for 2007 and

provided updated values. Connecticut also provided updated values for the calculated

oxygen weight percents for ethanol.

5.2.6.2 

### New Jersey

New Jersey identified a very minor issue with the fuels data used for the 2007 NMIM runs.

After considering the insignificant impact it would have on the emission totals, they agreed

the fuels data used in the original NMIM run were adequate.

5.2.7 Removal of Airport Ground Support Equipment Emissions

The NMIM/NONROAD model includes emissions from airport ground support

equipment. As discussed in detail in Section 6 of this TSD, emissions from airport ground

support equipment is also included in USEPA’s aircraft inventory that was prepared using

the F ederal Aviation Administration’s Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System

(EDMS). Correspondence with USEPA indicated that USEPA considers the emissions

calculated by EDMS to be better than those calculated by NONROAD. For this reason, all

emissions calculated by NMIM/NONROAD for airport ground support equipment were

removed from the inventory to avoid double counting emissions.

5.3 CHANGES MADE FOR VERSION 3

Two main modifications were made to the nonroad inventory for 2007 for version 3 of the

inventory. First, Virginia and New York requested that their emissions be recalculated

using the information developed for the MARAMA States. The Virginia reruns were

performed for all categories except for ground support equipment and for recreational

marine vessels. Those values replaced the SEMAP supplied values used in versions prior

to ver sion 3. As indicated above, New York had originally provided data fromTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 93



### NONROAD model runs that they performed separately. For this version of the inventory,

New York emissions were calculated using NMIM runs set up using the same criteria as

those for other states in earlier versions of the inventory. Both New York and Virginia

were provided with the opportunity to review fuel characteristics prior to their runs. Only

Virginia made changes to the fuels, however the only changes that were made were to

assign alternative default fuels for gasoline powered engines to counties. The fuel

characteristics were not modified from the NMIM defaults, only the fuel IDs associated

with a particular county/month combination were changed to another default fuel. Those

changes were instituted in the NCD developed specifically for MARAMA. Default values

for diesel, LPG and CNG were maintained for Virginia. New York did not request any

changes to the default values. In addition, the revisions made to the housing population

allocation files were instituted for both states.

The second change was to modify the recreational marine vessel populations for all states

except Vermont and Maine. A revised population file was prepared for Virginia but not

utilized in the version 3 runs. Virginia used the NMIM default engine population for

recreational marine vessels for version 3 runs. The revised population data were provided

by the National Marine Manufacturers Association (NMMA). Total state populations for

each of the three major categories contained in the NONROAD model (outboard,

inboard/sterndrive and personal watercraft) were provided for each state. Because the

population files used by the NONROAD model (and thus NMIM) were configured with

population values for various horsepower categories, AMEC determined the fraction of the

total for each marine vessel type in each horsepower category from the NONROAD

default population files. These fractions were then used to allocate the total state

population obtained from NMMA to the various horsepower categories.

The only exception to this was that some states added in data for sailboats to the NMMA

data. The sailboat populations were split among two of the default NONROAD categories.

In addition, New Hampshire provided their own revised population file. Their population

data were provided by the New Hampshire DMV and is not from NMMA.

5.4 SUMMARY OF NMIM MODELING RESULTS FOR 2007

Ex hibits 5.3 to 5.9 present State-level summaries that compare 2002 and 2007 annual

e missions for NMIM/NONROAD sources (excluding airport ground support equipment)

from Version 3 of the MARAMA inventory. The 2002 emissions are those that were

developed previously for Version 3 of the MANE- VU a nd the VISTAS best-and -final

inventory for Virginia. Note that previous versions of this document had emissions forTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 94



### Virginia derived from VISTAS/SEMAP NMIM results. For this document the Virginia

data is from NMIM runs made consistent with the MARAMA approach.

For most States and pollutants, emissions from NMIM/NONROAD sources decreased

from 2002 to 2007.

CO emissions generally decreased by 15-30% in all States, in part due to turnover

to newer, cleaner engines.

NH3 emissions showed increases from 2002 to 2007 for all states except

Connecticut and New Jersey which showed modest decreases.

Emissions of NO

x 

### , PM10-PRI, and PM25-PRI generally decreased by 9-20% from

2002 to 2007, with some States showing slightly higher or slight lower decreases.

For SO
2 

### , emissions decreased by 40-50% in all States except New Hampshire and

Rhode Island.

VOC emissions decreased between 5-35% over the same time period.

In addition, the estimated decrease in emissions was due to differences in the versions of

the NONROAD model that were used to develop the 2002 and 2007 inventories. The new

ve rsion of the model (NONROAD 2008a) used for the 2007 inventory accounts for new

e xhaust and evaporative emission controls, and predicts substantially less HC and CO, and

somew hat less NO

x 

### and PM emissions than earlier versions of NONROAD with use of

comparable scenario inputs. NH3 was relatively unaffected by the new NONROAD

ve rsion.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 95



### Exhibit 5.3

– 2002 and 2007 NMIM/NONROAD CO Emissions by State (tons/year)

STATE 2002 2007 Change

Connecticut 274,388 181,817

- 34%

Delaware 65,954 55,173

- 16%

District of Columbia 18,775 14,319

- 24%

Maine 148,555 131,319

- 12%

Maryland 424,777 297,832

- 30%

Massachusetts 448,399 324,793

- 28%

New Hampshire 128,572 90,461

- 30%

New Jersey 692,548 445,302

- 36%

New York 1,219,168 911,813

- 25%

Pennsylvania 903,168 719,517

- 20%

Rhode Island 71,573 54,028

- 25%

Vermont 61,732 52,497

- 15%

Virginia 582,895 415,093

- 29%

5,040,503 3,693,965

- 27%



### Exhibit 5.4 – 2007 NMIM CO Emissions by Category and State

(t ons/year)Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 96



### Exhibit 5.5

– 2002 and 2007 NMIM/NONROAD NH3 Emissions by State (tons/year)

STATE 2002 2007 Change

Connecticut 17 16

- 1%

Delaware 5 6 13%

District of Columbia 2 3 9%

Maine 11 13 11%

Maryland 28 29 4%

Massachusetts 28 28 0%

New Hampshire 9 10 11%

New Jersey 43 40

- 8%

New York 79 83 5%

Pennsylvania 55 60 9%

Rhode Island 4 5 15%

Vermont 5 5 12%

Virginia 42 45 5%

328 342 4%



### Exhibit 5.6

–

2007 NMIM NH3 Emissions by Category and State

(tons/year)Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 97



### Exhibit 5.7

– 2002 and 2007 NMIM/NONROAD NOx Emissions by State (tons/year)

STATE 2002 2007 Change

Connecticut 17,897 16,056

- 10%

Delaware 5,798 4,998

- 14%

District of Columbia 3,066 2,788

- 9%

Maine 8,229 7,439

- 10%

Maryland 27,789 25,726

- 7%

Massachusetts 30,047 26,471

- 12%

New Hampshire 8,150 8,562 5%

New Jersey 43,515 36,345

- 16%

New York 78,601 72,271

- 8%

Pennsylvania 62,265 55,362

- 11%

Rhode Island 4,564 4,388

- 4%

Vermont 4,170 3,743

- 10%

Virginia 40,788 41,325 1%

334,878 305,475

- 9%



### Exhibit 5.8

–

2007 NMIM NOx Emissions by Category and State

(tons/year)Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 98



### Exhibit 5.9

– 2002 and 2007 NMIM/NONROAD PM10-PRI Emissions by State

(tons/year)

STATE 2002 2007 Change

Connecticut 1,713 1,412

- 18%

Delaware 570 476

- 17%

District of Columbia 298 242

- 19%

Maine 1,204 1,151

- 4%

Maryland 3,119 2,600

- 17%

Massachusetts 2,887 2,384

- 17%

New Hampshire 947 846

- 11%

New Jersey 4,285 3,377

- 21%

New York 8,332 7,059

- 15%

Pennsylvania 6,281 5,623

- 10%

Rhode Island 403 367

- 9%

Vermont 518 482

- 7%

Virginia 4,901 4,128

- 16%

35,459 30,146

- 15%



### Exhibit 5.10

– 2007 NMIM PM10-PRI Emissions by Category and State

(tons/year)Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 99



### Exhibit 5.11

– 2002 and 2007 NMIM/NONROAD PM25-PRI Emissions by State

(tons/year)

STATE 2002 2007 Change

Connecticut 1,578 1,343

- 15%

Delaware 525 453

- 14%

District of Columbia 288 234

- 19%

Maine 1,135 1,080

- 5%

Maryland 2,870 2,473

- 14%

Massachusetts 2,659 2,268

- 15%

New Hampshire 872 799

- 8%

New Jersey 3,951 3,213

- 19%

New York 7,670 6,715

- 12%

Pennsylvania 5,784 5,346

- 8%

Rhode Island 371 349

- 6%

Vermont 477 455

- 5%

Virginia 4,665 3,933

- 16%

32,844 28,660

- 13%



### Exhibit 5.12

– 2007 NMIM PM25-PRI Emissions by Category and State

(tons/year)Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 100



### Exhibit 5.3

– 2002 and 2007 NMIM/NONROAD SO2 Emissions by State (tons/year)

STATE 2002 2007 Change

Connecticut 1,377 802

- 42%

Delaware 513 266

- 48%

District of Columbia 341 196

- 43%

Maine 772 416

- 46%

Maryland 2,569 1,436

- 44%

Massachusetts 2,428 1,377

- 43%

New Hampshire 673 441

- 34%

New Jersey 3,525 1,905

- 46%

New York 6,961 3,957

- 43%

Pennsylvania 5,292 2,972

- 44%

Rhode Island 335 211

- 37%

Vermont 368 202

- 45%

Virginia 3,982 2,284

- 43%

29,136 16,464

- 43%



### Exhibit 5.14 – 2007 NMIM SO2 Emissions by Category and State

(t ons/year)Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 101



### Exhibit 5.15

– 2002 and 2007 NMIM/NONROAD VOC Emissions by State (tons/year)

STATE 2002 2007 Change

Connecticut 33,519 20,721

- 38%

Delaware 7,531 7,157

- 5%

District of Columbia 2,053 1,324

- 36%

Maine 30,741 29,880

- 3%

Maryland 53,035 35,160

- 34%

Massachusetts 54,836 35,676

- 35%

New Hampshire 22,238 17,108

- 23%

New Jersey 81,900 47,521

- 42%

New York 155,463 114,935

- 26%

Pennsylvania 99,241 86,397

- 13%

Rhode Island 7,699 6,721

- 13%

Vermont 10,520 10,339

- 2%

Virginia 53,487 55,135 3%

612,262 468,074

- 24%



### Exhibit 5.16 – 2007 NMIM VOC Emissions by Category and State

(t ons/year)Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 102



## 6.0 ANNUAL 2007 INVENTORY FOR NONROAD SOURCES –

MARINE VESSELS, AIRPORTS, AND RAIL

The Contractor estimated 2007 base year emissions for the Marine Vessel, Airports, and

Rail (MAR) categories using USEPA/ERTAC data, USEPA/ERTAC data revised or

augmented with state supplied data; or State supplied data. Data for each MAR category

wa s obtained from USEPA and ERTAC for use as a default data set. The USEPA and

ERTAC data, developed to support the 2008 inventory, was provided to states for review.

State inventory personnel determined which of the above approaches was appropriate for

their state. MARAMA coordinated the collection of supplemental or replacement data

from states. The sections below describe the default data sources as well as the

modifications received from states for each inventory segment.

6.1 COMMERCIAL MARINE VESSELS

For commercial marine vessels, data was obtained from USEPA 2008 NEI (USEPA

2010d). Initial draft database files were provided to the Contractor by USEPA for

C ategory 1 and 2 CMV and for Category 3 CMV. The Category 1 and 2 database

contained emissions for both ports and underway vessels.

The Category 3 database included tables containing emissions from approach, interport,

port and RSZ. This database includes emissions from CMV operation within 12 nautical

miles of shore. Emissions beyond the 12 nautical mile boundaries are not included in this

inventory, but will be provided by USEPA to emission modelers in SMOKE format for

inclusion in air quality modeling. These tables were matched to GIS ArcInfo shape files

for use in plotting emissions.

Several MARAMA States indicated that they had CMV emissions that they preferred over

those provided by USEPA. However, these emissions were only available in NIF area

sourc e file format (county/SCC summary level) and not spatially allocated. Thus for

consistency, the Contractor summarized the emissions from USEPA to the county/SCC

level and input that data into a database format. In late December 2009, USEPA provided

the Contractor with a final version of the CMV emissions summarized at the county/SCC

level. The file was a Microsoft Access database (2008CMVCntySummary.mdb). That

database contained a summary table containing the State/county FIPS code, the SCC,

pollutant code and 2008 annual emissions (in tons). The Contractor used that database to

update the NIF format database for those MARAMA States that had indicated that they

wished to use the USEPA data. The USEPA 2008 NEI data was used directly for 2007.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 103



### No changes were made to the 2008 data for 2007 (i.e., the 2007 emissions were assumed to

be equal to 2008).

Four States (CT, DC, RI, VA) used the USEPA NEI data for all CMV categories. Virginia

supplemented the USEPA CMV data by adding military vessels to the inventory. VT

indi cated that they wanted to use USEPA data but no CMV emissions were in the USEPA

database for VT. Six States (DE, ME, MA, NH, NJ and PA) supplied State specific data

for all categories. Maryland used USEPA NEI data for diesel CMV and State-specific data

for residual CMV. New York used State-specific data for diesel CMV and upstate residual

CMV, and USEPA NEI data for seven counties in the New York City metro area.

Note that NY included VOC emissions from lightering operations in the CMV inventory

using SCC 22-80-002 -000. Delaware included VOC emissions from lightering operations

in the point source inventory. No other State has significant lightering operations.

Ex hibit 6.1 indicates the data source by State and SCC for the emissions in the MARAMA

2007 base year inventory for CMV.

E xhibit 6.1

– Data Sources for Commercial Marine Vessel Inventory

State 22

- 80

- 002

- 100

Diesel

Por t 22

- 80

- 002

- 200

Diesel Underway 22

- 80

- 003

- 100

Residual

Port 22

- 80

- 003

- 200

Residual Underway 22

- 83

- 000

- 000

All Fuels Military

CT EPA EPA EPA EPA n/a

DE State State State State n/a

DC n/a EPA n/a EPA n/a

ME State State State State n/a

MD EPA EPA State State n/a

MA State * State * State State n/a

NH State State State State n/a

NJ State State State State n/a

NY State State State / EPA State / EPA n/a

PA State State State State n/a

RI EPA EPA EPA EPA n/a

VT n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

VA EPA EPA EPA EPA State

* MA used different SCCs that the other States for diesel CMV to identify Harbor vessels, fishing

vessels, military vessels, port operations, and underway operation

.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 104



### 6.2 AIRPORTS (AIRCRAFT AND GROUND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT)

For airport emissions, states either used their own data or a database developed by USEPA

to support the 2008 NEI (USEPA2010e). The USEPA database was developed on an

airport by airport basis. Data files provided included:

EIS facility site ID

State facility site ID Facility site name

State and county FIPS code Source classification code

Pollutant code

Airport emissions and

The sum of landing and take offs (LTOs).

In addition, a database containing geographic information on each facility (latitude and

longitude) along with operational information related to LTOs but contained no emissions

data.

For States that used the USEPA inventory the USEPA 2008 NEI airport data was

summ arized at the county/SCC level to provide a starting point. The remaining States

provided NIF format county/SCC level files. Once the initial inventory was compiled it

was formatted in NIF format and the resultant database was provided to the States for

review and comment. Changes resulting from States comments were made to the initial

inventory.

Exhibit 6.2 indicates by State and SCC which components of the inventory came from

different data sources. In those instances where the data source is listed as “EPA”, the data

are taken directly from the 2008 NEI. 2008 data were used directly to represent 2007

emissions. No changes to the 2008 data were applied for the 2007 base year inventory.

Exhibit 6.2 also indicates that for a number of States, the emission estimates represent

blended sources. For example, several of the States providing their own data only

pr ovided emission estimates for aircraft emissions but not emissions for ground support

equipment (GSE) or auxiliary power units (APUs). For those States, 2008 USEPA NEI

data were added to the inventory to provide those estimates. Those States were DE and

ME. MD pr ovided State supplied GSE/APU emissions but without a break down of the

GSE emissions by fuel type. In addition, NY provided EDMS output files for all aircraft

and GSE/APU emissions from each individual airport. Those emissions also had GSE

emissions as a single value without an indication of the fuel type of the equipment. In both

cases (NY and MD), the fuel type ratios used in the USEPA NEI were used to divide GSE

emissions by fuel type. Those ratios were:Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 105

SCC SCC Level Two Fraction

2265008005 Off

- highway Vehicle Gasoline, 4

- Stroke 0.1686

2267008005 LPG 0.0165

2268008005 CNG 0.013 1

2270008005 Off

- highway Vehicle Diesel 0.8017



### Finally, while Exhibit 6.2 indicates that most of VA’s emissions were derived from

USEP A data, military aircraft operations emissions were provided by VA and were added

to the USEPA data. However because these data were added as individual airports in

counties where there were already emissions, when the data were summarized the data

source was maintained as USEPA since the majority of emissions were derived from the

USEPA inventory.

For Version 3, the only changes were to use a revised airport inventory for New Jersey.

Exhibit 6.2 – Data Sources for Airport Operations Inventory

State 2265, 2267,

2268, 2270

GSE 2275001xxx

Military 2275020xxx

Commercial 2275050xxx

General

Aviation 2275060xxx

Air Taxi 2275070xxx

APUs

CT State State State State State State

DE EPA State State State State EPA

DC n/a n/a n/a State n/a n/a

ME EPA State State State State EPA

MD State and

EPA State State State State State and

EPA

MA EPA EPA EPA EPA EPA EPA

NH State State State State State n/a

NJ State State State State State State

NY State n/a State State n/a State

PA EPA EPA EPA EPA EPA EPA

RI EPA EPA EPA EPA EPA EPA

VT EPA EPA EPA EPA EPA EPA

VA EPA EPA EPA EPA EPA EPATechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 106



### 6.3 RAILROAD LOCOMOTIVES AND RAILYARDS

The ERTAC 2008 inventory for railroad locomotives and rail yards was provided to

MAN EVU+VA States for review to determine if the inventory should be included in the

2007 base year emission inventory (ERTAC 2010a, ERTAC 2010b). The ERTAC rail

inventor y included three categories of locomotive emissions: Class I line-haul, Class I rail

yard switchers, and Class II/III short line and regional railroads. The original files

pr ovided to the Contractor for the ERTAC inventory included several spreadsheets. There

spre adsheets were:

1. EmissionsByCounty_Round61.xls (county level Class I line haul emissions)

2. EmissionsByState_Round61.xls (State level Class I line haul emissions)

3. R-1 Fuel Use Data Summary 20072.xls (line haul fuel use data for 2007)

4. Rail-Class_II_III_revised 4-20-2010.xls (Class II and III county level emissions by

ra il line, along with link, mileage, and fuel usage information)

The data in the Class II and III spreadsheet was summarized by county and converted into

NIF format. The Class I emissions were also converted into NIF format. Both Class I and

Class II/III emissions were reported as hydrocarbons (HC). These emissions were

converted to VOC emissions by multiplying the HC emissions by a factor of 1.053

(U SEPA 2009e) for all states except Maryland, where a factor of 1.0478 was used. In

a ddition, all 2008 emissions were assumed to equal 2007 emissions.

Three States (PA, VA and VT) used the ERTAC data directly without modification for the

three categories included in the ERTAC inventory (Class I Line Haul, Class II/III Line

Haul, Yard/Switcher Locomotives). New Jersey used the ERTAC Class I data and Statesupplied data for Class II/III and Yard locomotives. New York used the ERTAC yard

locomoti ve data and State-supplied data for Class I and Class II/III. All other States made

changes to the 2008 ERTAC inventory, either to add/modify included sources or to revise

emission values to 2007 values.

ERTAC did not develop emission estimates for Line Haul Passenger (AMTRAK) or Line

Haul Commuter locomotives. Six States (CT, DC, MD, NY, PA, and VA) provided

e mission estimates for AMTRAK diesel locomotives. Note that the AMTRAK northeast

corridor line uses electric powered locomotives, so there are no emissions from diesel

AMTRAK locomotives in DE, NJ, RI, and MA. Seven States (CT, DC, MD, MA, NJ,

NY, and PA) provided emission estimates for diesel commuter locomotives in their State.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 107



### Exhibit 6.3 provides a breakdown by State and SCC of the data sources for emissions from

railroads and rail yards. Once the draft inventory was prepared the NIF database was

pr ovided to the MARAMA States for review. Only minor corrections were made to the

database prior to submittal for stakeholder review and comments.

Exhibit 6.3

– Data Sources for Railroad Locomotive and Railyard Inventory

State 2285002006

Line Haul Class I Ops 2285002007

Line Haul Class II/III Ops 2285002008

Line Haul Passenger 2285002009

Line Haul

Commuter 2285002010

Yard

Locomotives

CT State State State State State

DE State State n/a n/a State

DC State n/a State State State

ME n/a State n/a n/a State

MD State State State State State

MA State State n/a State State

NH n/a State n/a n/a n/a

NJ EPA / ERTAC State n/a State State

NY State State State State EPA / ERTAC

PA EPA / ERTAC EPA / ERTAC State State EPA / ERTAC

RI State State n/a n/a State

VT EPA / ERTAC EPA / ERTAC n/a n/a n/a

VA EPA / ERTAC EPA / ERTAC State n/a EPA / ERTAC



### 6.4 STAKEHOLDER REVIEW AND COMMENT

Draft inventory data files and documentation for MAR sources was posted on the

MARAMA website in August 2010 for stakeholder review. No comments on the MAR

inventory were received.

6.5 VERSION 3 REVISIONS

6.5.1 New Jersey MAR Revisions

Following the completion of Version 2 of the 2007 MANE-VU+VA inventory in February

2011, New Jersey provided several revisions to the MAR inventory, as follows:Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 108



### developed a new airport inventory using the FAA’s EDMS;

provided revised emission estimates for all commercial marine vessel categories;

allocated GSE emissions calculated by EDMS to four fuel types (gasoline, LPG,

CNG, and diesel) using the apportionment factors listed in Section 6.2. Previously

in Version 2, all GSE fuel use was assigned to diesel engines. The revisions did

not change the total GSE emissions, simply distributes the EDMS emissions over

the four GSE fuel types.

6.5.2 Adjustment of Rail VOC Emissions

It was discovered that the ERTAC-reported rail emissions for VOC were actually

hydrocarbon emissions. For locomotive engines, USEPA estimated that VOC emissions

can be assumed to be equal to 1.053 times the hydrocarbon emissions (USEPA2009e).

This adjust ment was not made to the rail inventory developed by ERTAC. The ERTAC

inventory assumed that VOC emissions equal hydrocarbon emissions. Some states (DE,

NH, RI) made this adjustment in the rail inventories that were used in Version 2. The

re maining states did not make the adjustment and the Version 2 VOC emissions were

multiplied by 1.053 to generated revised emissions for Version 3. Maryland made a partial

adjustment in Version 2, and specified that a factor of 1.0478 should be used to adjust

6.6 SUMMARY OF MAR INVENTORY FOR 2007

Exhibits 6.4 to 6.10 compare the 2002 and 2007 emissions by State and pollutant for MAR

sources. The 2002 emissions are those that were developed previously for Version 3 of the

M ANE

- VU and the VISTAS best-and-final inventory for Virginia. It is likely that many

of the differences between the 2002 and 2007 emissions are due to changes in the emission

estimation methodologies for CMV, airports, and railroads.

CO emissions are primarily from aircraft and GSE engines used at airports. CMV is the

largest sector for NOx emissions, but there are also substantial NOx emissions from

airports and railroad locomotives. SO2 emissions are primarily from the CMV category.

All three sectors also generate PM and VOC emissions.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 109



### Exhibit 6.4

– 2002 and 2007 MAR CO Emissions by State (tons/year)

Marine Vessels Airports Rail Locomotives

STATE 2002 2007 Change 2002 2007 Change 2002 2007 Change

CT 603 1,077 79% 1,565 4,659 198% 362 184

- 49%

DE 1,138 554

- 51% 1,575 1,625 3% 144 75

- 48%

DC 1 1 1% 0 14 n/a 73 73 0%

ME 376 522 39% 4,487 32,879 633% 69 188 173%

MD 431 2,795 548% 11,575 10,265

- 11% 789 700

- 11%

MA 1,231 1,473 20% 11,294 15,495 37% 748 646

- 14%

NH 169 89

- 47% 2,031 2,089 3% 71 88 24%

NJ 1,424 1,619 14% 29,375 21,878

- 26% 580 665 15%

NY 1,790 3,475 94% 11,895 17,403 46% 1,551 3,061 97%

PA 1,111 1,294 16% 24,799 26,540 7% 3,359 2,987

- 11%

RI 0 522 n/a 1,424 1,739 22% 55 15

- 73%

VT 0 0 n/a 521 2,420 365% 20 72 262%

VA 1,082 3,735 245% 11,873 22,009 85% 1,186 2,701 128%

9,356 17,155 83% 112,414 159,016 41% 9,007 11,456 27%Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 110



### Exhibit 6.5

– 2002 and 2007 MAR NH3 Emissions by State (tons/year)

Marine Vessels Airports Rail Locomotives

STATE 2002 2007 Change 2002 2007 Change 2002 2007 Change

CT 0 3 n/a 0 0 n/a 0 1 n/a

DE 0 0 n/a 0 0 n/a 0 0 n/a

DC 0 0 n/a 0 0 n/a 0 0 n/a

ME 0 0 n/a 0 0 n/a 0 0 n/a

MD 0 8 n/a 0 0 n/a 0 0 n/a

MA 0 0 n/a 0 0 n/a 0 2 n/a

NH 0 0 n/a 0 0 n/a 0 0 n/a

NJ 0 8 n/a 0 0 n/a 0 2 n/a

NY 0 2 n/a 0 0 n/a 0 0 n/a

PA 0 13 n/a 0 0 n/a 0 9 n/a

RI 0 1 n/a 0 0 n/a 0 0 n/a

VT 0 0 n/a 0 0 n/a 0 0 n/a

VA 0 9 n/a 0 0 n/a 0 8 n/a

0 44 n/a 0 0 n/a 0 23 n/aTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 111



### Exhibit 6.6

– 2002 and 2007 MAR NOx Emissions by State (tons/year)

Marine Vessels Airports Rail Locomotives

STATE 2002 2007 Change 2002 2007 Change 2002 2007 Change

CT 4,577 6,528 43% 415 713 72% 2,612 1,723

- 34%

DE 8,362 5,094

- 39% 970 805

- 17% 1,105 384

- 65%

DC 4 6 56% 0 0 n/a 502 505 1%

ME 1,154 1,659 44% 184 134

- 27% 269 1,369 409%

MD 2,531 16,027 533% 2,038 1,910

- 6% 5,145 4,767

- 7%

MA 2,590 3,246 25% 2,988 3,190 7% 7,161 6,133

- 14%

NH 1,284 271

- 79% 162 278 72% 332 891 169%

NJ 10,981 11,197 2% 4,739 5,105 8% 5,721 5,957 4%

NY 12,266 28,180 130% 4,880 6,998 43% 14,162 20,675 46%

PA 8,217 11,378 38% 4,131 3,738

- 10% 29,292 20,675

- 29%

RI 1 2,829 n/a 263 289 10% 186 144

- 22%

VT 0 0 n/a 48 103 114% 7 736 10416%

VA 3,088 21,760 605% 3,885 5,520 42% 11,882 18,319 54%

55,055 108,174 96% 24,703 28,783 17% 78,376 82,279 5%Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 112



### Exhibit 6.7

– 2002 and 2007 MAR PM10-PRI Emissions by State (tons/year)

Marine Vessels Airports Rail Locomotives

STATE 2002 2007 Change 2002 2007 Change 2002 2007 Change

CT 194 311 61% 45 66 46% 5 46 812%

DE 393 327

- 17% 28 27

- 5% 31 15

- 50%

DC 0 0 n/a 0 0 n/a 12 12

- 2%

ME 129 395 206% 97 83

- 15% 8 28 246%

MD 637 657 3% 1,012 74

- 93% 172 166

- 3%

MA 217 316 45% 246 295 20% 183 159

- 13%

NH 54 13

- 76% 49 37

- 24% 10 22 120%

NJ 796 622

- 22% 280 170

- 39% 143 160 12%

NY 506 1,671 230% 409 140

- 66% 358 608 70%

PA 253 524 107% 2,421 396

- 84% 792 704

- 11%

RI 0 112 n/a 93 22

- 76% 6 4

- 40%

VT 0 0 n/a 12 46 282% 1 18 1712%

VA 359 946 164% 2,010 821

- 59% 1,529 634

- 59%

3,538 5,895 67% 6,702 2,176

- 68% 3,250 2,574

- 21%Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 113



### Exhibit 6.8

– 2002 and 2007 MAR PM25-PRI Emissions by State (tons/year)

Marine Vessels Airports Rail Locomotives

STATE 2002 2007 Change 2002 2007 Change 2002 2007 Change

CT 178 296 66% 38 51 35% 5 39 686%

DE 354 305

- 14% 20 19

- 7% 28 15

- 47%

DC 0 0 n/a 0 0 n/a 11 11 4%

ME 119 364 205% 69 61

- 11% 8 25 218%

MD 637 606

- 5% 698 16

- 98% 155 161 4%

MA 200 290 45% 226 215

- 5% 143 145 2%

NH 50 12

- 76% 36 27

- 24% 9 21 132%

NJ 732 575

- 21% 195 143

- 27% 128 147 15%

NY 466 1,541 231% 362 139

- 62% 323 572 77%

PA 232 484 109% 1,718 294

- 83% 713 650

- 9%

RI 0 108 n/a 68 17

- 75% 5 3

- 34%

VT 0 0 n/a 9 32 259% 1 17 1567%

VA 330 908 175% 1,970 580

- 71% 1,375 586

- 57%

3,298 5,489 66% 5,409 1,595

- 71% 2,904 2,395

- 18%Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 114



### Exhibit 6.9

– 2002 and 2007 MAR SO2 Emissions by State (tons/year)

Marine Vessels Airports Rail Locomotives

STATE 2002 2007 Change 2002 2007 Change 2002 2007 Change

CT 671 1,386 107% 39 96 145% 4 57 1323%

DE 3,377 2,079

- 38% 30 55 84% 64 5

- 92%

DC 1 1 30% 0 0 n/a 33 37 11%

ME 128 189 47% 3 14 376% 15 92 514%

MD 4,739 2,170

- 54% 262 247

- 6% 374 64

- 83%

MA 489 698 43% 284 218

- 23% 591 66

- 89%

NH 188 506 169% 15 28 86% 16 10

- 36%

NJ 11,444 6,712

- 41% 374 507 35% 352 55

- 84%

NY 4,753 9,321 96% 440 699 59% 765 616

- 19%

PA 297 3,067 933% 399 416 4% 1,934 211

- 89%

RI 0 632 n/a 29 30 3% 14 5

- 61%

VT 0 0 n/a 5 12 134% 1 5 412%

VA 386 4,058 951% 272 424 56% 3,641 192

- 95%

26,473 30,819 16% 2,152 2,746 28% 7,804 1,416

- 82%Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 115



### Exhibit 6.10

– 2002 and 2007 MAR VOC Emissions by State (tons/year)

Marine Vessels Airports Rail Locomotives

STATE 2002 2007 Change 2002 2007 Change 2002 2007 Change

CT 143 161 13% 115 509 343% 114 73

- 36%

DE 132 158 20% 290 620 114% 60 28

- 53%

DC 0 0 n/a 0 1 n/a 20 34 70%

ME 166 233 41% 222 161

- 27% 19 51 166%

MD 74 371 401% 2,920 1,365

- 53% 312 271

- 13%

MA 433 528 22% 1,177 1,129

- 4% 312 267

- 15%

NH 40 23

- 43% 88 134 53% 15 35 136%

NJ 413 658 59% 2,281 2,438 7% 221 258 17%

NY 424 1,905 349% 1,145 1,571 37% 600 1,112 85%

PA 703 538

- 23% 1,155 2,813 144% 1,260 1,153

- 8%

RI 0 64 n/a 74 112 51% 10 8

- 22%

VT 0 0 n/a 27 204 655% 2 29 1331%

VA 531 522

- 2% 2,825 2,764

- 2% 492 1,025 108%

3,059 5,163 69% 12,319 13,822 12% 3,437 4,343 26%Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 116



## 7.0 ANNUAL 2007 INVENTORY FOR ONROAD SOURCES

7.1 OVERALL PROCESS TO DEVELOP THE ONROAD INVENTORY

EPA’s recently released MOVES2010 ( MO tor V ehicle E mission S imulator) is now the

official model for estimating air pollution emissions from onroad mobile sources including

buses, cars, trucks and motorcycles. MOVES2010 replaces MOBILE6.2, the previous

mobi le source model. MOVES input files are somewhat more detailed than the

MOBILE6.2 input files. To assist in the transition to the new model, USEPA developed

software tools to convert MOBILE6.2 inputs for MOVES. In addition, the MOVES model

includes a preprocessing tool called the County Data Manager (CDM) to convert

spreadsheet based information to MySQL database files required by MOVES.

S tates were offered the option of having NESCAUM perform the MOVES modeling using

input data provided by and/or reviewed by the state. Three states elected to perform the

MOVES modeling for their state using in-house resources. Exhibit 7.1 shows the approach

selected by each state:

Exhibit 7.1 – MOVES Modeling Approach by State

States Providing MOBILE6.2 Input Files to NESCAUM States Providing MOVES Input Files to NESCAUM States Performing MOVES Modeling Themselves

DC, ME, NH, RI CT, DE, MD, MA

, NJ, VT NY, PA , VA



### 7.2 MOVES MODEL RUN SPECIFICATIONS AND DOCUMENTATION

Appe ndix F contains NESCAUM’s documentation of the MOVES modeling.

7.3 SUMMARY OF ONROAD INVENTORY

Exhibits 7.2 to 7.8 compare the 2002 and 2007 onroad emissions by state for each

pollutant. The 2002 emissions were estimated using MOBILE6, while the 2007 emissions

were estimated using MOVES. Differences between 2002 and 2007 results from the

c hange in emission estimation methodologies (MOBILE6 vs. MOVES), VMT growth, and

turnover of the vehicle fleet to newer, cleaner fuels and engines.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 117



### Exhibit 7.2

– 2002 and 2007 OnroadCO Emissions by State (tons/year)

STATE 2002 2007 Change

Connecticut 562,124 365,925

- 35%

Delaware 160,760 124,893

- 22%

District of Columbia 66,018 36,379

- 45%

Maine 410,958 215,689

- 48%

Maryland 1,000,763 598,180

- 40%

Massachusetts 1,039,100 583,234

- 44%

New Hampshire 306,793 195,916

- 36%

New Jersey 1,273,513 719,402

- 44%

New York 3,711,150 2,024,775

- 45%

Pennsylvania 2,784,197 1,962,326

- 30%

Rhode Island 186,197 115,532

- 38%

Vermont 248,248 115,532

- 53%

Virginia 1,858,598 1,195,237

- 36%

13,608,417 8,253,020

- 39%

2002 emissions were estimated using MOBILE6 ; 2007 emissions were estimated using MOVESTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 118



### Exhibit 7.3

– 2002 and 2007 Onroad NH3 Emissions by State (tons/year)

STATE 2002 2007 Change

Connecticut 3,294 1,309

- 60%

Delaware 903 406

- 55%

District of Columbia 398 158

- 60%

Maine 1,468 605

- 59%

Maryland 5,594 2,335

- 58%

Massachusetts 5,499 2,194

- 60%

New Hampshire 1,447 511

- 65%

New Jersey 7,382 3,216

- 56%

New York 14,681 6,831

- 53%

Pennsylvania 10,532 5,278

- 50%

Rhode Island 853 356

- 58%

Vermont 934 356

- 62%

Virginia 7,918 4,041

- 49%

60,902 27,597

- 55%

2002 emissions were estimated using MOBILE6 ; 2007 emissions were estimated using MOVESTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 119



### Exhibit 7.4

– 2002 and 2007 Onroad NOx Emissions by State (tons/year)

STATE 2002 2007 Change

Connecticut 68,816 53,814

- 22%

Delaware 21,341 24,456 15%

District of Columbia 8,902 8,714

- 2%

Maine 54,687 36,844

- 33%

Maryland 122,210 114,792

- 6%

Massachusetts 143,368 73,328

- 49%

New Hampshire 33,283 33,858 2%

New Jersey 152,076 135,139

- 11%

New York 319,733 305,617

- 4%

Pennsylvania 346,472 353,083 2%

Rhode Island 16,677 18,055 8%

Vermont 20,670 18,055

- 13%

Virginia 182,482 197,822 8%

1,490,716 1,373,575

- 8%

2002 emissions were estimated using MOBILE6 ; 2007 emissions were estimated using MOVESTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 120



### Exhibit 7.5

– 2002 and 2007 Onroad PM10-PRI Emissions by State (tons/year)

STATE 2002 2007 Change

Connecticut 1,580 2,057 30%

Delaware 581 828 42%

District of Columbia 222 387 74%

Maine 1,239 1,507 22%

Maryland 3,168 4,103 29%

Massachusetts 3,408 2,915

- 14%

New Hampshire 814 1,479 82%

New Jersey 3,725 5,013 35%

New York 8,457 14,765 75%

Pennsylvania 7,351 12,947 76%

Rhode Island 345 754 118%

Vermont 670 754 13%

Virginia 4,358 6,799 56%

35,920 54,307 51%

2002 emissions were estimated using MOBILE6 ; 2007 emissions were estimated using MOVESTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 121



### Exhibit 7.6

– 2002 and 2007 Onroad PM25-PRI Emissions by State (tons/year)

STATE 2002 2007 Change

Connecticut 1,042 1,949 87%

Delaware 415 795 91%

District of Columbia 153 373 144%

Maine 934 1,443 54%

Maryland 2,200 3,924 78%

Massachusetts 2,410 2,768 15%

New Hampshire 562 1,418 152%

New Jersey 2,469 4,789 94%

New York 5,898 14,115 139%

Pennsylvania 5,331 12,393 132%

Rhode Island 211 719 241%

Vermont 483 719 49%

Virginia 2,987 6,499 118%

25,095 51,903 107%

2002 emissions were estimated using MOBILE6 ; 2007 emissions were estimated using MOVESTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 122



### Exhibit 7.7 – 2002 and 2007 NMIM/NONROAD SO2 Emissions by State (tons/year)

STATE 2002 2007 Change

Connecticut 1,667 402

- 76%

Delaware 584 202

- 65%

District of Columbia 271 89

- 67%

Maine 1,804 377

- 79%

Maryland 4,058 936

- 77%

Massachusetts 4,399 769

- 83%

New Hampshire 777 275

- 65%

New Jersey 3,649 921

- 75%

New York 10,640 2,187

- 79%

Pennsylvania 10,924 2,518

- 77%

Rhode Island 425 179

- 58%

Vermont 894 179

- 80%

Virginia 6,086 1,435

- 76%

46,176 10,468

- 77%

2002 emissions were estimated using MOBILE6 ; 2007 emissions were estimated using MOVESTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 123



### Exhibit 7.8

– 2002 and 2007 Onroad VOC Emissions by State (tons/year)

STATE 2002 2007 Change

Connecticut 31,755 35,363 11%

Delaware 10,564 10,771 2%

District of Columbia 4,895 3,598

- 27%

Maine 23,037 15,382

- 33%

Maryland 61,847 57,789

- 7%

Massachusetts 57,186 51,149

- 11%

New Hampshire 16,762 13,650

- 19%

New Jersey 89,753 73,624

- 18%

New York 287,845 163,290

- 43%

Pennsylvania 176,090 168,289

- 4%

Rhode Island 12,538 9,780

- 22%

Vermont 17,288 9,780

- 43%

Virginia 114,994 108,001

- 6%

904,554 720,465

- 20%

2002 emissions were estimated using MOBILE6 ; 2007 emissions were estimated using MOVESTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 124



## 8.0 PREPARATION OF SMOKE MODEL FILES

Air quality modelers in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern States use the SMOKE

Modeling System to create gridded, speciated, hourly emissions for input into a variety of

air quality models. This section describes how the SMOKE inventory files were

de veloped. It also describes how the SMOKE the temporal allocation, speciation, and

spatia l allocation profiles, respectively, were developed.

8.1 PREPARATION OF SMOKE EMISSION FILES

8.1.1 Point Source SMOKE Emission Files

Annual point source inventories were prepared in SMOKE PTINV ORL format. As

pr eviously discussed in Section 3.2.1

, PTINV files were created for the following types of

sources:

Annual emissions for units that reported hourly data to USEPA CAMD for the entire 12 months of 2007;

Ozone season emissions for units that reported hourly emissions to USEPA CAMD

for either 6 or 9 months of 2007 (except for 6 month reporting units in Maryland);

Non-o zone season emissions for units that reported hourly emissions to USEPA

C AMD for either 6 or 9 months of 2007 (except for 6 month reporting units in Maryland);

Units that reported hourly emissions to USEPA CAMD for either 6 or 9 months of

2007 in M aryland;

Units that are classified as distributed generation units by VDEQ; and

All other units (these are not associated with the hourly PTHOUR files; temporal

a llocation for these units will be accomplished using the standard SMOKE V2.6 temporal allocation profiles).

The ORL were quality assured to conform to the SMOKE PTINV ORL format and to

prevent double counting of emissions in the ORL files.

EPA has developed a methodology to reduce fugitive dust emissions for use in air quality

modeling analyses (USEPA 2007b). It is considered a logical step to account for the

re moval of particles near their emission source by vegetation and surface features. For the

MANEVU+VA 2007 inventory the transport factors were NOT applied to the point source

inventory because of the very small amount of fugitive particulate emissions in the point

sourc e inventory.

Hourly point source inventories were prepared for units that report hourly emissions to

USEPA’s Clean Air Markets Division in SMOKE PTHOUR EMS-95 format. Because ofTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 125



### the large size of the PTHOUR files, separate files were prepared by month. As previously

discussed in Section 3.2.1, the following PTHOUR files were created:

12 monthly PTHOUR files for units that reported hourly emissions to USEPA

C AMD for the entire 12 months of 2007;

5 monthly PTHOUR files (May-September) for units that reported hourly

emissions to USEPA CAMD only for the ozone season 2007;

12 monthly PTHOUR files for units in Maryland that reported hourly emissions to

USEPA CAMD for the either 6 or 9 months of 2007; and

12 monthly PTHOUR files for units in Virginia that are classified as distributed generations units

Since some CAMD units only report hourly emissions data for the ozone season, there was

a need for a set of actual 2007 hourly temporal profiles to be used in simulating hourly

emissions for these units in non-ozone season months. Section 3.4 of this TSD discusses

the de velopment of the SMOKE temporal profiles for the non-ozone season months for

these units.

8.1.2 Area Source SMOKE Emission Files

Annual area source inventories were prepared in SMOKE ARINV ORL format. In

de veloping the SMOKE ARINV ORL files for area sources, the USEPA “transport factor”

was applied to reduce fugitive dust emissions to account for the removal of particles near

their emission source by vegetation and surface features. The transport factor was NOT

a pplied to the NIF- fo rmatted annual emissions, but only to the SMOKE ARINV ORLformatted file.

The standard transport fractions and SCC assignments from the USEPA CHIEF website

were used to reduce the PM10-PRI and PM25-PRI emissions in the MANEVU+VA 2007

area source inventory. Two files were used. The first file contains a list of SCCs for

whic h the transport factor was applied. The major source categories included paved and

unpaved roads, construction activity, agricultural crop land tilling, and agricultural

livestock operations. The second file contains the transport factor which varies by county.

For example, in Connecticut the transport factors ranges from 0.21 in Tolland County to

0.44 in New Haven County.

Applying the transport factor to area source fugitive dust emissions significantly reduces

that amount of particulate matter included in the air quality modeling. Exhibit 8.1

compares the 2007 area source PM10-PRI and PM25-PRI emissions before and after the

application of the transport fraction. Region wide, PM10-PRI emissions are reduced by 53

pe rcent and PM25-PRI emissions are reduced by 29 percent by applying the transportTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 126



### fraction. The percent reduction varies by State due to the relative importance of the area

source fugitive dust emissions compared to non-fugitive dust source emissions. The

bottom part of Exhibit 8.1 shows the key area source fugitive dust categories and the

reductions applied by using the transport fraction.

Exhibit 8.1

– Comparison of 2007 Area Source Emissions With and Without the

Application of the Fugitive Dust Transport Factor (tons/year)

PM10

- PRI PM25

- PRI

State /SCC Without

Transport

Factor With

Transport

Factor Percent

Reduction Without

Transport

Factor With

Transport

Factor Percent

Reduction

Emissions by State for All Area Source SCCs

CT 30,577 15,591 49 10,606 8,396 21

DE 10,499 7,208 31 3,031 2,407 21

DC 4,873 2,445 50 1,542 1,120 27

ME 54,445 20,227 63 12,526 8,744 30

MD 72,454 38,520 47 19,789 14,710 26

MA 148,756 58,380 61 30,438 18,621 39

NH 27,742 10,650 62 8,623 5,832 32

NJ 39,140 24,801 37 18,299 14,944 18

NY 272,674 140,760 48 63,906 47,023 26

PA 287,998 138,571 52 73,514 50,855 31

RI 11,361 5,553 51 3,896 2,957 24

VT 47,993 19,097 60 13,106 9,434 28

VA 183,341 78,204 57 44,102 29,533 33

All States and

SCCs 1,191,853 560,007 53 303,378 214,576 29

MANE

- VU+VA Emissions for Selected SCCs

2294000000

Pave d Roads 230,004 78,795 66 54,207 18,727 65

2296000000 Unpaved

Roads 417,951 129,150 69 41,525 12,837 69

2311xxxxxxx

Construction 205,811 74,598 64 20,934 7,585 64

2801000003 Ag. Tilling 94,443 33,949 64 17,789 6,511 64Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 127



### 8.1.3 Nonroad NMIM SMOKE Emission Files

As discussed in Section 5, the NMIM/NONROAD model was executed using

specifications to generate monthly emission files. Monthly SMOKE ARINV ORL files

were created. Average day emissions were calculated by dividing the NONROAD

generated monthly emissions by the number of days in each month. Various summary

re ports were prepared to verify agreement between the average day, monthly, and annual

emissions.

8.1.4 Nonroad MAR SMOKE Emission Files

Annual inventories for marine vessels, airport operations and railroad locomotives were

prepared in SMOKE ARINV ORL format for each county in the region. Average day

e missions were calculated by dividing the annual emissions by 365 days. The ORL files

for Category 3 commercial marine vessels include only the emissions that occur in State

waters (generally from the shoreline to 3– 10 nautical miles from shore).

8.1.5 Onroad SMOKE Emission Files

Smoke emission files for the onroad sector are being developed by NESCAUM under a

separate contract. Please contact NESCAUM for documentation and data files.

8.1.1 Biogenic SMOKE Emission Files

Smoke emission files for the biogenic sector are being developed by New Jersey and New

York under separate efforts. Please contact MARAMA to obtain documentation and data

files for biogenic sources.

8.1.1 SMOKE Emission Files for Areas Outside of the MANE-VU+VA Region

Smoke emission files for areas outside of the MANE-VU+VA are currently under

development. Contact MARAMA for further information.

8.2 REVIEW OF SMOKE AUXILIARY FILES

The following activities were performed to quality assure and improve the SMOKE

speciation, spatial and temporal profiles:

QA checks were made to ensure that all SCCs in the annual emission inventory

files are cross -referenced to SCCs in the SMOKE profiles. In cases where a proper

cross-reference does not exist, the SMOKE files were updated using data for

similar SCCs or as otherwise determined on a case- by -case basis.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 128



### SMOKE temporal profiles were reviewed and documented for key categories.

Recommendations for improving SMOKE temporal profiles were made for

categories where improved data is available and are reasonable feasible to use.

SMOKE spatial profiles were reviewed and documented for selected categories.

Recommendations for improving SMOKE spatial profiles were made for categories

where improved data is available and are reasonable feasible to use.

Each of these activities is documented in Appendix F of this TSD.

8.2.1 SMOKE Speciation Files

Based upon the review of Appendix F by SMOKE emission modelers in the Northeast /

Mid- At lantic region, MARAMA directed the Contractor to make the following changes to

the SM OKE auxiliary files as recommended in Appendix F.

GSREF Speciation Cross-Reference File

Added records for SCC/pollutant code combinations in the 2007 inventory that

need ed to be added to the GSREF file

GS PRO Speciation Profiles

No changes were needed

8.2.2 SMOKE Spatial Allocation Files

Based upon the review of Appendix F by SMOKE emission modelers in the Northeast /

Mid-Atlantic region, MARAMA directed the Contractor to make the following changes to

the SM OKE auxiliary files as recommended in Appendix F.

AM GREF Spatial Allocation Cross-Reference File

Added records for SCCs in the 2007 inventory that needed to be added to the

AMGREF file

SRGDESC Spatial Surrogate Code Descriptions

No changes were needed

To spatially allocate county-level emissions from airports, SMOKE modelers will use the

SMOKE ARTOPNT file to allocate county-level to specific point source airport location s instead of being assigned spatial surrogates. We reviewed this SMOKE file and confirmed

the county-level commercial aircraft emissions are being allocated to the location of theTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 129



### large airport in the county. The only adjustment to the SMOKE ARTOPNT file was as

follows:

Changed the allocation factors for commercial aircraft (SCCs 2275000000,

2275020000 , and

2275070000) in Queens County NY to allocate county-level

c ommercial aircraft emissions to JFK Airport and LaGuardia airport based on the

2008 LTO data from USEPA’s 2008 emission inventory

Emissions for Category 3 commercial marine vessels will be spatially allocated using the

following procedures:

For operations from shoreline to roughly 3-10 nautical miles from the shore, the

county-level Category 3 emissions prepared by States will be allocated to grid cells

using the SMOKE spatial allocation files (profile 800 {Marine Ports} for port

emissions, profile 810 {Navigable Waterway Activity} for underway emissions);

For operations outside of State waters (generally 10-200 nautical miles from shore)

Northeast / Mid-Atlantic emission modelers will use a Category C3 ORL files

(ptinv_eca_imo_fixFIPS_US_caps_2005_19OCT2010_orl.txt) generated by EPA

for 2005

. The SMOKE modelers will zero out the emissions that have been

assigned to counties to avoid double counting of emissions with the State-provided

emissions discussed in the previous bullet.

See Appendix F for a further discussion of the Category 3 spatial allocation issue.

8.2.3 SMOKE Temporal Allocation Files

Based upon the review of Appendix F by SMOKE emission modelers in the Northeast /

Mid-Atlantic region, MARAMA directed the Contractor to make the following changes to

the SM OKE auxiliary files as recommended in Appendix F.

AMPTREF Temporal Cross-Reference File

Added records for SCCs in the 2007 inventory that needed to be added to the

AMPTREF file

Changed the monthly allocation code for commercial aircraft (SCC 2275000000)

and auxiliary power units (SCC 2275070000) from 246 to 99246 (the new profile

code that uses the Bureau of Transportation Statistics {BLS} monthly air travel

data for 2007)Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 130



### Changed the day- of

-week allocation code for commercial aircraft (SCC

2275000000) and auxiliary power units (SCC 2275070000) from 7 to 99007 (the

new profile code that uses the BLS day- of -week air travel data for 2007)

Changed the hour- of

-day allocation code for commercial aircraft (SCC

2275000000) and auxiliary power units (SCC 2275070000) from 26 to 99026 (the

new profile code that uses the BLS hour-of-day air travel data for 2007)

Changed the monthly allocation code for SCCs 22-80-003 -100 (CMV/Residual/

Port) and 22-80 -003-200 (CMV/Residual/Underway) from 262 to 19531, which is

the code the EPA recently developed for their C3 inventory

AMPTPRO Temporal Allocation Profiles

Added the monthly allocation code of 99246 (the new profile code that uses the

Bureau of Transportation Statistics {BLS} monthly air travel data for 2007)

Added the day-of-week allocation code of 99007 (the new profile code that uses the

BLS day-of-week air travel data for 2007)

Added the hour- of

-day allocation code of 99026 (the new profile code that uses the

BLS hour -of-day air travel data for 2007)Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 131



## 9.0 FINAL DELIVERABLES

Exhibits 9 .1 and 9.2 identify all of the deliverable products for the 2007 MANE-VU+VA

e mission inventory developed by the Contractor under this contract. The exhibit also

identifies deliverables associated with the 2007 MANE-VU+VA under development by

other agencies.

All files are stored on MARAMA ftp site:

Address: ftp.marama.org

Login ID: regionalei

Password: marama2007

Files are stored in the following directories:

\MARAMA 07-17-20 Version 3\Final 2007 (Version 3_3)\NIF

\MARAMA 07-17-20 Version 3\Final 2007 (Version 3_3)\SMOKE

\MARAMA 07-17-20 Version 3\Final 2007 (Version 3_3)\TSD

\MARAMA 07-17-20 Version 3\Final 2007 (Version 3_3)\XLS

The deliverables are described in 9.1 and 9.2

.Technical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 1 32



### Exhibit 9.1

– NIF Data and Emission Summary Files for the 2007 MANE-VU+VA Emission Inventory

File Description File Name Format Notes

2007 Annual Point Source Emission Inventory in NOF format MANEVU+VA_ V3_ 3

_ Point_2007_NOF.mdb NOF

ACCESS EP table modified to include fields

to (1) identify units as CAMD

EGU, CAMD

- nonEGU, and OTHER; (2) include the CAMD

ORIS and UNITID for CAMD units; and (3) identify the percent operating time classification for

CAMD units.

See file for Field Definitions

2007 Annual Area Source Emission Inventory in NOF format MANEVU+VA_ V3_ 3

_ Area_2007_NOF.mdb NOF

ACCESS See file for Field Definitions

2007 Annual NMIM/NONROAD Source Emission Inventory in NOF

format 2007MARAMANRNMIMv3.mdb NOF

ACCESS See file for Field Definitions

.

2007 Annual Commercial Marine Vessel, Airport, and Rail (MAR) Emission Inventory in NOF format MANEVU+VA_ V3 _3_ MAR_2007.mdb NOF

ACCESS See file for Field Definitions

2007 Annual Point Source Emission Inventory in a spreadsheet format to

facilitate State and Stakeholder review MANEVU+VA_ V3_3_ Point_2007_Process_Emissions.xls MS Excel See file for Column Definitions

2007 Annual Point Source Emission Inventory summaries by State and

S ource Classification Code (S CC ) MANEVU+VA_ V3_3_ Point_2007_State_SCC_Summary.xls MS Excel See file for Column Defi nitions

2007 Annual Area Source Emission Inventory summaries by State / SCC MANEVU+VA_ V3_3_ Area_2007_State_SCC_Summary.xls MS Excel See file for Column Definitions

2007 Annual NMIM/NONROAD Emission Inventory summaries by

State and SCC MANEVU+VA_ V3_3_NMIM _2007_State_SCC_Summary.xls MS Excel See file for Column Definitions

.

2007 Annual MAR Emission Inventory summaries by State and SCC MANEVU+VA_ V3_3_ MAR_2007StateSCCSummaries.xls MS Excel See file for Column DefinitionsTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 133



### Exhibit 9.2

–

SMOKE Files for the 2007 MANE-VU+VA Emission Inventory

File Description File Name Format Notes

2007 Annual Point Source Emission Inventory in

SMOKE ORL format PTINV_2007_NonHourly_ jan2012 .orl PTINV_2007_12MonthUnits_ feb2011 .orl PTINV_2007_Ozone_5MonthUnits_ feb2011 .orl PTINV_2007_NonOzone_5MonthUnits_ feb2011 .orl PTINV_2007_VADGUnits_march2010.orl PTINV_2007_MD6MonthUnits_march2010.orl SMOKE

PTINV

ORL One file for all non

- hourly units

and five separate files for units with hourly emissions. See

Section 3.2.1 for the TSD for

discussion of the files and Exhibit

3.1 for the file format

.

SMOKE PTHOUR EMS

- 95 zip files with hourly emissions

for each month of 2007 for units that report hourly

emissions to CAMD for the

entire 12 months in 2007. The zip file contains 12 monthly

files. pthour_2007_jan_12MonthUnits_ nov2011 .ems pthour_2007_feb_12MonthUnits_ nov2011 .ems pthour_2007_mar_12MonthUnits_ nov2011 .ems pthour_2007_apr_12MonthUnits_ nov2011 .ems pthour_2007_may_12MonthUnits_ nov2011 .ems pthour_2007_jun_12MonthUnits_ nov2011 .ems pt hour_2007_jul_12MonthUnits_ nov2011 .ems pthour_2007_aug_12MonthUnits_ nov2011 .ems pthour_2007_sep_12MonthUnits_ nov2011 .ems pthour_2007_oct_12MonthUnits_ nov2011 .ems pthour_2007_nov_12MonthUnits_ nov2011 .ems pthour_2007_dec_12MonthUnits_ nov2011 .ems SMOKE

PTHOU R

EMS

- 95 See Exhibit 3.2 for file format

SMOKE PTHOUR EMS

- 95 files with hourly emissions for

5 months of 2007 for units

classified as “5

- month reporters” in all States except MD. The zip file contains 5 monthly files. pthour_2007_may_5MonthUnits_ Jan2012

. ems pthour_2007_jun_5MonthUnits_ Jan2012 .ems pthour_2007_jul_5MonthUnits_ Jan2012 .ems pthour_2007_aug_5MonthUnits_ Jan2012 .ems pthour_2007_sep_5MonthUnits_ Jan2012 .ems SMOKE

PTHOUR

EMS

- 95 See Exhibit 3.2 for file format

SMOKE PTHOUR EMS

- 95 files with hourly emissions for

each month of 2007 for units

classified as “6

- month reporters” in MD. The zip file contains 12 monthly files. pthour_2007_jan_MD6MonthUnits_march2010.ems pthour_2007_feb_MD6MonthUnits_march2010.ems pthour_2007_mar_MD6MonthUnits_march2010.ems pthour_2007_apr_MD6MonthUnits_march2010.ems pthour_2007_may_MD6MonthUnits_march2010.ems pthour_2007_jun_MD6MonthUnits_march2 010.ems pthour_2007_jul_MD6MonthUnits_march2010.ems pthour_2007_aug_MD6MonthUnits_march2010.ems pthour_2007_sep_MD6MonthUnits_march2010.ems SMOKE

PTHOUR

EMS

- 95 See Exhibit 3.2 for file formatTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 134

File Description File Name Format Notes

pthour_2007_oct_MD6MonthUnits_march2010.ems pthour_2007_nov_MD6MonthUnits_march2010.ems pthour_2007_dec_MD6MonthUnit s_march2010.ems

SMOKE PTHOUR EMS

- 95 files with hourly emissions for

each month of 2007 for units

classified as “distributed generation units” by the Virginia DEQ. The zip file contains 12 monthly files

. pthours_2007_jan_VADGunits_march2010.ems pthours_2007_feb_VADGunits_march2010.ems pthours_2007_mar_VADGunits_march2010.ems pthours_2007_apr_VADGunits_march2010.ems pthours_2007_may_VADGunits_march2010.ems pthours_2007_jun_VADGunits_march2010.ems pthours_ 2007_jul_VADGunits_march2010.ems pthours_2007_aug_VADGunits_march2010.ems pthours_2007_sep_VADGunits_march2010.ems pthours_2007_oct_VADGunits_march2010.ems pthours_2007_nov_VADGunits_march2010.ems pthours_2007_dec_VADGunits_march2010.ems SMOKE

PTHOUR

EMS

- 95 See Exhibit 3.2 for file format

2007 Annual Area Source Emission Inventory in

SMOKE ORL format arinv_marama_2007_ jan2012 _w_tf_orl.txt.gz SMOKE

ARINV

ORL This file has the PM transport

factor s by county applied to the

NOF emissions. See section

8.1.2 for discussion.

See http://www.smoke

model.org/version2.6/html/ for

file format

2007 Annual MAR Emission Inventory in SMOKE ORL

format ARINV_20 0 7_ MAR_ Jan2012 .txt SMOKE

ARINV

ORL See http://www.smoke

model.org/version2.6/html/ for

file format ; includes commercial marine vessels, airports (including GSE), and railroad

locomotives

2007 Monthly

NMIM/NONROAD Emission Inventory in S MOKE ORL

format arinv_nonroad_2007_jan_29sep2010_v1_orl.txt.gz arinv_nonroad_2007_feb_29sep2010_v1_orl.txt.gz arinv_nonroad_2007_mar_29sep2010_v1_orl.txt.gz arinv_nonroad_2007_apr_29sep2010_v1_orl.txt.gz arinv_nonroad_2007_may_29sep2010_v1_orl.txt.gz

arinv _nonroad_2007_jun_29sep2010_v1_orl.txt.gz arinv_nonroad_2007_jul_29sep2010_v1_orl.txt.gz arinv_nonroad_2007_aug_29sep2010_v1_orl.txt.gz arinv_nonroad_2007_sep_29sep2010_v1_orl.txt.gz SMOKE

ARINV

ORL See http://www.smoke

model.org/version2.6/html/ for

file formatTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 135

File Description File Name Format Notes

arinv_nonroad_2007_oct_29sep2010_v1_orl.txt.gz arinv_nonroad_2007_nov_29s ep2010_v1_orl.txt.gz arinv_nonroad_2007_dec_29sep2010_v1_orl.txt.gz

SMOKE formatted temporal profiles for units that report to CAMD for only part of 2007. ptpro_2007_marama_egu_13apr2010.txt SMOKE

PTPRO See http://www.smoke

model.org/version2.6/html/ for

file format and Section 3.4 of this

TSD for discussio n of these files SMOKE formatted temporal

cross

- reference tables for annual time periods ptref_2007_marama_egu_annual_13apr2010.txt SMOKE

PTREF

SMOKE formatted temporal

cross

- reference tables for nonozone time periods ptref_2007_marama_egu_nonozone_13apr2010.txt SMOKE

PTREF

SMOKE formatted temporal profiles MARAMA_amptref_v3_3_revised_10feb2011_v1.txt SMOKE

AMPTREF Updated SMOKE temporal files

based on EPA’s 2005v4 modeling platform

. See Section

8.2.3 of this TSD for discussion of the updates made. SMOKE formatted temporal

cross

- reference tables MARAMA_amptpro_2005_us_can_revised_10feb2011_v0.txt SMOKE

AMP T PRO

SMOKE formatted spatial fridding cross

- reference file MARAMA_amgref_us_can_mex_revised_17feb20110_v8.txt SMOKE

AMGREF Updated SMOKE spatial files

based on EPA’s 2005v4 modeling platform

. See Section

8.2. 2 of this TSD for discussion of the updates made. SMOKE formatted spatial surrogate designation file MARAMA_srgdesc_36km_revised_10feb2011_v1.txt SMOKE

SRGDESC

SMOKE formatted area to point file for airports MARAMA_artopnt_2002detroit_10feb2011_v0.txt SMOKE

ARTOPNT

SMOKE formatted speciation profile MARAMA_gspro_cmaq_cb05_soa_2005ck_05b_10feb2011.txt SMOKE

GSPRO Updated SMOKE speciation files

based on EPA’s 2005v4 modeling platform

. See Section

8.2. 1 of this TSD for discussion of the updates made. SMOKE formatted speciation

cross

- reference file MARAMA_gsref_cmaq_cb05_soa_2005ck_05b_17feb2011.txt SMOKE

GSREFTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 136



## 10.0 REFERENCES

ERTAC 2010a. Eastern Regional Technical Advisory Committee. ERTAC Rail

Emissions Inventory Part 1: Class I Line-Haul Locomotives. October 2010.

ERTAC 2010b. Eastern Regional Technical Advisory Committee. ERTAC Rail

Emissions Inventory Part 2: Class I Railyard Switcher Locomotives. September 2010.

MARAMA 20 06

. Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association. Technical

Support Documentation for 2002 MANE-VU SIP Modeling Inventories, Version 3.

November 20, 2006. http://www.marama.org/technical-center/emissions-inventory/2002-

inventory-and-projections/mane- vu -2002-emissions-inventory



### MARAMA 2011. Prepared by MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. for the MidAtlantic Regional Air Management Association. Technical Support Document for the

Development of the 2007 Emission Inventory for Regional Air Quality Modeling in the

N ortheast / Mid-Atlantic Region . February 27, 2011.

SONOMA 2009. Sonoma Technology and US Forest Service. SMARTFIRE Algorithm

Description . October 2009.

http://www.getbluesky.org/smartfire/docs/SMARTFIRE_Algorithm_Description_Final.pdf

US EP A 200 7a

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Guidance on the Use of Models

and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5,

and Re gional Haze. April 2007.

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/guide/final-03-pm- rh -guidance.pdf



### USEPA 2007b. U.S. Environmental Protections Agency. Emissions Modeling

Clearinghouse - Fugitive Dust Fractions . F ebruary 2007.

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/dustfractions )

US EP A 20 09a

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Toxic Release Inventory

Ex plorer Web Site; Chemical Download for Ammonia. File downloaded on July 9, 2009.

http://www.epa.gov/triexplorer



### US EP A 200 9b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Clean Air Markets – Data and

Maps Web Site; Unit Level Emissions Query for 2007. File downloaded on September 9,

2009. http://camddataandmaps.epa.gov/gdm/index.cfm?fuseaction=emissions.wizard



### US EP A 200 9c. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Clean Air Markets – Emissions

Data in SMOKE Format for 2007. File (hour_unit_2007.zip) downloaded on September

15, 2009. http://camddataandmaps.epa.gov/gdm/index.cfm?fuseaction=emissions.prepacksmokeTechnical Support Document for the 2007 Emission Inventory for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 137



### US EP A 200 9d. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Mobile Inventory

M odel. http://www.epa.gov/otaq/nmim.htm

US EP A 200 9e. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emission Factors for

L ocomotives; EPA-420F09025, 2009.

htt p://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroad/locomotv/420f09025.pdf

US EP A 20 10a

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2008 National Emissions

Inv entory Data & Documentation ; Workbooks and Documentation for NonPoint Sector.

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2008inventory.html#inventorydata

US EP A 20 10b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2008 National Emissions

Inv entory Data & Documentation ; Residential Wood Combustion

. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2008inventory.html#inventorydata

US EP A 20 10c. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2008 National Emissions

Inv entory Data & Documentation ; Animal Husbandry and Fertilizer Application.

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/2008inventory.html#inventorydata

USEPA 2010d. U.S. Environmental Protections Agency. Documentation for the

Commercial Marine Vessel Component of the National Emissions Inventory Methodology

, Eastern Research Group report # 0245.02.302.001, USEPA Contract number EP

- D-07-

097. March 30, 2010. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/cmv_report4.pdf

USEPA 2010e. U.S. Environmental Protections Agency. Documentation for Aircraft

Component of the National Emissions Inventory Methodology. Eastern Research Group

report # 0245.02.302.001, USEPA Contract number EP

- D-07-097 . April 23, 2010.

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/net/aircraft_report_100423.pdf

USEPA 2011. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Compilation of Air Pollutant

Emission Factors, AP-42 Fifth Edition, Section 13.2.1, Paved Roads . Revised January

2011. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch13/final/c13s0201.pdf

# APPENDIX C2

Technical Support Document for the Development of the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for Regional Air Quality Modeling in the Northeast/Mid-Atlantic Region Version 3.3 (AMEC Environment & Infrastructure and SRA International, Inc. for MARAMA, January 2012)

Bureau of Air Quality Department of Environmental Protection

### [This page intentionally left blank.]

# Technical Support Document

for the

Development of the 2017 / 2020

Emission Inventories
for Regional Air Quality Modeling

in the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region

Version 3.3

Prepared for:

Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association (MARAMA)

8600 LaSalle Road, Suite 636 Towson, MD 21286 (443) 901 -1882

January 23, 2012 MARAMA Contract Agreement FY2011-004

Submitted by

AMEC Environment & Infrastructure SRA International, Inc. 4021 Stirrup Creek Drive 652 Peter Jefferson Parkway

Suite 100 Suite 300 Durham, NC 27703 Charlottesville, VA 22911

919 381 -9900 571 499-0833

### Acknowledgements

This work was supported by funds provided by MARAMA’s Memorandum of Agreement with

the Ozone Transport Commission, which is funded by USEPA grant agreement XA973180 –

R egional Haze Planning in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic States.

About MARAMA

The Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association, Inc. is a voluntary, non-profit

association of ten state and local air pollution control agencies. MARAMA's mission is to

strengthen the skills and capabilities of member agencies and to help them work together to

prevent and reduce air pollution in the Mid-Atlantic Region. MARAMA provides cost-effective

approaches to regional collaboration by pooling resources to develop and analyze data, share

ideas, and train staff to implement common requirements.Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page i



## Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION

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

1.1 INVENTORY PURPOSE

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

1.2 POLLUTANTS

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

1.3 SOURCE CATEGORIES

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

1.4 DATA FORMATS

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

1.5 INVENTORY VERSIONS

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

1.5.1 Version 1 Modeling Inventory

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

1.5.2 Version 2 Modeling Inventory

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

1.5.3 Version 3 Modeling Inventories with Existing and Potential Controls

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

1.6 REPORT ORGANIZATION

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

2.0 IDENTIFICATION OF EGU AND NONEGU POINT SOURCES

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

3.0 GROWTH PROJECTION FACTORS FOR NONEGUS AND AREA SOURCES

................ 15

3.1 AEO FUEL USE PROJECTIONS

................................................................................... 15

3.2 POPULATION PROJECTIONS

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

3.3 EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS

................................................................................... 23

3.4 VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED PROJECTIONS

.............................................................. 23

3.5 NO GROWTH ASSIGNMENT FOR CERTAIN AREA SOURCE CATEGORIES

............. 23

3.6 EPA 2020 PROJECTIONS FOR RESIDENTIAL WOOD AND LIVESTOCK

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

3.7 SCC, SIC, NAICS AND GROWTH PAR AMETER CROSSWALK

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

3.8 FINAL GROWTH FACTORS FOR NONEGU / AREA SOURCES

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

3.9 EMISSION REDUCTION CREDITS

............................................................................... 30

4.0 AREA SOURCE CONTROL FACTORS

............................................................................. 33

4.1 FEDERAL RULES AFFECTING AREA SOURCES

........................................................ 33

4.2 FEDERAL MACT RULES

................................ .............................................................. 34

4.3 RECENT CONTROL TECHNIQUE GUIDELINES

.......................................................... 35

4.4 OTC MODEL RULES FOR AREA SOURCES

................................................................ 37

4.4.1 OTC Model Rule for Adhesives/Sealants

............................................................... 39

4.4.2 OTC Model Rules for Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Coatings

.............. 40

4.4.3 OTC Model Rule for Asphalt Paving

...................................................................... 43

4.4.4 OTC Model Rules for Consumer Products

............................................................. 44

4.4.5 OTC Model Rules for Mobile Equipment Repair and Refinishing

........................... 46

4.4.6 OTC Model Rules for Portable Fuel Containers

..................................................... 49

4.4.7 OTC Model Rule for Solvent Cleaning

................................................................... 50

4.4.8 OTC Model Rules for ICI Boilers

............................................................................ 51

4.4.9 OTC Model Rule for New, Small, Natural Gas-fired Boilers

................................... 53

4.4.10 MANE-VU Low Sulfur Fuel Oil Strategy

............................................................. 55Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page ii



### 5.0 NONEGU POINT SOURCE CONTROL FACTORS

............................................................ 56

5.1 FEDERAL ACTIONS AFFECTING NONEGU POINT SOURCES

.................................. 56

5.2 RECENT CONTROL TECHNIQUE GUIDELINES

.......................................................... 59

5.3 OTC MODEL RULES FOR NONEGU S



### .......................................................................... 59

5.3.1 OTC 2006 Model Rule for Adhesives and Sealants

............................................... 62

5.3.2 OTC 2009/2010 Model Rule for Large Storage Tanks

........................................... 63

5.3.3 OTC 2006 Model Rule for Asphalt Production Plants

............................................. 64

5.3.4 OTC 2006 Model Rule for Cement Manufacturing Plants

....................................... 64

5.3.5 OTC 2006 Model Rule for Glass and Fiberglass Furnaces

.................................... 66

5.3.6 OTC 2006 Model Rule for ICI Boilers

..................................................................... 66

5.4 FUEL OIL SULFUR LIMITS

................................ ........................................................... 69

5.5 STATE-SPECIFIC NONEGU CONTROL FACTORS

..................................................... 70

6.0 NONROAD MODEL CATEGORIES

................................................................................... 72

6.1 STATE REVIEW OF NMIM FUEL CHARACTERISTICS

................................................ 72

6.2 USE OF EXTERNAL FILES IN THE PROJECTION YEAR NMIM RUNS

........................ 73

6.3 NMIM RUN SPECIFICATIONS

...................................................................................... 73

6.4 REMOVAL OF AIRPORT GROUND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT

...................................... 74

6.5 STATE AND STAKEHOLDER REVIEW AND COMMENT

............................................. 74

6.6 CHANGES MADE FOR VERSION 3 MODEL RUNS

...................................................... 74

6.7 NMIM/NONROAD GROWTH AND CONTROL INFORMATION

..................................... 76

7.0 NONROAD MAR SOURCE CATEGORIES

........................................................................ 80

7.1 COMMERCIAL MARINE VESSELS

............................................................................... 80

7.1.1 CMV Diesel Growth Factors

................................................................................... 80

7.1.2 CMV Diesel Control Factors

................................................................................... 81

7.1.3 CMV Residual Oil Growth Factors

......................................................................... 82

7.1.4 CMV Residual Oil Control Factors

......................................................................... 82

7.1.5 Military Vessels Growth and Control Factors

......................................................... 83

7.2 AIRCRAFT

.................................................................................................................... 83

7.2.1 Aircraft Growth Factors

.......................................................................................... 84

7.2.2 Aircraft Control Factors

.......................................................................................... 85

7.3 RAILROAD EQUIPMENT

................................ .............................................................. 86

7.3.1 Railroad Growth Factors

........................................................................................ 87

7.3.2 Railroad Control Factors

........................................................................................ 87

8.0 SUMMARY OF PROJECTED EMISSIONS

........................................................................ 89

8.1 AREA SOURCE PROJECTED EMISSIONS

.................................................................. 89

8.2 NONEGU POINT SOURCE PROJECTED EMISSIONS

................................................ 98

8.3 NONROAD NMIM SOURCE PROJECT EMISSIONS

................................ .................. 107

8.4 NONROAD COMMERCIAL MARINE VESSEL EMISSIONS

........................................ 115Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page iii



### 8.5 NONROAD AIRPORT EMISSIONS

............................................................................. 123

8.6 NONROAD RAILROAD LOCOMOTIVE EMISSIONS

.................................................. 131

9.0 PREPARATION OF SMOKE MODEL FILES

................................................................... 139

9.1 NONEGU POINT SOURCE SMOKE EMISSION FILES

............................................... 139

9.2 AREA SOURCE SMOKE EMISSION FILES

................................................................ 139

9.3 NONROAD NMIM SMOKE EMISSION FILES

.............................................................. 139

9.4 NONROAD MAR SMOKE EMISSION FILES

............................................................... 140

10.0 FINAL DELIVERABLES

................................ ................................................................ . 141

11.0 REFERENCES

................................................................................................................ 146Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page iv



## List of Appendices

Appendix A Identification of EGUs and NonEGUs

Appendix B1 AEO2010 New England.xls

Appendix B2 AEO2010 Mid Atlantic.xls

Appendix B3 AEO2010 South Atlantic.xls

Appendix B4 AEO2011 New England.xls

Appendix B5 AEO2011 Mid Atlantic.xls

Appendix B6 AEO2011 South Atlantic.xls

Appendix B7 AEO2010 vs AEO2011 Comparison.docx

Appendix C Population Factors.xls

Appendix D Employment Factors.xls

Appendix E VMT Factors.xls

Appendix F USEPA 2020 Residential Wood Projection Factors

Appendix G USEPA

2020 Livestock Projection Factors

Appendix H Stage II Control Factors

Appendix I Area Source ICI Boiler Control Factor Derivation.xlsx

Appendix J Area Source New Small Gas-Fired Boiler Control Factor Derivation

Appendix K Fuel Oil Sulfur Contents and MANE-VU Limits

Appendix L – Supporting Data for Final MAR Source Growth and Control Factors for 2017 and

2020Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page v



## List of Exhibits

Exhibit 2.1 2007 EGU and NonEGU Point Source CO Emissions

Exhibit 2.2 2007 EGU and NonEGU Point Source NH3 Emissions

Exhibit 2.3 2007 EGU and NonEGU Point Source NOx Emissions

Exhibit 2.4 2007 EGU and NonEGU Point Source PM10-PRI Emissions

Exhibit 2.5 2007 EGU and NonEGU Point Source PM25-PRI Emissions

Exhibit 2.6 2007 EGU and NonEGU Point Source SO2 Emissions

Exhibit 2.7 2007 EGU and NonEGU Point Source VOC Emissions

Exhibit 3.1 Growth Factors for Coal Fuel Use by AEO Region 2007 - 2025

Exhibit 3.2 Growth Factors for Residual Oil Fuel Use by AEO Region 2007 - 2025

Exhibit 3.3 Growth Factors for Distillate Oil Fuel Use by AEO Region 2007 - 202 5

Exhibit 3.4 Growth Factors for Natural Gas Fuel Use by AEO Region 2007 - 2025

Exhibit 3.5 Growth Factors for Gasoline Fuel Use by AEO Region 2007 – 2025

Exhibit 3.6 Population Growth Factors by AEO Region 2007 – 2025

Exhibit 3.7. Employment Growth Factors by AEO Region 2007 - 2025

Exhibit 3.8 State VMT Growth Factors 2007 – 2020

Exhibit 3.9 Area Source Categories with No Growth Assignment

Exhibit 3 .1 0 State Recommendations to Address Negative Growth for the NonEGU Point

Source Sector

Exhibit 3.11 State Recommendations to Address Negative Growth and Other Growth Factors

for the Area Source Sector

Exhibit 4.1 USEPA Estimated Percent Reductions for RICE MACT Standard

Exhibit 4.2 Summary of Area Source OTC Control Measures

Exhibit 4.3 State Recommendations for OTC Adhesives/Sealants Rule

Exhibit 4.4 State Recommendations for OTC AIM Rule

Exhibit 4.5 State Recommendations for OTC Cutback and Emulsified Asphalt Paving

Exhibit 4.6 VOC Emission Factors for Consumer Products

Exhibit 4.7 State Recommendations for OTC 2001 and 2006 Consumer Products Rules

Exhibit 4.8 VOC Emission Reductions for Auto Refinishing

Exhibit 4.9 State Recommendations for OTC Auto Refinishing Rule

Exhibit 4.10 State Recommendations for OTC and Federal Portable Fuel Container Rules

Exhibit 4.11 State Recommendations for OTC Solvent Cleaning RuleDocumentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page vi



### Exhibit 4.12 Area Source Emission Reductions from New Jersey ICI Boiler NOx Rules

Exhibit 4.13 OTC Resolution 06-02 Guidelines for ICI Boiler NOx Rules

Exhibit 4.14 NOx Emission Reductions Expected from the OTC Rule for New, Small, Natural

Gas-fired Units

Exhibit 4.15 MANE-VU Low Sulfur Fuel Oil Strategy

Exhibit 5.1 USEPA Estimated Percent Reductions for RICE MACT Standard

Exhibit 5.2 Summary of Point Source OTC Control Measures

Exhibit 5.3 State Recommendations for OTC Adhesives/Sealants Rule

Exhibit 5.4 NonEGU Point Source Emission Reductions from New Jersey ICI Boiler NOx Rules

Exhibit 5.5 OTC Resolution 06-02 Guidelines for ICI Boiler NOx Rules

Exhibit 6.1 Control Programs Included in the NMIM/NONROAD Model

Exhibit 7.1 CMV Diesel Control Factors by Year, Pollutant, and SCC

Exhibit 7.2 CMV Residual Oil Control Factors by Year, Pollutant, and SCC

Exhibit 7.3 Crosswalk between SCC and FAA Operations Type

Exhibit 7.4 Region-wide Growth Factors from 2007 by FAA Operations Type

Exhibit 7.5 Rail Control Factors by Year, Pollutant, and SCC

Exhibit 8. 1 2007 and Projected Future Year Area Source CO Emissions

Exhibit 8. 2 2007 and Projected Future Year Area Source NH3 Emissions

Exhibit 8. 3 2007 and Projected Future Year Area Source NOx Emissions

Exhibit 8. 4 2007 and Projected Future Year Area Source PM10-PRI Emissions

Exhibit 8. 5 2007 and Projected Future Year Area Source PM25-PRI Emissions

Exhibit 8. 6 2007 and Projected Future Year Area Source SO2 Emissions

Exhibit 8. 7 2007 and Projected Future Year Area Source VOC Emissions

Exhibit 8.8 2007 and Projected Future Year NonEGU Point Source CO Emissions

Exhibit 8.9 2007 and Projected Future Year NonEGU Point Source NH3 Emissions

Exhibit 8.10 2007 and Projected Future Year NonEGU Point Source NOx Emissions

Exhibit 8.11 2007 and Projected Future Year NonEGU Point Source PM10-PRI Emissions

Exhibit 8.12 2007 and Projected Future Year NonEGU Point Source PM25-PRI Emissi ons

Exhibit 8.13 2007 and Projected Future Year NonEGU Point Source SO2 Emissions

Exhibit 8.14 2007 and Projected Future Year NonEGU Point Source VOC Emissions

Exhibit 8.15 2007 and Projected Future Year NONROAD Source CO EmissionsDocumentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page vii



### Exhibit 8.16 2007 and Projected Future Year NONROAD Source NH3 Emissions

Exhibit 8.17 2007 and Projected Future Year NONROAD Source NOx Emissions

Exhibit 8.18 2007 and Projected Future Year NONROAD Source PM10-PRI Emissions

Exhibit 8.19 2007 and Projected Future Year NONROAD Source PM25-PRI Emissions

Exhibit 8.20 2007 and Projected Future Year NONROAD Source SO2 Emissions

Exhibit 8.21 2007 and Projected Future Year NONROAD Source VOC Emissions

Exhibit 8. 22 2007 and Projected Future Year Marine Vessel CO Emissions

Exhibit 8. 23 2007 and Projected Future Year Marine Vessel NH3 Emissions

Exhibit 8. 24 2007 and Projected Future Year Marine Vessel NOx Emissions

Exhibit 8. 25 2007 and Projected Future Year Marine Vessel PM10- PRI Emissions

Exhibit 8. 26 2007 and Projected Future Year Marine Vessel PM25- PRI Emissions

Exhibit 8. 27 2007 and Projected Future Year Marine Vessel SO2 Emissions

Exhibit 8. 28 2007 and Projected Future Year Marine Vessel VOC Emissions

Exhibit 8. 29 2007 and Projected Future Year Airport CO Emissions

Exhibit 8. 30 2007 and Projected Future Year Airport NH3 Emissions

Exhibit 8. 31 2007 and Projected Future Year Airport NOx Emissions

Exhibit 8. 32 2007 and Projected Future Year Airport PM10- PRI Emissions

Exhibit 8. 33 2007 and Projected Future Year Airport PM25- PRI Emissions

Exhibit 8. 34 2007 and Projected Future Year Airport SO2 Emissions

Exhibit 8. 35 2007 and Projected Future Year Airport VOC Emissions

Exhibit 8. 36 2007 and Projected Future Year Railroad Locomotive CO Emissions

Exhibit 8. 37 2007 and Projected Future Year Railroad Locomotive NH3 Emissions

Exhibit 8. 38 2007 and Projected Future Year Railroad Locomotive NOx Emissions

Exhibit 8. 39 2007 and Projected Future Year Railroad Locomotive PM10- PRI Emissions

Exhibit 8. 40 2007 and Projected Future Year Railroad Locomotive PM25- PRI Emissions

Exhibit 8. 41 2007 and Projected Future Year Railroad Locomotive SO2 Emissions

Exhibit 8. 42 2007 and Projected Future Year Railroad Locomotive VOC Emissions

Exhibit 10.1 – NIF Data Files

Exhibit 10.2 – Emission Summary Files

Exhibit 10.3 – SMOKE FilesDocumentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page viii



## Acronyms and Abbreviations

Acronym Description

CAMD Clean Air Markets Division ( US EPA)

CAP Criteria Air Pollutant

CEM Continuous Emission Monitoring

CMV Commercial Marine Vessel

CO Carbon Monoxide

CTG Control Technique Guideline

EGU Electric Generating Unit

ERTAC Eastern Regional Technical Advisory Co mmittee

FIPS Federal Information Processing Standard

GACT Generally available control technology

GSE Ground Support Equipment

MACT Maximum Achievable Control Technology

MANE

- VU Mid

- Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union

MANE

- VU+VA MANE

- VU States plus Virginia

MAR Marine, Airport, Rail

MARAMA Mid

- Atlantic Regional Air Management Association

MOBILE6 USEPA model

MOVES Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator

NAICS North American Industry Classification System code

NCD National County Database

NEI National Emission Inventory

NESCAUM Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management

NH3 Ammonia

NIF3.0 National Emission Inventory Input Format Version 3.0

NMIM National Mobile Input Model

N O F3.0 National Emission Inventory Output Format Version 3.0

NONROAD USEPA model

NOx Oxides of nitrogen

OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (USEPA)

ORL One

- record

- per

- line (SMOKE Format)

OTAQ Office of Transportation and Air Quality ( US EPA)

PFC Portable Fuel Container

PM

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

PM

- FIL Primary PM, Filterable portion only

PM

- PRI Primary PM, includes filterables and condensable s

PM

- PRI= PM

- FIL + PM

- CONDocumentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page ix

Acronym Description

PM10

- FIL Primary PM10, Filterable portion only

PM10

- PRI Primary PM10, includes filterables and condensable s

,

PM10

- PRI = PM0

- FIL + PM

- CON

PM25

- FIL Primary PM2.5, Filterable portion only

PM25

- PRI Primary PM2.5, includes filterables and condens a bles

PM25

- PRI= PM25

- FIL + PM

- CON

RWC Residential Wood Combustion

SEMAP Southeast Modeling, Analysis and Planning

SIC Standard Industrial Classification code

SIP State Implementation Plan

SCC Source Classification Code

S/L State/local

SMOKE Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions

SO2 Sulfur Dioxide

USEPA U.S Environmental Protection Agency

VISTAS Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the Southeast

VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled

VOC Volatile O rganic C ompoundsDocumentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 1



## 1.0 INTRODUCTION

This technical support document (TSD) explains the data sources and methods used to

prepare criteria air pollutant (CAP) and ammonia (NH3) emission projections for 2017 and

2020 for the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic/Northeast region. The region includes the

jurisdictions in the Mid-Atlantic / Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU) area plus

Virginia. In this document, these jurisdictions will be referred to as the MANE-VU+VA

region. The MANE-VU+VA region includes Connecticut, Delaware, the District of

Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,

Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Virginia.

1.1 INVENTORY PURPOSE

The MANE-VU+VA regional inventories will be used to concurrently address national

ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) requirements for the new ozone and fine particle

ambient standards and to evaluate progress towards long-term regional haze goals. The

e mission inventories will support a single integrated, one-atmosphere air quality modeling

platfo rm, state air quality attainment demonstrations, and other state air quality technical

a nalyses.

The future year inventories account for emissions growth associated with changes in

population, fuel use, and economic activity. The future year inventories also refect the

emission changes between 2007 and the two future years that are projected under two

e mission control scenarios:

Existing Controls – this scenario represents the best estimates for the future year,

a ccounting for all in-place controls that are fully adopted into federal or individual

state regulations or State Implementation Plans (SIPs). In the past, this inventory is

also referred to as the “ on -the-books (OTB)” inventory. Air quality modelers often

refer to this scenario as the “future base case .”

Potential New OTC Controls – this scenario accounts for all of the emission

reductions from the existing control scenario plus new state or regional measures

that a re under consideration by the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) or

individual states. This is a “what if” scenario that assumes that all states in the

MAN E-VU+VA region except Virginia will adopt all new OTC control measures

unde r consideration by 2017. Air quality modelers sometimes call this the “future

c ontrol case.” It does not include any potential new federal control measures that

are under consideration.Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 2



### The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has provided guidance on

developing emission projections to be used with models and other analyses for

demonstrating attainment of air quality goals for ozone, fine particles, and regional haze

(USEPA 1999, USEPA 2005a, USEPA 2007a). In addition, the USEPA has recently

developed its own emission projections that provide data on growth and future controls

that were useful in developing the MANE-VU+VA future year emission inventories

(USEPA 2010a). The guidance and information available from USEPA was followed and

used, as appropriate, in developing the future year emission projections.

1.2 POLLUTANTS

The inventory includes annual emissions for carbon monoxide (CO), ammonia (NH3),

oxides of nitrogen (NOx), particulate matter (PM), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and volatile

or ganic compounds (VOC). The PM species in the inventory are categorized as: filterable

and condensable particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10

and 2.5 micrometers (i.e., PM10-PRI and PM25-PRI); filterable particles with an

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

FIL and PM25-FIL); and condensable particles (PM-CON). Note that PM10-PRI equals

the sum of PM10-FIL and PM-CON, and PM25-PRI equals the sum of PM25-FIL and

PM -CON.

1.3 SOURCE CATEGORIES

Emission inventory data from six general categories are needed to support air quality

modeling: electric generating units (EGUs), stationary nonEGU point-sources, stationary

area-sources, on -road mobile sources, nonroad mobile sources, and biogenic/geogenic

emissions. This report documents the development of emission projections for three of

these sectors, as follows:

NonEGU Point Source s are individual facilities and are further subdivided by

stac k, emission unit (“point”), and emission process (“segment”). Point source data

include source-specific information on source location (e.g., latitude/longitude

coordinates); stack parameters (stack diameter and height, exit gas temperature and

velocity); type of process (source classification code {SCC}); and annual

emissions.

Stationary Area Sources include sources that in and of themselves are quite small,

but i n aggregate may contribute significant emissions. Examples include small

indus trial/commercial facilities, residential heating furnaces, VOCs volatizing fromDocumentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 3



### house painting or consumer products, gasoline service stations, and agricultural

fe rtilizer/pesticide application.

Non-road Mobile Sources include internal combustion engines used to prope l

marine vessels, airplanes, and locomotives, or to operate equipment such as

forklifts, lawn and garden equipment, portable generators, etc. For activities other

than ma rine vessels, airplanes, and railroad locomotives (MAR), the inventory was

de veloped using the most current version of USEPA’s NONROAD model as

embedded in the National Mobile Inventory Model (NMIM). Since the

NONROAD model does not include emissions from MAR sources, these emissions

were estimated based on data and methodologies used in recent USEPA regulatory

impact analyses.

For these three sectors, emissions projections were compiled on an annual basis to

represent conditions in 2017 and 2020.

Emi ssion projections for the three other sectors are being developed by the OTC under

se parate efforts:

EGU Point Source s are units that generate electric power and sell most of th at
power to the electrical grid. Emission projections for EGUs are being developed as

pa rt of an inter-RPO coordination effort under the direction of the Eastern Regional

Technical Advisory Committee (ERTAC).

On -road Mobile Sources are sources of air pollution from internal combustion

engines used to propel cars, trucks, buses, and other vehicles on public roadways.

Emission projections for on-road mobile sources are being developed under a

separate effort by the OTC that will use the USEPA Motor Vehicle Emission

Simulator (MOVES) model.

Biogenic emissions are emitted by natural sources, such as plants, trees, and soils.

The sharp scent of pine needles, for instance, is caused by monoterpenes, which are

VOCs. The USEPA developed estimates of biogenic emissions from vegetation for

na tural areas, crops, and urban vegetation. The USEPA estimates take into account

the geographic variations in vegetation land cover and species composition, as well

as seasonal variations in leaf cover. Emission projections for biogenic sources will

be developed under a separate effort by the OTC modeling team.

Documentation of the emission projections for these three sectors will be available from

the OTC.Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 4



### 1.4 DATA FORMATS

The annual mass emissions inventory files were prepared in the National Emissions

Inventory (NEI) Output Format Version 3.0 (NOF 3.0). Spreadsheets summarizing

emissions by county, sector, source classification code, and pollutant were also prepared.

These annual emission inventories will be converted (through the emissions modeling

process) from their original resolution (e.g., annual, county level) to input files for air

quality models. These input files require emissions to be specified by model grid cell,

hour, and model chemical species. The emission modelers in the MANE-VU+VA region

are using the Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions (SMOKE) modeling system and

data formats. Emission inventory files were prepared in SMOKE compatible format.

1.5 INVENTORY VERSIONS

1.5.1 Version 1 Modeling Inventory

Work commenced in 2009 to assemble comprehensive 2007 and future year emission

inventor ies to support air quality modeling. Using data available from state agencies and

the U SEPA, detailed point and area source emission inventories were compiled. The

NONROAD model was used to estimate emissions for the nonroad equipment categories

include d in the model. State and USEPA data were used to assemble the inventory for

nonroad sources not included in the NONROAD model (marine vessels, aircraft, and

railroad locomotives, collectively referred to as the MAR sector).

For the point, area, and MAR sectors, growth factors are applied to account for changes in

population , fuel use and economic activity. Next, control factors are applied to account for

futur e emission reductions from post-2007 control measures. The NONROAD model was

used to project emissions for the nonroad equipment included in the model. The control

sc enario developed account ed for post-2007 emission reductions from promulgated

federal, State, local, and site-specific control programs and proposed control programs that

are reasonably anticipated to result in post-2007 emission reductions. A series of quality

assurance steps are conducted to ensure the development of complete, accurate, and

consistent emission inventories. The inventories are provided in two formats – SMOKE

One-Record-Per-Line (ORL) format and a spreadsheet format suitable for SIP submittals.

Finally, emission summary tables by state and pollutant were developed.

Version 1 of the 2007 base year inventory and the emission projections for

2013/2017/2020 were released for state and stakeholder review in late 2009 and early

2010.Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 5



### 1.5.2 Version 2 Modeling Inventory

Following the review of Version 1, significant efforts were made to improve the inventory

by using more state-specific data and correcting errors or omissions that were uncovered.

The se improvements were completed in February of 2011 and are referred to as Version 2

of the MANE-VU+VA 2007 and 2013/2017/2020 inventories. The inventories were

documented in two TSDs (MARAMA 2011a, MARAMA 2011b).

1.5.3 Version 3 Modeling Inventories with Existing and Potential Controls

B eginning in the fall of 2011, MARAMA sponsored development of Version 3 of the 2007

base year modeling inventory to incorporate new paved road emission estimates, revised

modeling of nonroad and onroad sources, and other state-specific changes

(MA RAMA2012).

This re port documents the development of Version 3 of the future year inventories for the

area source, nonEGU, and nonroad sectors. The future year modeling inventories for

EGU) are currently being developed under a separate effort lead by ERTAC. The future

year modeling inventories for onroad sources are currently being developed by

NESCAUM, MARAMA or individual states.

I n Version 3, the state Air Directors issued guidance on the future year emission control

scenarios to be developed, as follows:

“A special meeting of the Air Directors was convened to discuss the controlled

inventory. During that call many Air Directors indicated that they would not be

able to clearly identify which of the control measures their states would adopt

because of the uncertainty surrounding the ozone standard. Therefore, all states,

except Virginia, requested that the contractor be instructed to calculate the effect of

all measures being fully adopted by both 2017 and 2020. This will allow modelers

to assess the potential effect of the measures if they were fully implemented on air

quality. We can also then test the assumptions that we have been making about the

cumulative percent reduction from the measures.”

Thus, these TSD discusses two future control scenarios: an “existing controls” scenario

scenario intended to include all 2017/2020 control measaures included in an individual

state ’s regulations or SIP, and a "what if" scenario that assumes that all states adopt

certain new control measures by 2017.Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 6



### 1.6 REPORT ORGANIZATION

Section 2 describes how point source emission units were classified into the EGU or

nonEGU point source categories. Section 3 discusses the growth projection factors

assembled for area and nonEGU point sources. Sections 4 and 5 describe the control

factors used for area and nonEGU point sources, respectively. Section 6 describes the

NONROAD model runs made for the future years. Section 7 documents how emissions

for marine vessels, aircraft, and railroad equipment were projected. Section 8 provides

state level emission pollutant summaries for area, nonEGU point, NONROAD, and MAR

se ctors. Section 9 do cuments the creation of SMOKE inventory modeling input files.

Section 10 identifies the file names for final deliverable products. References for the TSD

are provided in Section 11.Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 7



## 2.0 IDENTIFICATION OF EGU AND NONEGU POINT SOURCES

Only the emissions from point sources classified as nonEGUs are being projected using the

methods and data contained in this report. Emissions from EGU point sources are being

developed by ERTAC.

States were asked to classify units in the 2007 MANE-VU+VA emissions inventory as

either EGU or nonEGU. Most, but not all, of the units that are required to report hourly

emissions to USEPA’s Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD) are classified as EGUs.

C AMD implements USEPA’s rule found in Volume 40 Part 75 of the Code of Federal

R egulations (CFR), which requires an hourly accounting of emissions from each affected

unit - i.e., sources participating in an emissions cap and trade program under the Acid

Rain Control Program, the NOx Budget Trading Program, or the Clean Air Interstate Rule.

For the ERTAC projection methodology, the following guidance was provided to states to

c lassify a unit as an EGU if it meets the following criteria:

An EGU sells most of the power generated to the electrical grid;

An EGU burns mostly commercial fuel. Commercial fuel in this case means

natural gas, oil, and coal. Wood is not considered a commercial fuel because some

states identify wood as renewable. Therefore, to avoid double counting, units that

burn wood and other renewable sources (depending on each state's own definition)

should not be considered as an EGU (unless it is already in the CAMD database).

The following are units were not considered as EGU for emission projections: (1) a unit

that generates power for a facility but occasionally sells to the grid; (2) emergency

g enerators; or (3) d istributed generation units.

States were provided with a list of units that report to CAMD (USEPA 2009a) and a list of

unit s with an electric generating unit SCC (1-01-xxx-xx or 2-01-xxx-xx). States identified

whic h units should be classified as EGUs and which should be classified as nonEGUs.

Appendix A identifies the units that report emissions to CAMD and whether they are

classified as EGUs or nonEGUs for emission projection purposes. A few states also

identified units with SCCs beginning with 1-01 or 2-01 that do not report to CAMD but

which should be classified as EGUs; however, for emission projection purposes these units

will be processed using the nonEGU projection methodology described in this report.

Exhibits 2.1 to 2.7 summarize EGU and nonEGU emissions for 2007. For these exhibits,

EGUs are defined as units that report emissions to CAMD and have been classified as

EGUs by the states for emission projection purposes.Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 8



### Exhibit 2.1 2007 EGU and NonEGU Point Source CO Emissions (tons per year)

State EGU NonEGU Total

CT 1,095 2,584 3,679

DE 726 7,027 7,753

DC 10 301 311

ME 460 14,023 14,483

MD 4,196 77,574 81,770

MA 5,516 4,592 10,108

NH 910 2,254 3,164

NJ 3,640 6,932 10,572

NY 13,480 52,877 66,357

PA 20,900 80,540 101,440

RI 602 1,051 1,653

VT 1,444 702 2,146

VA 7,273 63,080 70,353

TOTAL 60,252 313,537 373,789Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 9



### Exhibit 2. 2 2007 EGU and NonEGU Point Source NH3 Emissions (tons per year)

State EGU NonEGU Total

CT 0 0 0

DE 32 62 94

DC 0 0 0

ME 59 606 665

MD 0 137 137

MA 283 365 648

NH 98 30 128

NJ 708 210 918

NY 1,354 1,063 2,417

PA 309 2,070 2,379

RI 58 16 74

VT 0 0 0

VA 212 1,618 1,830

TOTAL 3,113 6,177 9,290Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 10



### Exhibit 2.3 2007 EGU and NonEGU Point Source NOx Emissions (tons per year)

State EGU NonEGU Total

CT 3,760 6,301 10,061

DE 10,507 5,121 15,628

DC 55 734 789

ME 696 17,050 17,746

MD 51,418 23,472 74,890

MA 10,755 12,873 23,628

NH 4,754 2,687 7,441

NJ 16,571 14,030 30,601

NY 47,450 35,583 83,033

PA 186,997 71,382 258,379

RI 494 950 1,444

VT 370 441 811

VA 62,673 50,265 112,938

TOTAL 396,500 240,889 637,389Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 11



### Exhibit 2.4 2007 EGU and NonEGU Point Source PM10 Emissions (tons per year)

State EGU NonEGU Total

CT 705 645 1,350

DE 2,268 1,197 3,465

DC 13 46 59

ME 148 4,748 4,896

MD 13,611 5,711 19,322

MA 2,575 3,029 5,604

NH 784 1,141 1,925

NJ 4,496 3,188 7,684

NY 5,044 4,463 9,507

PA 27,470 22,275 49,745

RI 16 173 189

VT 0 146 146

VA 6,175 13,028 19,203

TOTAL 63,305 59,790 123,095Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 12



### Exhibit 2.5 2007 EGU and NonEGU Point Source PM2.5 Emissions (tons per year)

State EGU NonEGU Total

CT 669 573 1,242

DE 2,024 1,083 3,107

DC 10 43 53

ME 125 3,727 3,852

MD 11,805 3,877 15,682

MA 2,292 2,572 4,864

NH 602 1,061 1,663

NJ 4,410 2,453 6,863

NY 3,585 2,414 5,999

PA 19,071 13,389 32,460

RI 16 124 140

VT 0 114 114

VA 4,593 10,295 14,888

TOTAL 49,202 41,725 90,927Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 13



### Exhibit 2.6 2007 EGU and NonEGU Point Source SO2 Emissions (tons per year)

State EGU NonEGU Total

CT 4,786 3,185 7,971

DE 34,882 8,206 43,088

DC 141 471 612

ME 1,677 15,571 17,248

MD 274,207 31,176 305,383

MA 54,172 9,057 63,229

NH 42,524 2,734 45,258

NJ 37,302 3,490 40,792

NY 108,444 44,307 152,751

PA 970,726 57,330 1,028,056

RI 16 1,500 1,516

VT 6 316 322

VA 188,562 54,486 243,048

TOTAL 1,717,445 231,829 1,949,274Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 14



### Exhibit 2.7 2007 EGU and NonEGU Point Source VOC Emissions (tons per year)

State EGU NonEGU Total

CT 143 1,447 1,590

DE 83 3,406 3,489

DC 2 57 59

ME 35 4,987 5,022

MD 389 4,597 4,986

MA 463 4,094 4,557

NH 110 806 916

NJ 420 10,620 11,040

NY 1,119 9,772 10,891

PA 770 28,195 28,965

RI 49 921 970

VT 22 373 395

VA 600 35,018 35,618

TOTAL 4,205 104,293 108,498Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 15



## 3.0 GROWTH PROJECTION FACTORS FOR NONEGUs AND AREA

SOURCES

The area and nonEGU point source growth factors were developed using six sets of data:

The Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) fuel consumption forecasts; County-level population projections; State-level employment projections by NAICS code; County-level vehicle miles travelled (VMT) projections; USEPA projections for livestock and residential wood combustion; and Other state-specific emission projection data.

The priority for applying these growth factors was to first use the state-supplied projection

da ta (if available). If state-supplied data were not provided, then the AEO projection

factors were used for fuel consumption sources, and the population/employment/VMT data

we re used for other source categories.

3.1 AEO FUEL USE PROJECTIONS

The AEO is published annually by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). It

presents long-term projections of energy supply, demand, and prices through 2035, based

on results from EIA’s National Energy Modeling System (NEMS). NEMS projects the

production, imports, conversion, consumption, and prices of energy, subject to

assumptions on macroeconomic and financial factors, world energy markets, resource

availability and costs, behavioral and technological choice criteria, energy technology cost

and performance characteristics, and demographics.

AEO provides regional fuel-use forecasts for various fuel types (e.g., coal, residual oil,

dist illate oil, natural gas) by end use sector (e.g., residential, commercial, industrial,

transportation, and electric power). Energy use projections are reported at the Census

divi sion level. The census divisions grouped states as follows:

South Atlantic

- DE, DC, MD, VA Middle Atlantic – NJ, NY, PA New England – CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT

Appendices B1, B2, and B3 contain the AEO2010 fuel use projections for each of these

three regions. Appendices B4, B5, and B6 contain the AEO2011 fuel use projections

Version 2 of the MANE-VU+VA future year inventories was developed using AEO2010

(EIA2010). After the release of Version 2, AEO2011 was published (EIA2011).

MARAMA reviewed the updated fuel forecasts and compared the AEO2010 and

AEO2011 projections. Appendix B7 documents MARAMA’s analysis. MARAMADocumentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 16



### calculated the difference in projected fuel usage between AEO2010 and AEO2011 for the

residential, commercial, industrial, transportation, and electric power sector for the

distillate fuel oil, residual fuel oil, coal, natural gas, and renewable fuel types. MARAMA

identified thresholds for what constitutes a major change as follows:

An increase or decrease of 1% or less is considered to be no change and did not

warrant a change in the growth factors between Versions 2 and 3 of the inventory;

An increase or decrease of between 1% and 5% is considered to be a minor change,

and states agreed that these differences between AEO2010 and AEO2011 did not

warrant a change in the growth factors between Versions 2 and 3 of the inventory;

An increase or decrease above 5% is considered a major change, and warrants a

change in the growth factors used in Version 3.

MARAMA recommended that the AEO2010 projections be retained for all residential,

commercial, and industrial sector fuel use, except for industrial natural gas usage, where

the AEO2011 projections will be used for Version 3 of the future year modeling inventory.

New Jersey elected to use the more recent growth factors from AEO2011 instead of the

AEO2010 growth factors for all area source fossil fuel use categories.

Exhibits 3.1 to 3.5 summarize the projected fuel use rates by source sector (residential,

commercial, industrial, transportation) , AEO region, and fuel type for the years 2007 to

2025. The unusual growth in commercial residual oil use in the South Atlantic region

could not be explained; Maryland elected to use manufacturing employment instead of the

AEO2010 growth factor for commercial residual oil combustion, while Virginia and the

District chose to assume flat growth in this sector.

3.2 POPULATION PROJECTIONS

States provided county-level 2007 populations and projections for future years. The

historical and projection years varied from state- to

- state, so values were interpolated, when

necessary, to create population estimates for each year from 2007 to 2025. The population

data were normalized to create growth factors from 2007 for each future year. For

example, Delaware had a population of 861,087 in 2007 and the projected population in

2017 is 953,204, then the growth factor for 2017 is 953,204 / 861,087 = 1.107.

Population projections are provided in Appendix C. Exhibit 3.6 summarizes the

population growth factors by state and AEO2010 region. Population is projected to grow

in every state between 2007 and 2025. The population growth in the New England state s

va ries significantly by state. Population growth in the South Atlantic states is projected to

be much higher than in the New England and Mid-Atlantic states.Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 17



### Exhibit 3.1 AEO2010 Growth Factors for Coal by AEO Region 2007 – 2025Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 18



### Exhibit 3.2 Growth Factors for Residual Oil by AEO Region 2007 – 2025Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 19



### Exhibit 3.3 AEO2010 Growth Factors for Distillate Oil by AEO Region 2007 – 2025Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 20



### Exhibit 3.4 Growth Factors for Natural Gas by AEO Region 2007 – 2025 AEO2010 for Residential/Commercial, AEO2011 for IndustrialDocumentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 21



### Exhibit 3.5 AEO2010 Growth Factors for Gasoline by AEO Region 2007 – 2025Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 22



### Exhibit 3.6 Population Growth Factors by AEO Region 2007 – 2025Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 23



### 3.3 EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS

Every two years, the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics produces long-term industry and

oc cupation forecasts for ten future years and states are asked to do the same for their

respective economies. The most recent projections from state Department’s of Labor of

for the period 2006 to 2016, most of which were published in 2008. These 10 -year forecasts are updated every other year. The next set of state-specific projections will be for

the period 2008 to 2018. Only the District of Columbia and Delaware were able to provide

employment projections for 2008 to 2018; the 2008 to 2018 projections were not available

for other states in time for use on this project. The employment projections are state-wide

b y 3-digit NAICS code. Employment projections are provided in Appendix D. Exhibit 3.7

summarizes the manufacturing employment (NAICS sector 31-33) growth factors by state

and AEO2010 region. States in the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic region show a marked

decrease in manufacturing employment from 2007 forward.

3.4 VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED PROJECTIONS

States developed projections of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for 2007, 2017 and 2020

which were used as the growth factor for projecting emissions from re-entrained road dust

from travel on paved roads (SCC 22-94-000 -000). The 2007 and future year VMT are

identical to those used in the MOVES modeling. Exhibit 3.8 shows the state level VMT

growth between 2007 and 2020. Growth factors for years where VMT were not directly

provided by states were estimated by a linear interpolation of available data. Countyspecific VMT projections are provided in Appendix E.

3.5 NO GROWTH ASSIGNMENT FOR CERTAIN AREA SOURCE

CATEGORIES

For several area source categories, it seems reasonable that emissions would not change

fr om the 2007 values. No growth was applied to the 2007 emissions for the area source

categories shown in Exhibit 3.9.Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 24



### Exhibit 3.7. Manufacturing Employment Growth Factors by AEO Region 2007 - 2025Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 25



### Exhibit 3.8 State VMT Growth Factors 2007 – 202 0Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 26



### Exhibit 3.9 Area Source Categories with No Growth Assignment

SCC SCC Description

2296000000 Unpaved Roads /All Unpaved Roads /Total: Fugitives

2401008000 Surface Coating /Traffic Markings /Total: All Solvent Types

2461020000 Misc Non

- industrial: Commercial /Asphalt Application: All Processes /Total: All

2461021000 Misc Non

- industrial: Commercial /Cutback Asphalt /Total: All Solvent Types

2461022000 Misc Non

- industrial: Commerci al /Emulsified Asphalt /Total: All Solvent Types

2461023000 Misc Non

- industrial: Commercial /Asphalt Roofing /Total: All Solvent Types

2601000000 On

- site Incineration /All Categories /Total

2601010000 On

- site Incineration /Industrial /Total

2601010000 On

- site Incineration /Industrial /Total

2601020000 On

- site Incineration /Commercial/Institutional /Total

2601020000 On

- site Incineration /Commercial/Institutional /Total

2601030000 On

- site Incineration /Residential /Total

2610000100 Open Burning /All Categories /Yard Waste

- Leaf Species Unspecified

2610000400 Open Burning /All Categories /Yard Waste

- Brush Species Unspecified

2610000500 Open Burning /All Categories /Land Clearing Debris (use 28

- 10

- 005

- 000 for Loggin

2610030000 Open Burning /Reside ntial /Household Waste (use 26

- 10

- 000

- xxx for Yard Wastes)

2610040400 Open Burning /Municipal (from residences, parks,other for central burn)

2660000000 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks /Leaking Underground Storage Tanks /Total: All

2680001000 Composting /100% Biosolids (e.g., sewage sludge, manure, mixtures of these matls

2680002000 Composting /Mixed Waste (e.g., a 50:50 mixture of biosolids and green wastes)

2806010000 Domestic Animals Waste Emissions /Cats /Total

2806015000 Domestic Animal s Waste Emissions /Dogs /Total

2807020001 Wild Animals Waste Emissions /Bears /Black Bears

2807020002 Wild Animals Waste Emissions /Bears /Grizzly Bears

2807025000 Wild Animals Waste Emissions /Elk /Total

2807030000 Wild Animals Waste Emissions /Deer /Total

2807040000 Wild Animals Waste Emissions /Birds /Total

2810001000 Forest Wildfires

- Wildfires

– Unspecified

2810005000 Managed Burning, Slash (Logging Debris) /Unspecified Burn Method

2810010000 Human Perspiration and Respiration /Total

2810014000 Prescribed Burning /Generic

- Unspecified land cover, ownership, class/purpose

2810015000 Prescribed Forest Burning /Unspecified

2810020000 Prescribed Rangeland Burning /Unspecified

2810030000 Structure Fires /Unspecified

2810035000 Firefighting Training /Total

2810050000 Motor Vehicle Fires /Unspecified

2810060200 Cremation /Animals

2810090000 Open Fire /Not categorized

2820010000 Cooling Towers /Process Cooling Towers /Total

2830000000 Catastrophic/Accidental Releases /All Catastrophic/Accidental Releases /Total

2830010000 Catastrophic/Accidental Releases /Transportation Accidents /TotalDocumentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 27



### 3.6 EPA 2020 PROJECTIONS FOR RESIDENTIAL WOOD AND

LIVESTOCK

EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) made available its 2020

e missions projections associated with its 2005-based v4 modeling platform . MARAMA

used the OAQPS emission projection parameters for two area source sectors –livestock

a nd residential wood combustion. OAQPS’s methodology and data sources are

summarized below (USEPA 2008a).

OA QPS projected residential wood combustion emissions are based on the expected

increase in the number of low-emitting wood stoves and the corresponding decrease in

other types of wood stoves. As newer, cleaner woodstoves replace older, more polluting

stoves, there will be an overall reduction of emissions from this category. The approach

used by OAQPS was developed as part of a modeling exercise to estimate the expected

benefits of the woodstove changeout program. This methodology uses a combination of

g rowth and control factors and is based on activity not pollutant. The growth and control

a re accounted for in a single factor for each residential wood SCC (certain SCCs represent

c ontrolled equipment, while other SCCs represent uncontrolled equipment). Control

factors are indirectly incorporated based on which stove is used. The specific assumptions

OA QPS made were:

Fireplaces, SCC=2104008001: increase 1%/year;

Old woodstoves, SCC=2104008002, 2104008010, 2104008051: decrease 2% /y ea r;

New woodstoves, SCC=2104008003, 2104008004, 2104008030, 2104008050, 2104008052 or 2104008053: increase 2%/year.

For the general woodstoves and fireplaces category (SCC 2104008000) OAQPS computed

a weighted average distribution based on 19.4% fireplaces, 71.6% old woodstoves, 9.1%

ne w woodstoves using 2002 Platform emissions for PM2.5. These fractions are based on

the f raction of emissions from these processes in states that did not have the “general

woodstoves and fireplaces” SCC in the 2002 NEI. This approach results in an overall

decrease of 1.056% per year for this source category. Appendix F contains the residential

wood projection data from OAQPS.

OAQPS based growth in emissions from livestock on projections of growth in animal

population. Except for dairy cows and turkeys, the animal projection factors are derived

from national-level animal population projections from the U.S. Department of Agriculture

(USDA) and the Food and Agriculture Policy and Research Institute (FAPRI).Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 28



### For dairy cows and turkeys OAQPS assumed that there would be no growth in emissions.

This assumption was based on an analysis of historical trends in the number of such

animals compared to production rates. While productions rates have increased, the number

of animals has declined. In particular, the dairy cow population is projected to decrease in

the future as it has for the past few decades; however, milk production is expected to

increase over the same period. Thus, OAQPS does not believe that production forecasts

provide representative estimates of the future number of cows and turkeys. Therefore,

OAQPS did not use these forecasts for estimating future-year emissions from these

animals. Note that the ammonia emissions from dairies are related to both animal

population and nitrog en excretion. Appendix G contains the livestock projection data from

OAQPS.

3.7 SCC, SIC, NAICS AND GROWTH PARAMETER CROSSWALK

Since the employment projections were based on 3-digit NAICS code, it was necessary to

map NAICS codes to SCCs and SIC codes that were used by states. Employment

projections at the more specific 4-digit or 6-digit NAICS codes were not available.

The first step for developing a comprehensive crosswalk between the different source

classification codes (SCC, SIC, and NAICS codes) and emission activity growth indicators

wa s to compile a complete list of the NAICS codes in the 2007 point source inventory.

S ome states use the SIC code while other use the NAICS code. Still other states use both

the SIC and NAICS codes. When the NAICS code was not available SIC codes were

c onverted to NAICS codes. The 6-digit NAICS code was truncated to a 3-digit code,

which represents major industry subsectors of the economy. A U.S. Census Bureau

document was used to perform this conversion (CENSUS 2000).

The next step was to review parameters that could be used as the emission activity growth

indicator for each SCC or NAICS. We initially relied on two USEPA crosswalks (USEPA

2004a, USEPA 2004b) to match area and nonEGU point source SCCs to AEO2010

categories, employment NAICS codes, and population. The sector specific spreadsheets

identify the growth parameter used to project emissions for each SCC.

3.8 FINAL GROWTH FACTORS FOR NONEGU / AREA SOURCES

The previous section described the growth factors initially recommended to project future

y ear emissions inventories for area and non-EGU sources. Draft growth and control

factors, and a draft technical support document, were circulated for review by MARAMA

and state agencies. During the review, it was noted that several emissions categories showDocumentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 29



### negative growth into the future, particularly categories related to fossil fuel combustion

and manufacturing employment.

Many of the growth factors used to project emissions for area and non-EGU sources were

ba sed on the AEO2010 fuel consumption forecasts and state-level employment projections.

The AEO2010 forecasts show declining trends for many fuel consumption sectors,

especially industrial, residential, and commercial distillate fuel oil use. Similarly, the

employment projections show declines in the predicted number of employees for many

sectors of the economy. This is particularly true for the manufacturing sector, which is of

interest because this sector is often associated with higher emissions than those for other

sectors. By contrast, the employment projections show increasing trends in retail and

service-related sectors. However, these sectors are not typically associated with

significant emissions.

Predicted declines in fuel use and employment resulted in growth factors less than unity

(i.e., represent negative growth) for many area and non-EGU point source categories.

Consequently, for some categories, emissions are lower for the projected future years than

for the base year, even before the application of control assumptions (i.e. the future

"growth only" emissions are lower than the base year emissions). The MARAMA

emissions inventory workgroup met on several occasions via conference calls and email

exchanges to discuss whether the negative growth projections were realistic, and what

additional assumptions should be made. A topic of particular concern is negative growth

for non-EGU point sources versus the treatment of Emissions Reduction Credits (ERCs) in

the future year inventories (see Section 3.9 for a discussion of how ERCs were handled).

One conclusion the workgroup reached is that growth methods and assumptions for area

sources and non-EGUs should be as consistent as possible with those that are being used

by the Eastern Regional Technical Advisory Committee (ERTAC) for the projection of

emissions from EGUs. ERTAC is using AEO2010 as a starting point for estimating

projected future year emissions, and their preliminary analysis shows some indications of

negative growth. But their analysis is still on-going, and it is too early in the process to

draw firm conclusions or make solid recommendations at this time regarding their work

and its relationship to the area and non-EGU projections.

A few states cited the importance of the negative growth issue for non-EGUs and how it

re lates to their ERC programs which are critical to new businesses being able to locate in

those states. Because businesses could apply for and sell ERCs at the level of the base

year inventory, it would not be realistic to show negative growth for non-EGU point

sources. During an economic downturn, a facility could shut down and sell its ERCs,Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 30



### making the effective level of future year emissions equal to (i.e. no lower than) the base

year. Therefore, a recommended conservative approach for addressing negative growth for

non-EGU point sources is to set a minimum growth rate of 1 (no growth).

During the July 23, 2010 conference call held to discuss the negative growth issue, state

and agency representatives on the call were polled as to whether or not they felt that the

current set of proposed growth factors - including the negative growth factors - were

re alistic for their state or district. In reply, some representatives mentioned that they have

observed historic state-specific data that supports the trends displayed by the proposed

growth factors. Other representatives mentioned that they feel comfortable with the

growth factors and don't have a technical basis to change them or suggest others.

As a result of these discussions, each state provided guidance on how to handle projections

whe n negative growth is indicated. Exhibit 3.10 shows the state recommendations for

nonEG U point source, and Exhibit 3.11 shows the state recommendations for area sources.

The sector specific spreadsheets identify the growth parameter used to project emissions

for each SCC.

3.9 EMISSION REDUCTION CREDITS

Mulitple states (Connecticut, Maryland, Massachesetts, New Hampshire and New Jersey)

added county level records account for account emission reduction credits (ERCs) issued

to stationary sources pursuant to state regulations. States provided ERCs on a county- by

c ounty basis. Fictitious facilities with an identifier of “OFFSET99999” were created for

each county using SCC 23-99-000 -000 (miscellaneous industrial processes: not elsewhere

classified). Stack data were developed that assumed that emissions were released at the

county centroid with an assumed release height of 10 feet. For the 2017 and 2020

inventories, ERC emissions were set to the amount of banked emissions available in 2007.

Delaware included the banked credits at the specific locations that they were generated.

V irginia does not have a formal banking and trading program. Virginia used growth rates

of 1 for those SCCs in the point source emissions inventory that showed a negative growth.

I n addition, for units that have or are projected to have shut down, Virginia preserved the

2007 e missions in the inventory to account for potential use as offsets or credits.

Other states did not provide any additional information on how to account for ERCs.Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 31



### Exhibit 3.10 State Recommendations to Address Negative Growth

for the NonEGU Point Source Sector

State AEO Growth Factors Employment Growth Factors

CT Use no growth (growth factor=1) when AEO growth is negative; otherwise use AEO2010 if positive growth Use state DOL employment projections by 3

- digit NAICS

DE Use AEO2010 growth rates For 2013, use state DOL employment projections by 3

- digit NAICS; For 2017 and 2020, use no growth (growth factor=1) when employment growth is negative; otherwise use employment if positive growth

DC Use AEO2010 growth rates Use 2008

- 2018 employment projections; use no growth (growth factor=1) when employment growth is negative; otherwise use employment if positive growth

ME Use AEO2010 growth rates Use state DOL employment project ions by 3

- digit NAICS

MD Do not use AEO growth factors

Use MD DOL employment projections for industrial and commercial fuel use SCCs, unless employment growth rate is negative, in which case use no growth (growth factor=1) Use updated state DOL employment projections by 3

- digit NAICS; For DoD facilities, account for impacts of Base Realignment and Closure; For source that have closed, account for

emission reduction credits

MA Use AEO2010 growth rates Use state DOL employment projections by 3

- digit NAICS

NH Use AEO2010 growth rates Use state DOL employment projections by 3

- digit NAICS

NJ New Jersey submitted state specific growth factors. Used either state specific growth factors, no growth (growth factor=1) when

state AEO growth is negative or AEO if positive growth NJ submitted state specific growth factors.

Use d either state specific factors, no growth (growth factor=1) when state DOL employment growth is negative or employment if positive growth

NY Use no growth (growt h factor=1) when AEO growth is negative; otherwise use AEO2010 if positive growth Use no growth (growth factor=1) when employment growth is negative; otherwise use employment if positive growth

PA Use no growth (growth factor=1) when AEO growth is negativ e; otherwise use AEO2010 if positive growth Use no growth (growth factor=1) when employment growth is negative; otherwise use employment if positive growth

RI Use AEO2010 growth rates Use state DOL employment projections by 3

- digit NAICS

VT Use AEO2010 growth rates Use state DOL employment projections by 3

- digit NAICS

VA Use no growth (growth factor=1) when AEO growth is negative; otherwise use AEO2010 if positive growth Use no growth (growth factor=1) when employment growth is negative; otherwise use employment if positive growthDocumentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 32



### Exhibit 3.11 State Recommendations to Address Negative Growth

and Other Growth Factors for the Area Source Sector

State AEO Growth Factors Employment
Growth Factors Population
Growth Factors

CT Use AEO2010 growth rates Use state DOL employment projections by 3

- digit NAICS Use county

- level population projections

DE Use AEO2010 growth rates ; no growth for suspect AEO2010 projection for commercial /

institutional residual oil For 2013, use state DOL employment projections by 3

- digit NAICS; For 2017 and 2020, use no growth (growth factor=1) when employment growth is negative; otherwise use employment if positive growth Use county

- level population projections

DC Use AEO2010 growth rates ; no growt h for suspect AEO2010 projection for commercial /

institutional residual oil Use DOL employment growth for

NAICS 722 for food and kindred product SCC; otherwise use orginial estimates For dry cleaning, use employment growth for

NAICS 812 instead of populat ion

ME Use AEO2010 growth rates Use state DOL employment projections by 3

- digit NAICS Use county

- level population projections

MD Not using AEO2010 ; used employment for commercial & institurional fuel; used housing

units for residential fuel Provided updated employment projections; changed xwalk

between NAICS code and SCC for selected source categories Provided updated population projections by county

MA Use AEO2010 growth rates Use state DOL employment projections by 3

- digit NAICS Use county

- level

po pulation projections

NH Use AEO2010 growth rates Use state DOL employment projections by 3

- digit NAICS Use county

- level population projections

NJ NJ submitted state specific growth factors. For fuel combustion categories only, used AEO2011 growth rates except for residual oil (use no growth) NJ submitted state specific growth factors. NJ submitted state specific growth factors and provided population projections by county

NY Use AEO2010 growth rates Use state DOL employment projections by 3

- digit NAICS Use county

- level population projections

PA Use AEO2010 growth rates Use state DOL employment projections by 3

- digit NAICS Use county

- level population projections

RI Use AEO2010 growth rates Use state DOL employment projections by 3

- digit NAICS Use county

- level population projections

VT Use AEO2010 growth rates Use state DOL employment projections by 3

- digit NAICS Use county

- level population projections

VA Use AEO2010 growth rates ; no growth for suspect AEO2010 projection for commercial /

institutional residual oil Use state DOL employment projections by 3

- digit NAICS Use county

- level population projectionsDocumentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 33



## 4.0 AREA SOURCE CONTROL FACTORS

Control factors were developed to estimate post-2007 emission reductions resulting from

on -the-books regulations and proposed regulations/actions. Control factors were

developed for the following national and regional measures:

Federal Rules Affecting Area Sources

Federal MACT Rules

Control Technique Guidelines

OTC Model Rules

These control programs are discussed in the following subsections. The control factors

used for area sources are provided in V3_3 Area_07_17_20.xlsx

4.1 FEDERAL RULES AFFECTING AREA SOURCES

USEPA made available its 2020 emissions projections associated with its 2005-based v4

modeling platform (USEPA 2010b). USEPA accounted for control strategies for four area

sourc e categories. These categories, and their treatment in the emission projection

inventories, are described below:

Woodstoves

- As noted in Section 3.6, USEPA developed projection factors to

account for the replacement of retired woodstoves that emit at pre-new source

performance standard (NSPS) levels with lower-emitting woodstoves. We us ed

USEP A’s latest methodology which uses a combination growth and control factor

and is based on activity and not pollutant. The growth and control are accounted

for in a single factor for specific SCCs that account for the turnover from pre-NSPS

to post-NSPS woodstove.

Landfills: USEPA estimated a 75% reduction in VOC emissions from municipal

solid waste landfills. However, since the compliance date for this standard was

January 2004, no post-2007 reductions were applied to the MANE-VU+VA

projection inventory since the emission reductions from this MACT standard

should be reflected in the 2007 inventory and not as an additional post-2007 credit.

Vehicle Refueling (Stage II ): VOC emissions from the gasoline Stage II (vehicle

refueling) are affected by two emission control programs. Many areas in the region

have Stage II vapor recovery rules that were in effect prior to 2007 that require the

capture of gasoline vapors generated when a motor vehicle fuel tank is filled at a

gasoline station. The vapors are transferred from the fuel tank in the vehicle to the

storage tank at the station as the vehicle fuel tank is filled. Beginning with the

1998 model year, USEPA established a phase-in schedule requiring vehicles toDocumentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 34



### incorporate on-board equipment to capture the gasoline vapor emissions from

refueling. These controls, referred to as on-board refueling vapor recovery

(ORVR), have been required on the vast majority of gasoline powered motor

vehicles since the 2006 model year. VOC emissions for 2020 from vehicle

re fueling were estimated by NESCAUM using the MOVES model

(NESCAUM2011). VOC emissions for 2017 were estimated by interpolating

between the MOVES 2007 and 2020 results. Appendix H contains the VOC control

efficiencies by county used in the MOVES modeling for displacement losses and

for spillage losses.

Portable fuel containers (PFCs): VOC emissions from PFCs will be reduced due to

the federal regulation controlling air toxic emissions from mobile sources

promulgated in 2007. Most northeastern and mid-Atlantic states had already

a dopted similar regulations prior to the federal rule. Refer to the OTC 2006 model

rules subsection later in this document (Section 4.4.6) for a discussion of the

approach for accounting for VOC emission reductions from PFCs.

4.2 FEDERAL MACT RULES

USEPA developed guidance for estimating VOC and NOx emission changes from MACT

Rules (USEPA 2007b). We reviewed the guidance to identify possible area source

controls associated with the federal maximum achievable control technology (MACT)

standards for controlling hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). Although designed to reduce

HAPs, many of the MACT standards also provide a reduction in criteria air pollutants.

The USEPA document provides an estimate of the percent reduction in VOC and NOx

from each standard, and the compliance date for the standard. This information was used

to determine whether the MACT standard provided post-2007 emission reductions. For

example, if a compliance period of a MACT standard was 2007 or earlier, then we

a ssumed that the emission reductions from the MACT standard should be reflected in the

baseline year and not as an additional post- 2007 credit.

Onl y one area source category was listed in the USEPA guidance document - municipal

soli d waste landfills. Since the compliance date for this standard was January 2004, no

post-2007 reductions were applied since the emission reductions from the MACT standard

should be reflected in the 2007 inventory and not as an additional post-2007 credit.

USEPA has or will soon develop MACT standards for about 70 area source categories.

We reviewed USEPA’s 2020 emissions projections described in the previous section and

found that USEPA did not include emission reductions from recent area source MACT

standards. We conducted a review of USEPA’s air toxic website and found that USEPADocumentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 35



### determined that many area source MACT standards would result in nationwide reductions

in criteria air pollutants in addition to the reductions in HAP emissions. However, many

states in the MANE-VU+VA region already have emission standards for many categories

that a re as stringent as the Federal area source MACT standards. For example, many state s in the MANE-VU+VA region already have requirements as stringent as the Gasoline

Di stribution MACT and GACT (generally achievable control technology) standards, and

li ttle additional VOC reductions would be realized in the region. Given the resources

allocated to this project, it was beyond the scope to conduct an analysis of the area source

MACT requirements and state- by

- state emission regulations to determine whether there

would be emission reductions resulting from the area source MACT standards.

The only exception to the above discussion of area source MACT standards pertains to the

recently promulgated rules for reciprocating internal combustion engines (RICE). USEPA

made available an estimate of the percent reduction in emissions attributable to the RICE

MACT rule in 2012 and 2014 (USEPA 2010c). The USEPA 2014 estimates shown in

Ex hibit 4.1 were used for the MANE-VU+VA 2017 and 2020 inventories.

4.3 RECENT CONTROL TECHNIQUE GUIDELINES

Control Techniques Guidelines (CTGs) are documents issued by USEPA to provide state s with recommendation on VOC controls from a specific product or source category in an

oz one nonattainment area. USEPA issued new or updated CTGs for 13 VOC categories in

3 g roups during 2006, 2007 and 2008 (USEPA 2008b). The categories are:

2006 CTGs

 Flat Wood Paneling Coatings

 Industrial Cleaning Solvents

 Flexible Package, Lithographic and Letterpress Printing

2007 CTGs

 Large Appliance Surface Coating

 Metal Furniture Coatings

 Paper Film and Foil Coatings

2008 CTGs

 Miscellaneous Metal Parts Coatings

 Plastic Parts Coatings

 Auto and Light-duty Truck Assembly Coatings

 Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing

 Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives

States indicated that they expected very littleadditional reductions from these new or

amended CTGs. Therefore, no emission reductions were included in the inventory.Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 36



### Exhibit 4.1 USEPA Estimated Percent Reductions for RICE MACT Standard by 2014

SCC CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 VOC SCC Description

2101004000 12.42 7.57 7.57 30.85 Electric Utility;Distillate Oil;Total: Boilers and IC Engines

2101004002 16.9 11.81 11.81 33.78 Electric Utility;Distillate Oil;All IC Engine Types

2101006000 11.07 7.97 16.71 Electric Utility;Natural Gas;Total: Boilers and IC Engines

2101006002 15.47 9.87 21.24 Electric Utility;Natural Gas;All IC Engine Types

2102004000 12.42 7.57 7.57 30.85 Industrial;Distillate Oil;Total: Boilers and IC Engines

2102006000 11.07 7.97 16.71 Industrial;Natural Gas;Total: Boilers and IC Engines

2102006002 15.47 9.87 21.24 Industrial;Natural Gas;All IC Engine Types

2103004000 12.42 7.57 7.57 30.85 Commercial/Institutional;Distillate Oil;Total: Boilers and IC Engines

2103006000 11.07 7.97 16.71 Commercial/Institutional;Natural Gas;Total: Boilers and IC Engines

2199004000 12.42 7.57 7.57 30.85 Area Source Fuel Combustion;Distillate Oil;Total: Boilers and IC Engines

2199004002 16.9 11.81 11.81 33.78 Area Source Fuel Combustion;Distillate Oil;All IC Engine Types

2199006000 11.07 7.97 16.71 Area Source Fuel Combustion;Natural Gas;Total: Boilers and IC Engines

2310000000 19.86 12.53 23.87 Oil and Gas Production: All Processes;Total: All Processes

2310000220 19.86 12.53 23.87 Oil and Gas Exploration / Production; Drill Rigs

2310000440 19.86 12.53 23.87 Oil and Gas Exploration / Production; Saltwater Disposal Engines

2310001000 19.86 12.53 23.87 Oil and Gas Production: SIC 13; On

- shore;Total: All Processes

2310002000 19.86 12.53 23.87 Oil and Gas Production: SIC 13; Off

- shore;Total: All Processes

2310020000 19.86 12.53 23.87 Oil and Gas Production: SIC 13;Natural Gas;Total: All Processes

2310020600 19.86 12.53 23.87 Oil and Gas Exploration and Production;Natural Gas;Compressor Engines

2310023000 19.86 12.53 23.87 Oil and Gas Exploration and Production;Natural Gas;Cbm Gas Well

- Dewatering Pump EnginesDocumentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 37



### 4.4 OTC MODEL RULES FOR AREA SOURCES

The Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) developed model rules for member states in

2001 for several area source categories: consumer products, architectural and industrial

maintenance (AIM) coatings, portable fuel containers (PFCs), mobile equipment repair and

refinishing, solvent cleaning, and industrial boilers. In 2006 the OTC introduced model

rule s for two additional area source categories (adhesives/sealants and asphalt paving),

more stringent requirements for consumer products, portable fuel containers, and industrial

boilers. In 2009/2010, the OTC recommended additional controls for autobody refinishing

operations, consumer products, AIM coatings, and small new natural gas-fired boilers. In

addition, MANE-VU states committed to the use of low sulfur home heating, distillate and

residual fuel oil. Exhibit 4-2 briefly describes the OTC and MANE-VU control measures

affecting area sources that have been recommended for adoption by the states in the OTR.

Individual states are in various stages of adopting the OTC recommendations into their

rules and SIPs. OTC’s status reports were reviewed to identify each state’ s adoption status

(OTC 2009, OTC 2011a, OTC2011b). To obtain further clarification, states were polled to

determine whether they have adopted a rule that would achieve reductions equivalent to

the OTC model rule or recommendation and whether credit for each rule was already

accounted for in the 2007 inventory.

To evaluate the impact of the rules currently in place as well as the potential adoption of all

control measures by all states except Virginia, the state Air Directors specified that two

e mission control scenarios should be developed as follows:

Existing Controls - this scenario represents the best estimates for the future year,

a ccounting for all in-place controls that are fully adopted into federal or individual

state regulations or SIPs.

Potential New OTC Controls – this scenario accounts for all of the emission

reductions from the existing control scenario plus new state or regional measures

that a re under consideration by the OTC or individual states. This is a “what if”

scenario that assumes that all states in the MANE-VU+VA region except Virginia

will adopt all new OTC control measures under consideration by 2017. It does

not include any potential new federal control measures that are under consideration.

The following paragraphs describe the control factors applied for each control measure by

state and future year.Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 38



### Exhibit 4.2 Summary of Area Source OTC Control Measures

Source Category Pollutants Description

Consumer Products VOC OTC 2001

. Specified VOC content limits for certain categories that are more stringent than Federal limits

OTC 2006

. Included additional products and more

restrictive VOC limits for certain products

OTC 2009/2010 . Specified mo re restrictive VOC limits for 14 existing consumer product categories and three new categories

Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Coatings VOC OTC 2001 . Specified VOC content lim its for certain categories that are more stringent than Federal limits

OTC 2009/2010 . Eliminated 15 categories (replaced by new categories or deemed unnecessary), added 10 new categories, and specified stricter VOC limits for 19 categories

Portable Fuel Containers VOC OTC 2001. Provided container design specifications to reduce emissions from spillage and evaporation

OTC 2006. Revised and clarified design specifications and added kerosene containers and utility jugs.

Mobile Equipment Repair

and Refinishi ng VOC OTC 2001. Required use of high efficiency coating application equipment, spray gun cleaning equipment that minimizes solvent loss, and enclosed spray gun cleaning.

OTC 2009/2010. L imited the VOC content of coatings more stringent than the Federal li mits and the VOC content of cleaning solvents

Solvent Cleaning VOC OTC 2001. Established hardware and operating requirements for specified vapor cleaning machines, and solvent volatility limits and operating practices for

cold cleaners

Adhesives and Sealants VOC OTC 2006. Provided VOC content limits and other

restrictions on adhesives used primarily by

commercial and industrial users

. Asphalt Paving VOC OTC 2006. Suggest ed VOC content limits for emulsified and cutback asphalts use for road paving

NOx ICI Boiler Controls NOx OTC 2001. Recommend ed NOx emission rate limits for industrial boilers greater than 5 mmBtu/hour

OTC 2006. Recommended lower NOx emission rate limits for industrial, commercial, and institutional

boilers

OTC 2010. Recommended na tional NOx controls for

ICI boilers

Small Natural Gas

- Fired

Boilers NOx OTC 2009/2010. Recommended NOx emission rate

limits for new boilers less than 5 mmBtu/hr

Low Sulfur Fuel Oil SO2 MANE

- VU 2006. Recommends sulfur content limits for home heating oil, distillate oil, and residual oilDocumentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 39



### 4.4.1 OTC Model Rule for Adhesives/Sealants

VOC emissions in this category are primarily from commercial applications such as floor

covering installation (carpet and wood flooring), roof installations and repair and

upholstery shops. The category also includes industrial applications such as wood product

manuf acturers. Adhesives in small containers are not included in this category but are

regulated under the consumer products regulations.

The OTC 2006 model rule for industrial adhesives and sealants is based on the reasonably

available control technology (RACT) and best available retrofit control technology

(BARCT) determination by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) developed in

1998. The OTC model rule regulates the application of adhesives, sealants, adhesive

primers and sealant primers by providing options for appliers to either use a product with a

VOC content equal to or less than a specified limit or to use add-on controls to achieve an

equivalent reduction. The emission reduction benefit estimation methodology for area

sources is based on information developed and used by CARB as discussed in their 1998

RACT report. A 64.4 percent reduction in VOC emissions was estimated for SCC 24-40-

020- 000.

S tates were polled to determine whether they have adopted a rule that would achieve

reductions equivalent to the 2006 OTC recommendations and whether the estimated

reduction in VOC emissions should be applied in 2017 and 2020. State- by -state

recommendations are shown in Exhibit 4.3.

I t should be noted that not all states account for emissions from this category in a separate

area source inventory. Some states, based on information received from USEPA, excluded

this category because the emissions to some extent may be accounted for in the area source

commercial and consumer products category or in the nonEGU point source inventory.

Exhibit 4.3 State Recommendations for OTC Industrial Adhesives/Sealants Rule

State Is Rule

Accounted

for in 2007 Inventory * Incremental VOC Reduction to Apply :

2017 Existing

Controls 2017

Potential

Controls 2020

Existing

Controls 2020

Potential

Controls

CT No 64.4 0 64.4 0

DE No 64.4 0 64.4 0

DC No n/a n/a n/a n/a

ME No 64.4 0 64.4 0

MD No 64.4 0 64.4 0Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 40

State Is Rule

Accounted

for in 2007 Inventory * Incremental VOC Reduction to Apply :

2017 Existing

Controls 2017

Potential

Controls 2020

Existing

Controls 2020

Potential

Controls

MA No 64.4 0 64.4 0

NH No n/a n/a n/a n/a

NJ No 64.4 0 64.4 0

NY No 64.4 0 64.4 0

PA No 64.4 0 64.4 0

RI No n/a n/a n/a n/a

VT n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

VA No n/a n/a n/a n/a

* n/a means SCC 24- 40

- 020 -000 not included in 2007 inventory; see text for further discussion



### 4.4.2 OTC Model Rules for Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Coatings

On A ugust 14, 1998, USEPA issued the final version of their National Volatile Organic

Compound Emission Standards for Architectural Coatings under Section 183(e) of the

Clean Air Act. This final rule applied only to manufacturers and importers of architectural

coatings, and set VOC content limits for 61 coating categories. This rule specifically

allowed states or local governments to adopt more stringent coating limits.

The OTC adopted an AIM model rule more stringent than the national rule, and based

primarily on the 2000 CARB suggested control measure (SCM) for AIM coatings. The

2001 OTC model rule was estimated to provide a 31 percent incremental reduction in VOC

emissions compared to the Federal Part 59 rule and was applied to the following SCCs:

24 -01 -001 -000 All Architectural Coatings

24 -01 -002 -000 Architectural Coatings Solvent Based

24 -01 -003 -000 Architectural Coatings Water Based

24 -01 -008 -000 Traffic Markings

24 -01 -100 -000 Industrial Maintenance Coatings

24 -01 -200 -000 Other Special Purpose Coatings

The OTC 2009/2010 model rule is an update of the 2001 model rule. It is based the 2007

CARB suggested control measure. The OTC 2009/2010 rule includes new categories

which were defined in the 2007 CARB measure and revised limits for several coatingDocumentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 41



### categories In addition to the revised limits in the 2007 CARB SCM, the OTC model rule

a lso includes a more stringent VOC limit for the Industrial Maintenance (IM) coating

category that was included in the 2000 CARB SCM. The 2000 CARB SCM proposed a

limit of 250 g/L with an optional limit of 340 g/L for colder climates. The 2002 OTC

model r ule included the 340 g/l due to concerns about the ability to comply in the colder

northe ast. Because of the success of implementing the revised limit throughout California

and the advent of t-butyl acetate as a delisted solvent, OTC believes a 250 g/L VOC limit

is now feasible and has included this new lowered limit in the 2010 model rule.

T he CARB SCM data was used to estimate a 34.4 percent reduction for architectural

c oatings and a 9.7 percent reduction for traffic markings. For industrial maintenance

coatings, a 26.5 percent reduction was estimated based on lowering the VOC content limit

from 340 g/L to 250 g/L. Other specialty coatings are another form of industrial high

pe rformance maintenance coatings (IM), so the IM control factor was also used for the

other specialty coatings SCC.

States were polled to determine whether they had adopted a rule that would achieve

reductions equivalent to the 2006 OTC recommendations and whether the estimated

reduction in VOC emissions should be applied in 2017 and 2020. Many states adopted the

rule prior to 2007 and have already accounted for the reductions attributable to the rule in

their 2007 inventories. Other states had compliance dates after 2007 and the effect of the

rule was not accounted for in their 2007 inventory. State- by -state recommendations to

account for the AIM rule are shown in Exhibit 4.4.

E xhibit 4.4 State Recommendations for OTC AIM Rule

State Is OTC

2001 Rule

Accounted

for in 2007 Inventory * Incremental VOC Percent Reduction to Apply :

2017 Existing

Controls 2017

Potential

Controls 2020

Existing

Controls 2020

Potential

Controls

CT No 31 AIM 34.4 ARCH

9.7 TM

26.5 IM 31 AIM 34.4 ARCH

9.7 TM

26.5 IM

DE Yes 0 AIM 34.4 ARCH

9.7 TM

26.5 IM 0 AIM 34.4 ARCH

9.7 TM

26.5 IM

DC Yes 0 AIM 34.4 ARCH

9.7 TM

26.5 IM 0 AIM 34.4 ARCH

9.7 TM

26.5 IM

ME No 31 AIM 34.4 ARCH

9.7 TM 31 AIM 34.4 ARCH

9.7 TMDocumentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 42

State Is OTC

2001 Rule

Accounted

for in 2007 Inventory * Incremental VOC Percent Reduction to Apply :

2017 Existing

Controls 2017

Potential

Controls 2020

Existing

Controls 2020

Potential

Controls

26.5 IM 26.5 IM

MD Yes 0 AIM 34.4 ARCH

9.7 TM

26.5 IM 0 AIM 34.4 ARCH

9.7 TM

26.5 IM

MA No 31 AIM 34.4 ARCH

9.7 TM

26.5 IM 31 AIM 34.4 ARCH

9.7 TM

26.5 IM

NH No 0 AIM 55.5 ARCH

37.7 TM

49.4 IM 0 AIM 55.5 ARCH

37.7 TM

49.4 IM

NJ Yes 0 AIM 34.4 ARCH

9.7 TM

26.5 IM 0 AIM 34.4 ARCH

9.7 TM

26.5 IM

NY Yes 0 AIM 34.4 ARCH

9.7 TM

26.5 IM 0 AIM 34.4 ARCH

9.7 TM

26.5 IM

PA Yes 0 AIM 34.4 ARCH

9.7 TM

26.5 IM 0 AIM 34.4 ARCH

9.7 TM

26.5 IM

RI No 31 AIM 34.4 ARCH

9.7 TM

26.5 IM 31 AIM 34.4 ARCH

9.7 TM

26.5 IM

VT No 0 AIM 55.5 ARCH

37.7 TM

49.4 IM 0 AIM 55.5 ARCH

37.7 TM

49.4 IM

VA

- NVA Yes 0 AIM 0 AIM 0 AIM 0 AIM

VA

- FRD No 31 AIM 0 AIM 31 AIM 0 AIM

VA

- Other No 0 AIM 0 AIM 0 AIM 0 AIM

AIM – includes all AIM coatings listed below:

ARCH – architectural

TM - traffic markings

IM - industrial maintenance

VA -NVA includes the cities/counties in the Northern Virginia emission control area

VA -FRD includes the cities/counties in the Fredericksburg emission control area

VA -Other includes cities/counties in Virginia not listed aboveDocumentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 43



### 4.4.3 OTC Model Rule for Asphalt Paving

OTC Resolution 06-02 recommends that states establish rules to achieve a 20 percent

reduction in VOC emissions from the application and use of emulsified and cutback

asphalt. The reductions apply to the following SCCs:

24 -61 -021 -000 Cutback Asphalt

24 -61 -022 -000 Emulsified Asphalt

States were polled to determine whether they have adopted a rule that would achieve

reductions equivalent to the 2006 OTC recommendations and whether the estimated

reduction in VOC emissions should be applied in 2017 and 2020. Some states adopted the

rule prior to 2007 and have already accounted for the reductions attributable to the rule in

their 2007 inventories. Other states had compliance dates after 2007 and the effect of the

rule was not accounted for in their 2007 inventory. State recommendations to account for

the asphalt paving recommendation are shown in Exhibit 4.5.

E xhibit 4.5 State Recommendations for OTC Cutback and Emulsified

Asphalt Paving Recommendation

State Is Rule

Accounted

for in 2007 Inventory * Incremental VOC Percent Reduction to Apply :

2017 Existing

Controls 2017

Potential

Controls 2020

Existing

Controls 2020

Potential

Controls

CT No 20 0 20 0

DE Yes 0 0 0 0

DC No 0 20 0 20

ME No emissions

in inventory 0 0 0 0

MD No 0 20 0 20

MA No 20 0 20 0

NH No 0 20 0 20

NJ No 56% Cutback
25% Emulsified 0 56% Cutback
25% Emulsified 0

NY No 20 0 20 0

PA No 0 20 0 20

RI No 20 0 20 0

VT No emissions

in inventory 0 0 0 0

VA

- NVA No 0 0 0 0

VA

- Other No 0 0 0 0Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 44



### 4.4.4 OTC Model Rules for Consumer Products

S everal states began regulating the VOC content of consumer products in the early 1990s.

The USEPA promulgated a national rule in 1998 (40CFR, Part 59, Subpart C). Both the

California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the OTC states have periodically updated

their state rules to obtain VOC reductions beyond those required by the federal rule.

Following the lead of CARB, the OTC 2001 model rule for consumer products adopted

more stringent VOC content limits for certain categories. The OTC 2006 model rule

mo dified the OTC 2001 model rule based on amendments adopted by CARB in July 2005

to include additional products and more stringent VOC limits for certain products. CARB

a mended their rules again in 2006 and the OTC 2010 model rule is based on those

amendments.

The OTC 2010 model amendments have more restrictive VOC limits for 14 existing

c onsumer product categories (15 including subcategories) and three new categories (five

including subcategories) will be regulated for the first time with VOC limits. The OTC

2010 model r

ule amendments also clarify or modify previously defined or regulated

categories. The model rules also contained optional prohibitions on the use of chlorinated

tox ic compounds in certain consumer product categories. CARB adopted these provisions

simultaneous with their VOC limits to address the use of non-VOC chlorinated solvent use

increasing as they are used as replacement compounds.

The VOC percentage reduction from the various rules and amendments are summarized in

Exhibit 4.6. The emissions reductions from the latest OTC consumer products rule update

used information developed by CARB for its 2006 amendments. The OTC estimated a 4.8

percent reduction of the total consumer products inventory for states that included CARB’s

ban of chlorinated toxic compounds in brake cleaners, and an estimated 3.3 percent

reduction of the total consumer products inventory for states that did not include this ban.

States reported VOC emissions from consumer products inventory in two different

manners – using an aggregated SCC or subcategory SCCs, as follows:

Aggregated SCC: 24-60-000 -000 Consumer Products, All Products

24 -65-000 -000 Consumer Products, All Products

Disaggregated SCCs: 24-60-100 -000 Consumer Products, Personal Care Products

24 -60-200 -00 0 Consumer Products, Household Products

24 -60-400 -000 Consumer Products, Auto Aftermarket Products

24 -60-500 -000 Consumer Products, Coatings

24 -60-600 -000 Consumer Products, Adhesives and Sealants

24 -60-800 -000 Consumer Products, FIFRA Products

24 -60-900 -0 00 Consumer Products, Misc. ProductsDocumentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 45



### Exhibit 4.6 VOC Emission Factors for Consumer Products

Uncontrolled Emission Factor: = 7.84 lbs/capita

Emission Factor after 1998 Federal Rule: = 7.06 lbs/capita

Percent Reduction from 1998 Federal Rule

compared to uncontrolled =

= 100%* (7.84

- 7.06) / 7.84

9.95%

Emission Factor after 2001 OTC Rule = 6.06 lbs/capita

Percent Reduction from 2001 OTC Rule compared

to Federal Rule =

= 100%* (7.06

- 6.06) / 7.06

14.2%

Emission Factor after 2006 OTC Rule = 5.94 lbs/capita

Percent Reduction from 2006 OTC Rule compared

to OTC 2001 Rule =

= 100%* (6.06

- 5.94) / 6.06

2.0%

Emission Factor after 2010 OTC Rule (without brake cleaner chlorinated toxic ban) = 5.745 lbs/capita

Percent Reduction from 2010 OTC Rule compared

to OTC 2006 Rule =

= 100%* (5.94

– 5.745) / 5.94

3.3%

Emission Factor after 2010 OTC Rule (with brake cleaner chlorinated toxic ban) = 5.655 lbs/capita

Percent Reduction from 2010 OTC Rule compared

to OTC 2006 Rule =

= 100%* (5.94

– 5.655) / 5.94

4.8%



### The reductions shown above were applied to the above SCCs based on each state’s

a doption of the various rules and amendments as well as the decision with respect to the

ban on chlorinated toxic compounds used in brake cleaners. States were polled to

determine whether they have adopted a rule that would achieve reductions equivalent to

the OTC 2006 recommendations and whether the estimated reduction in VOC emissions

should be applied in 2017 and 2020. For the 2001 OTC rule, some states adopted the rule

prior to 2007 and have already accounted for the reductions attributable to the OTC 2001

rule in their 2007 inventories. Other states had compliance dates after 2007 and the effect

of the OTC 2001 rule was not accounted for in their 2007 inventory. None of the state s

ha ve accounted for the OTC 2006 rule in their 2007 inventories. State- by -state
recommendations to account for both the OTC 2001 and 2006 consumer products rules are

shown in Exhibit 4.7.Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 46



### Exhibit 4.7 State Recommendations for OT C 2001 an d 2006

Consumer Products Rules

State Is 2001 Rule

Accounted

for in 2007 Inventory Is 2006 Rule

Accounted

for in 2007 Inventory VOC Percent Reduction to use in:

2017 Existing

Controls 2017

Potential

Controls 2020

Existing

Controls 2020

Potential

Controls

CT No No 15.9 4.8 15.9 4.8

DE Yes No 2.0 4.8 2.0 4.8

DC No No 2.0 4.8 2.0 4.8

ME No No 15.9 4.8 15.9 4.8

MD Yes No 2.0 4.8 2.0 4.8

MA No No 15.9 4.8 15.9 4.8

NH No No 14.2 5.2 14.2 5.2

NJ Yes No 2.0 4.8 2.0 4.8

NY Yes No 2.0 4.8 2.0 4.8

PA Yes No 2.0 4.8 2.0 4.8

RI No No 15.9 4.8 15.9 4.8

VT No No 0 18.6 0 18.6

VA

- NVA Yes No 2.0 0 2.0 0

VA

- FRD No No 15.9 0 15.9 0

VA

- RCH No No 15.9 0 15.9 0

VA

- Other No No 0 0 0 0

NH indicated that their amendments to include the OTC 2006 recommendations

won’t be completed in time to include in the OTB/OTW inventory



### 4.4.5 OTC Model Rules for Mobile Equipment Repair and Refinishing

The USEPA promulgated a national rule in 1998 (40CFR, Part 59, Subpart B) to limit the

VOC content of coatings usedin the refinishing of automobiles. The federal standards

w ere estimated to reduce nationwide emissions of VOC by about 37 percent compared to

unc ontrolled 1998 emissions. The 2002 OTC model rule established requirements for

using higher efficiency coating application equipment, such as high volume-low pressure

pa int guns, using spray gun cleaning equipment that minimizes solvent loss, and enclosed

spray gun cleaning. The Federal VOC limits on the paints was maintained in the model

rule. An incremental control effectiveness of 38 percent was estimated for the OTC 2001

model rule (post-1998 federal standard emissions).Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 47



### The 2009 OTC model rule for Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Non-assembly Line

Coating Operations (2009 OTC MVME model rule) seeks to limit the VOC content in

coatings and cleaning solvents used in motor vehicle and mobile equipment non -assembly

line coating operations. The 2009 OTC MVME model rule is an update of the 2002 OTC

MERR model rule. The OTC developed the 2009 OTC MVME Model Rule using the

CARB 2005 Suggested Control Measure (SCM) for Automotive Coatings as a guideline.

The CARB 2005 SCM estimated a 65 percent reduction in VOC emissions from 2002

CARB baseline emissions, which are post-1998 federal standard emissions. Similar

reductions of 65 percent are expected from implementation of the 2009 OTC MVME

Model Rule.

A few OTC states adopted the 2002 OTC model rule and accounted for the 38 percent

reduction in the 2007 MANEVU+VA inventory. Other states adopted the 2002 OTC

model rules after 2007, so the reduction was not included in 2007 but was included in the

2017/2020 “on-the-books” inventory. Still other states have not yet adopted the 2002 OTC

model rule. Exhibit 4.8 summarizes the percent reductions that will be applied based on

the a doption status of each state:

Exhibit 4.8 VOC Emission Reductions for Auto Refinishing

State Rule Adoption Status VOC Reduction:

2017/2020

Existing 2017/2020

Potential

Accounted for 2002 OTC rule in 2007 inventory

Will adopt 2009 OTC rule by 2017 0 % 65 %

Did not account for 2002 OTC rule in 2007 inventory

Did account for 2002 OTC rule in 2017/2020 OTB inventory
Will adopt 2009 OTC rule by 2017 38 % 65 %

Did not account for 2002 OTC rule in 2007 inventory

Did not account for it in 2017/2020 OTB inventory

Will adopt 2009 OTC rule by 2017 0 % 78.3 %



### The reductions have traditionally been applied to the following area source SCCs:

24 -01 -005 -000 Auto Refinishing / All Solvent Types

24 -01 -005 -500 Auto Refinishing / Surface Preparation Solvents

24 -01 -005 -600 Auto Refinishing / Primers

24 -01 -005 -700 Auto Refinishing / Top Coats

24 -01 -005 -800 Auto Refinishing / Clean-up SolventsDocumentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 48



### States were polled to determine whether they have adopted a rule that would achieve

reductions equivalent to the 2006 OTC recommendations and whether the estimated

reduction in VOC emissions should be applied in 2017 and 2020. Many states adopted the

rule prior to 2007 and have already accounted for the reductions attributable to the rule in

their 2007 inventories. Other states had compliance dates after 2007 and the effect of the

rule was not accounted for in their 2007 inventory. State- by -state recomme ndations to

account for the auto refinishing rule are shown in Exhibit 4.9.

E xhibit 4.9 State Recommendations for OTC Auto Refinishing Rule

State Is OTC

2001 Rule

Accounted

for in 2007 Inventory * Incremental VOC Reduction to Apply :

2017 Existing
Controls 2017

Potential
Controls 2020

Existing
Controls 2020

Potential
Controls

CT Yes 0 65 0 65

DE Yes 0 65 0 65

DC No 38 65 38 65

ME No 38 65 38 65

MD Yes Yes 0 65 0

MA No 0 78.3 0 78.3

NH No 0 78.3 0 78.3

NJ Yes 0 65 0 65

NY Yes 0 65 0 65

PA Yes 0 65 0 65

RI Yes 0 65 0 65

VT No emissions

in inventory 0 0 0 0

VA

- NVA Yes 0 0 0 0

VA

- FRD No 38 0 38 0

VA

- Other No 0 0 0 0Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 49



### 4.4.6 OTC Model Rules for Portable Fuel Containers

I n 2001, the OTC developed a model rule to control VOC emissions from portable fuel

containers. The 2001 model rule was based on the technical work conducted by California

Air Resources Board (CARB) for developing California’s 2000 fuel container rule.

Several, but not all, of the MANEVU+VA states adopted regulations which became

effective prior to 2007.

After OTC developed its model rule in 2001, CARB realized that its original study and

rule had some defects and decided to conduct further studies and research on fuel

containers. Based on its new studies, CARB revised its rule twice. In 2006, the OTC

developed a second model rule for PFCs to reflect the CARB revisions. Thereafter,

USEPA developed a federal rule in 2007 which included, among other things,

requirements for portable fuel containers equivalent to OTC’s 2006 requirements.

The federal requirements became effective on January 1, 2009. States have analyzed the

fe deral rule and determined that the federal rule has requirements that are essentially

equivalent to the OTC 2006 model rule. These new federal requirements will reduce

hydrocarbon emissions from uncontrolled fuel containers by approximately 75 percent.

Assumi ng a 10-year turnover to compliant cans, only 10 percent of the existing inventory

of PFCs will comply with the new requirements in 2010. Therefore, only 10 percent of the

full emission benefit estimated by USEPA will occur by 2010 – the incremental reduction

will be about 7.5 percent in 2010. In 2013, there will be a 40 percent turnover to compliant

cans, resulting in an incremental reduction of about 60 percent. By 2017, the will be 80

percent penetration to compliant PFCs, resulting in an incremental reduction of 58 percent

in 2018. By 2020, there will be 100 percent penetration to compliant PFCs, resulting in an

incremental reduction of 75 percent in 2020.

The reductions apply to the following SCCs:

25 -01 -011 -xxx Residential PFCs

24 -01 -012 -xxx Commercial PFCs

States were polled to determine the status of PFC regulations in each state. Some state s have adopted a rule that would achieve reductions equivalent to the 2001 or 2006 OTC

rules. Other states will rely exclusively on the Federal rule. State- by -state

recommendations to account for the OTC and federal PFC rules are shown in Exhibit 4.10.Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 50



### Exhibit 4.10 State Recommendations for OTC and Federal

Portable Fuel Container Rules

State Compliance

Date for

OTC 2001

Rule Compliance

Date for

OTC 2006

Rule Rely on

Federal

Rule? VOC Percent Reduction to use in:

2017 Existing

Controls 2017

Potential

Controls 2020

Existing

Controls 2020

Potential

Controls

CT May 2004 Jun 2008 No 81 0 81 0

DE Jan 2003 Apr 2010 Yes 75 0 78 0

DC Dec 2004 Feb 2012 Yes 79 0 81 0

ME Jan 2004 n/a Yes 77 0 80 0

MD May 2003 Jan 2009 No 76 0 79 0

MA n/a n/a Yes 77 0 85 0

NH n/a Jan 2008 No 85 0 85 0

NJ Jan 2005 Jan 2009 No 8 3 0 83 0

NY Jan 2005 Jan 2010 Yes 79 0 82 0

PA Jan 2005 n/a Yes 75 0 78 0

RI n/a n/a Yes 77 0 85 0

VT n/a n/a Yes 77 0 85 0

VA

- NVA Jan 2005 Aug 2010 Yes 79 0 82 0

VA

- FRD Jan 2008 Aug 2010 Yes 83 0 85 0

VA

- RCH n/a n/a Yes 77 0 85 0

VA

- Oth n/a n/a Yes 77 0 85 0



### 4.4.7 OTC Model Rule for Solvent Cleaning

The OTC model rule establishes hardware and operating requirements for specified vapor

cleaning machines, and solvent volatility limits and operating practices for cold cleaners.

An incremental control effectiveness of 66 percent was estimated for the OTC model rule

relative to the base case. The reductions apply SCCs in the 24-15 -xxx-xxx series

(Degreasing All Industries and Processes). States were polled to determine whether they

have adopted a rule that would achieve reductions equivalent to the 2001 OTC

recommendations and whether the estimated reduction in VOC emissions should be

applied in 2017 and 2020. Many states adopted the rule prior to 2007 and have already

a ccounted for the reductions attributable to the rule in their 2007 inventories. Other state s had compliance dates after 2007 and the effect of the rule was not accounted for in their

2007 inventory. State- by -state recommendations to account for the solvent cleaning rule

are shown in Exhibit 4.11.Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 51



### Exhibit 4.11 State Recommendations for 2001 OTC Solvent Cleaning Rule

State Is Rule

Accounted

for in 2007 Inventory * Incremental VOC Reduction to Apply :

2017 Existing

Controls 2017

Potential

Controls 2020

Existing

Controls 2020

Potential

Controls

CT No 66 0 66 0

DE Yes 0 0 0 0

DC No 66 0 66 0

ME No 66 0 66 0

MD Partially 30 0 30 0

MA No 66 0 66 0

NH No 0 66 0 66

NJ Yes 0 0 0 0

NY Yes 0 0 0 0

PA Yes 0 0 0 0

RI No 66 0 66 0

VT n/a 0 66 0 66

VA

- NVA Yes 0 0 0 0

VA

- Other No 0 0 0 0



### 4.4.8 OTC Model Rules for ICI Boilers

I n Resolution 06-02, the OTC Commissioners recommended that OTC member states

pursue as necessary and appropriate state-specific rulemakings or other implementation

methods to establish emission reduction percentages, emission rates or technologies for ICI

boilers based on guidelines that varied by boiler size and fuel type.

States were polled to determine whether they have adopted a rule that would achieve

reductions equivalent to the 2006 OTC recommendations and whether the estimated

reduction in NOx emissions should be applied in 2017 and 2020. All but one state

indicated that they have not adopted rules for area sources equivalent to the 2006 OTC

recommendations. New Jersey specified that they have post-2007 ICI boiler rules that

reduce NOx emissions and provided the estimates of the reductions in NOx emissions by

SCC resulting from boiler tuneup requirements, as shown in Exhibit 4.12:Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 52



### Exhibit 4.12 Area Source Emission Reductions from

New Jersey ICI Boiler NOx Rules

SCC Source Category Percent

Reduction

from Tuneups

2007

- 201 7 Rule

Effectiveness Rule

Penetration Overall

Percent

Reduction

2007

- 201 7

2102004000 Industrial Distillate 25% 80% 30% 6%

2102005000 Industrial Residual 25% 80% 30% 6%

2102006000 Industrial Natural Gas 25% 80% 30% 6%

2102007000 Industrial LPG 25% 80% 30% 6%

2103004000 Commercial Distillate 25% 80% 30% 6%

2103005000 Commercial Residual 25% 80% 30% 6%

2103006000 Commercial Natural Gas 25% 80% 30% 6%

2103007000 Commercial LPG 25% 80% 30% 6%



### Other states indicated that they will likely depend on USEPA national rule for possible

inclusion in the BOTW inventory. OTC Resolution 10-01 (June, 2010) called on USEPA

for national regulations for ICI boilers. The guidelines from OTC Resolution 06-02 shown

in Exhibit 4.13 were used to estimate potential area source NOx reductions for the “what

if” control scenario for all states in the MANE-VU+VA inventory except New Jersey and

Virginia.

Exhibit 4.1 3 OTC Resolution 06-02 Guidelines for ICI Boiler NOx Rules

Boiler Size (mmBtu/hr) NOx Percent Reduction from Base Emissions by Fuel Type

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 76 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 potential controls inventory.Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 53



### 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

o ilfired industrial boilers, SCC 21-02-006 -xxx describes natural gas-fired industrial

boilers). The area source inventory does not contain any information on the sizes of the

unit s included in the inventories. To apportion area source emissions to the boiler size

ra nges listed above, we used data from an Oak Ridge National Laboratory study (EEA

2005 ). We used the national estimates of boiler capacity by size range to calculate the

percentage of total boiler capacity in each size range. Since the Oak Ridge report

dist inguished between industrial boilers and commercial/institutional boilers, we

de veloped separate profiles for industrial boilers and for commercial/institutional boilers.

W e used these boiler size profiles to calculate weighted average percent reductions

industrial boilers by fuel type and commercial/institutional boilers by fuel type , as follows:

34.5 percent reduction in NOx emissions from industrial boilers, all fuel types

28.1 percent reduction in NOx emissions from commercial/institutional boilers, all

fuel types

Appendix I contains the data used to develop the NOx control factors for area source ICI

boil ers.

4.4.9 OTC Model Rule for New, Small, Natural Gas-fired Boilers

The provisions of this model rule limit NOx emissions from new natural gas-fired ICI and

residential boilers, steam generators, process heaters, and water heaters greater than 75,000

BTUs and less than 5.0 million BTUs. This model rule may be implemented as a

manufacturing restriction, a sales restriction, a use restriction, or a combination of these

restrictions. Each implementing state agency will choose the entities to regulate after

consideration of the agency’s compliance assurance and enforcement practices and

policies.

The emission limits of this model rule were developed from requirements now in effect in

certain jurisdictions, including: (1) San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Rule

4308 for boilers, steam generators, process heaters and water heaters with maximum rated

heat input capacity equal to or greater than 75,000 Btu/hr and up to but less than 2.0

million Btu/hr; (2) San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Rule 4307 for gasfired and liquid fuel-fired boilers, steam generators, and process heaters with maximum

rated capacity of 2.0 million Btu/hr up to and including 5.0 million Btu/hr; and (3) similar

rules adopted by other California Air Pollution Control Districts and the State of Texas.Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 54



### Since the OTC model rule is based on SJVAPCD Rules 4307 and 4308, one method for

estimating potential NOx reductions for the OTC states from both Rule 4307 and Rule

4308 is to compare the natural gas usage in the San Joaquin Valley to the natural gas usage

in t he OTC states and calculate the proportional NOx reductions.

The SJV 4308 Rule, Final Staff Report estimated NOx reductions of 2.0 annual average

tons per day (730 tons per year), and the 2008 SJV 4307 Rule Proposal estimated NOx

reductions of 1.15 annual average tons per day (420 tons per year). The total reduction

from both rules was estimated to be 3.15 tons per day (1,150 tons per year) after a 15-year

period for complete turnover to compliant equipment. These SJV data were used to

c alculate a ton per year emission reduction, assuming implementation begins in 2014, as

summarized in Exhibit 4.14 and further documented in Appendix J.

Ex h ibit 4.14 NOx Control Factors for the OTC Rule for

New, Small, Natural Gas-fired Units

State Percent Reduction in NOx

Emissions from Residential and

Commercial Natural Gas Us e

2017 2020

CT 5.0% 8.4%

DE 6.1% 10.1%

DC 2.3% 3.9%

ME 0.0% 0.0%

MD 3.2% 5.4%

MA 5.3% 8.8%

NH 7.1% 11.8%

NJ 3.5% 5.9%

NY 5.1% 8.5%

PA 4.7% 7.8%

RI 7.0% 11.7%

VT 3.1% 5.1%

VA 0 % 0%Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 55



### 4.4.10 MANE-VU Low Sulfur Fuel Oil Strategy

MANE-VU developed a low sulfur fuel oil strategy to help states develop Regional Haze

SIPs (MANE_VU 2007). The sulfur in fuel oil recommendations are shown in Exhibit

4. 15 and vary by state, type of fuel oil, and year of implementation.

Exhibit 4.1 5 MANE-VU Low Sulfur Fuel Oil Strategy

Inner Zone States (DE, NJ, NY, PA)

Fuel Oil Type Sulfur Content

2012 Sulfur Content

2016

Distillate 500 ppm 15 ppm

#4 Residual 0.25 % 0.25 %

#6 Residual 0.3 to 0.5 % 0.3 to 0.5 %

Outer Zone States (CT, DC, MA, MD

, ME, NH, RI, VT )

Fuel Oil Type Sulfur Content

2014 Sulfur Content

2018

Distillate 500 ppm 15 ppm

#4 Residual n/a 0.25 to 0.5 %

#6 Residual n/a 0.5 %



### Each state was polled and asked to provide guidance as to when, if at all, the MANE-VU

strategy would be incorporated into their state rules. States were also asked to provide the

2007 sulfur contents for each fuel type by county in order to calculate the percent reduction

in emis sions for the future years. Three states (MD, NJ, and NY) have adopted or are

c ommitted to adopting the strategy into their rules. The reductions for these three states

were accounted for in the “existing controls” inventory. All other jurisdictions indicated

that not enough regulatory development progress has been made to include the reductions

in future years with absolute certainty. The potential reductions for these states were

accounted for in the “potential new controls” inventory. One state (VA) has no plans to

adopt the low sulfur fuel oil strategy. The percent reductions by fuel type and county are

contained in Appendix K.Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 56



## 5.0 NONEGU POINT SOURCE CONTROL FACTORS

Control factors were developed to estimate post-2007 emission reductions resulting from

on -the-books regulations and proposed regulations/actions. Control factors were

considered for the following national and regional measures:

Federal Rules Affecting NonEGU Point Sources

Control Technique Guidelines

OTC Model Rules

These control programs are discussed in the following subsections. The control factors

used for nonEGU point sources are provided in V3_3 NonEGU_07_17_20.xlsx.

5.1 FEDERAL ACTIONS AFFECTING NONEGU POINT SOURCES

USEPA made available its 2020 emissions projections associated with its 2005-based v4

modeling platform (USEPA 2010a). These categories, and how they were accounted for in

the MA NE-VU+VA emission projection inventories, are described below:

MACT Standards - USEPA developed guidance for estimating VOC and NO

x 

### emission changes from MACT Rules (USEPA 2007b). We reviewed the guidance

to identify nonEGU source controls associated with MACT standards for

controlling HAPs. The information concerning MACT compliance periods was

used to determine whether the MACT standard resulted in post-2007 emission

reductions. Because major source categories had a compliance period of 2007 or

earlier, we assumed that the emission reductions from the MACT standard should

be reflected in the baseline year and not as an additional post- 2007 credit. The

onl y exception to the above discussion of area source MACT standards pertains to

the recently promulgated rules for reciprocating internal combustion engines.

USEP A made available an estimate of the percent reduction in emissions

attributable to the RICE MACT rule in 2012 and 2014 (USEPA 2010b ). These

reductions by SCC are shown in Exhibit 5.1. The USEPA 2014 estimates were

used for the MANE-VU+VA 2017, 2020 and 2025 inventories.

Indu strial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters MACT

Standard

- USEPA’ s 2020 control factor file identified a number of solid fuelburning SCCs for which they estimated an 87% reduction in both PM10 and

PM2.5. These were used for 2025 also for the affected SCCs.Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 57



### Exhibit 5.1 USEPA Estimated Percent Reductions for RICE MACT Standard

SCC CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 VOC SCC Description

20100102 20.36 15.14 15.14 36.72 Electric Generation;Distillate Oil (Diesel);Reciprocating

20100105 20.36 15.14 15.14 36.72 Electric Generation;Distillate Oil (Diesel);Reciprocating: Crankcase Blowby

20100107 20.36 15.14 15.14 36.72 Electric Generation;Distillate Oil (Diesel);Reciprocating: Exhaust

20100202 19.86 12.53 23.87 Electric Generation;Natural Gas;Reciprocating

20100207 19.86 12.53 23.87 Electric Generation;Natural Gas;Reciprocating: Exhaust

20200102 20.36 15.14 15.14 36.72 Industrial;Distillate Oil (Diesel);Reciprocating

20200104 20.36 15.14 15.14 36.72 Industrial;Distillate Oil (Diesel);Reciprocating: Cogeneration

20200107 20.36 15.14 15.14 36.72 Industrial;Distillate Oil (Diesel);Reciprocating: Exhaust

20200202 19.86 12.53 23.87 Industrial;Natural Gas;Reciprocating

20200204 19.86 12.53 23.87 Industrial;Natural Gas;Reciprocating: Cogeneration

20200207 19.86 12.53 23.87 Industrial;Natural Gas;Reciprocating: Exhaust

20200253 19.18 37.96 29.74 Industrial;Natural Gas;4

- cycle Rich Burn

20200254 37.85 28.59 Industrial;Natural Gas;4

- cycle Lean Burn

20200256 37.85 28.59 Industrial;Natural Gas;4

- cycle Clean Burn

20200301 19.18 37.96 29.74 Industrial;Gasoline;Reciprocating

20200307 19.18 37.96 29.74 Industrial;Gasoline;Reciprocating: Exhaust

20201001 19.86 12.53 23.87 Industrial;Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG);Propane

20201002 19.86 12.53 23.87 Industrial;Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG);Butane

20201702 19.18 37.96 29.74 Industrial;Gasoline;Reciprocating Engine

20201707 19.18 37.96 29.74 Industrial;Gasoline;Reciprocating: Exhaust

20300101 20.36 15.14 15.14 36.72 Commercial/Institutional;Distillate Oil (Diesel);Reciprocating

20300105 20.36 15.14 15.14 36.72 Commercial/Institutional;Distillate Oil (Diesel);Reciprocating: Crankcase Blowby

20300106 20.36 15.14 15.14 36.72 Commercial/Institutional;Distillate Oil (Diesel);Reciprocating: Evaporative Losses

20300107 20.36 15.14 15.14 36.72 Commercial/Institutional;Distillate Oil (Diesel);Reciprocating: Exhaust

20300201 19.86 12.53 23.87 Commercial/Institutional;Natural Gas;ReciprocatingDocumentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 58

SCC CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 VOC SCC Description

20300204 19.86 12.53 23.87 Commercial/Institutional;Natural Gas;Cogeneration

20300207 19.86 12.53 23.87 Commercial/Institutional;Natural Gas;Reciprocating: Exhaust

20300301 19.18 37.96 29.74 Commercial/Institutional;Gasoline;Reciprocating

20300307 19.18 37.96 29.74 Commercial/Institutional;Gasoline;Reciprocating: Exhaust

20301001 19.86 12.53 23.87 Commercial/Institutional;Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG);Propane

20301002 19.86 12.53 23.87 Commercial/Institutional;Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG);Butane

20400401 19.18 37.96 29.74 Engine Testing;Reciprocating Engine;Gasoline

20400402 20.36 15.14 15.14 36.72 Engine Testing;Reciprocating Engine;Diesel/Kerosene

20400403 20.36 15.14 15.14 36.72 Engine Testing;Reciprocating Engine;Distillate Oil: CI: CI: VOC 2005cr = 0

31000203 19.86 12.53 23.87 Oil and Gas Production;Natural Gas Production;Compressors

50100421 19.86 12.53 23.87 Solid Waste Disposal;Landfill Dump;Waste Gas Recovery: Internal Combustion

DeviceDocumentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 59



### Petroleum refinery enforcement settlements - For the facilities identified by

USEPA located in New Jersey and Pennsylvania we applied post-2007 estimated

reductions for NO

x 

### , PM10, PM2.5, and SO 2 

### to affected units.

5.2 RECENT CONTROL TECHNIQUE GUIDELINES

Control Techniques Guidelines (CTGs) are documents issued by USEPA to provide state s

with the USEPA’s recommendation on how to control the emissions of VOC from a

spec ific type of product or source category in an ozone nonattainment area. USEPA issued

ne w or updated CTGs for 13 VOC categories in 3 groups during 2006, 2007 and 2008

(U SEPA 2008b). The categories are:

2006 CTGs

 Flat Wood Paneling Coatings

 Industrial Cleaning Solvents

 Flexible Package Printing

 Lithographic Printing

 Letterpress Printing

2007 CTGs

 Large Appliance Surface Coating

 Metal Furniture Coatings

 Paper Film and Foil Coatings

2008 CTGs

 Miscellaneous Metal Parts Coatings

 Plastic Parts Coatings

 Auto and Light-duty Truck Assembly Coatings

 Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing

 Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives

States indicated that they expected very little additional reductions from these new or

a mended CTGs. Therefore, no emission reductions were included in the inventory.

5.3 OTC MODEL RULES FOR NONEGUs

The OTC developed NOx control measures for industrial, commercial, and institutional

(ICI) boilers and distributed generation units in 2001 (OTC 2001). We reviewed the

OTC’s status reports to identify state s status in adopting the OTC 2001 model rules (OTC

2009) . Most states have adopted the OTC model rules with compliance dates in 2007 or

earlier. As a result, we assumed that the emission reductions from the 2001 OTC model

rules for nonEGUs are already reflected in the 2007 inventory and no post- 2007

reductions were applied.Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 60



### In 2006, the OTC introduced model rules (OTC 2007) for one nonEGU VOC source

c ategory (adhesives/sealants) and new/more stringent requirements for several NOx source

categories (asphalt production plants, cement kilns, glass/fiberglass furnaces, and

industrial, commercial, and institutional {ICI} boilers).

These model rules and recommendations provided a consistent framework for air pollution

regulation throughout the region. In addition, MANE-VU provided recommendations to

require low sulfur home heating, distillate and residul fuel oil. Exhibit 5-2 briefly

describes the OTC and MANE-VU control measures affecting point sources that have been

recommended for adoption by the states in the OTR. Recommendations for EGUs are not

addressed in this section since the projection of EGU emissions is being accomplished by

ERTAC under a separate agreement.

Individual states are in various stages of adopting the OTC recommendations into the rules

and SIPs. We reviewed the OTC’s status reports to identify each state’ s adoption status

(OTC 2009, OTC 2011a, OTC2011b). To obtain further clarification, states were polled to

determine whether they have adopted a rule that would achieve reductions equivalent to

the OTC model rule or recommendation and whether credit for each rule was already

accounted for in the 2007 inventory.

Not all states have adopted all rules. In order to evaluate the impact of both the rules

currently in place as well as the potential adoption of all control measures by all states, the

state Air Directors specified that two emission control scenarios should be developed.

Existing Controls - this scenario represents the best estimates for the future year,

a ccounting for all in-place controls that are fully adopted into federal or individual

state regulations or SIPs.

Potential New OTC Controls – this scenario accounts for all of the emission

reductions from the existing control scenario plus new state or regional measures

that a re under consideration by the OTC or individual states. This is a “what if”

scenario that assumes that all states in the MANE-VU+VA region except Virginia

will adopt all new OTC control measures under consideration by 2017. It does not

include any potential new federal control measures that are under consideration.

The following paragraphs describe the control factors applied for each control measure by

state and future year.Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 61



### Exhibit 5 .2 Summary of Point Source OTC Control Measures

Source Category Pollutants Description

EGUs NOx OTC 2001. Provide d e mission s tandards for

s tationary c ombustion t urbines

, e mergency

g enerators , and l oad s having u nits

. OTC 2009/2010. Recommended NOx emission rate

limits for oil and gas boilers serving EGUs and emission rate limits for high energy demand day

combustion turbines.

Asphalt Production Plants NOx OTC 2006. Provided emission rate limits and
recommended a 35% reduction in NOx emissions

.

Cement Kilns NOx OTC 2006. Provided emission rate limits and
recommended a 60% reduction in NOx emissions

.

Glass Furnaces NOx OTC 2006. Provided emission rate limits and
recommended a 85% reduction in NOx emissions

.

ICI Boiler Controls NOx OTC 2001. Recommended NOx emission rate limits for industrial boilers greater than 5 mmBtu/hour

OTC 2006. Recommended lower NOx emissio n rate limits for industrial, commercial, and institutional

boilers

OTC 2010. Recommended national NOx controls for

ICI boilers

Low Sulfur Fuel Oil SO2 MANE

- VU 2006. Recommends sulfur content limits for home heating oil, distillate oil, and residual oil

Adhesives and Sealants VOC OTC 2006. Provided VOC content limits and other

restrictions on adhesives used in industrial and commercial settings.

Large Petroleum Storage

Tanks VOC OTC 2009/2010. A ddresses high vapor pressure VOCs, such as gasoline and crude oil, stored in large aboveground stationary storage tanks, which are typically located at refineries, terminals and pipeline

breakout stations.Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 62



### 5.3.1 OTC 2006 Model Rule for Adhesives and Sealants

The 2006 OTC model rule is intended to achieve VOC emission reductions from adhesive

application sources. The OTC 2006 model rule for adhesives and sealants is based on the

reasonably available control technology (RACT) and best available retrofit contro l

technology (BARCT) determination by the California Air Resources Board (CARB)

de veloped in 1998. The emission reduction benefit estimation methodology is based on

information developed and used by CARB for their RACT/BARCT determination in 1998.

The vast majority of the emissions regulated by this rule are in the area source inventory.

For point sources, we first identified those sources applying adhesives and sealants (using

the SCC of 4-02-007 -xx, adhesives application). Next, we reviewed the 2007 inventory to

determine whether these 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 and destruction efficiencies in the 70 to 99 percent range, with a few

sources reporting capture and destruction efficiencies of 99+ percent. Sources with

existing control systems that exceeded an 85 percent overall capture and destruction

efficiency would comply with the OTC 2006 model rule provision for add-on air pollution

c ontrol equipment; therefore, no additional reductions were calculated for these sources.

For point sources without add-on control equipment, we used a 64.4 percent reduction

based on the CARB determination.

States were polled to determine whether they have adopted a rule that would achieve

reductions equivalent to the 2006 OTC model rule and whether the estimated reduction in

VOC emissions should be applied in 2017 and 2020. New Hampshire indicated that they

have no existing rule in place and no reductions should be applied. Virginia indicated that

re ductions from existing rules only appl y in three regions:

Northern Virginia (Arlington, Alexandria, Manassas, Manassas Park, Prince

William, Loudon, Fairfax, Fairfax City, Falls Church, and Stafford),

Fredericksburg (Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania), and

Richmond (Charles City, Colonial Heights, Chesterfield, Hopewell, Hanover,

Petersburg, Henrico, City of Richmond, and Prince George).

All other states have existing rules in place that will require VOC reductions before 2017.

Ex hibit 5.3 shows the reduction that were applied by state under both the existing controls

inventor y and the “what if” inventory.Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 63



### Exhibit 5. 3 State Recommendations for OTC Adhesives/Sealants Rule

State Is Rule

Accounted

for in 2007 Inventory * Incremental VOC Reduction to Apply :

2017 Existing

Controls 2017

Potential

Controls 2020

Existing

Controls 2020

Potential

Controls

CT No 64.4 0 64.4 0

DE No 64.4 0 64.4 0

DC n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

ME No 64.4 0 64.4 0

MD No 64.4 0 64.4 0

MA No 64.4 0 64.4 0

NH No 0 64.4 0 0 64.4

NJ No 64.4 0 64.4 0

NY No 64.4 0 64.4 0

PA No 64.4 0 64.4 0

RI No 64.4 0 64.4 0

VT n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

VA

- NVA No 64.4 0 64.4 0

VA

- FRD No 64.4 0 64.4 0

VA

- RCH No 64.4 0 64.4 0

VA

- Other No 0 0 0 0

* Some sources in the 2007 inventory had VOC controls greater than 85% and already complied

with the requirements; no incremental reduction was taken for these sources (see text)

n/a - no affected point sources identified in the inventory



### 5.3.2 OTC 2009 /2010 Model Rule for Large Storage Tanks

The OTC model rule addresses high vapor pressure VOCs, such as gasoline and crude oil,

store d in large aboveground stationary storage tanks, which are typically located at

refineries, terminals and pipeline breakout stations. The OTC model rule is based on

re cent revisions to New Jersey’s VOC storage tank rules located at N.J.A.C. 7:27-16.2.

The OTC model rules requires: 1) retrofiting floating roof tanks to reduce emissions from

deck fittings; 2) retrofitting external floating roof tanks with domes; 3) controlling roof

landing losses; and 4) adding controls for degassing and interior tank cleaning. New Jersey

estimated reductions for tanks located in New Jersey would total approximately 2,000 tons

per year by 2020. In making these estimates, New Jersey developed the following VOC

percent reduction estimates for the following categories of storage tanks:Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 64

Tank Location 

### Point Source SCC VOC Percent Reduction

2017 2020

Refinery 4

- 03

- 011

- xx (floating roof tank SCCs, gasoline or crude oil only ) 82 85

Bulk Terminal 4

- 04

- 001

- xx (floating roof tank SCCs) 40 50

Bulk Plant and Pipeline
Breakout Station 4

- 04

- 002

- xx (floating roof tank SCCs gasoline or crude oil only) 52 65



### Only New Jersey has existing rules in place, and the above percent reductions were applied

to the existing controls inventory.

For all other states with affected sources, the p otential reductions from the OTC rule were

applied in the “what if” inventory.

5.3.3 OTC 2006 Model Rule for Asphalt Production Plants

The OTC recommended that member states pursue state-specific rulemakings or other

implementation methods that would achieve a 35 percent reduction in NOx emissions.

States were polled to determine whether they have adopted a rule that would achieve

reductions equivalent to the 2006 OTC model rule and whether the estimated reduction in

NOx emissions should be applied in 2017 and 2020. Only Maine, New Jersey and New

Yor k indicated that the reductions should be applied. A 35 percent reduction in NOx

emissions for fuel burning SCCs in the 3-05-002 -xx series was applied to the existing

controls inventory for Maine, New Jersey, and New York.

All other states indicated that the NOx reductions should not be applied in the existing

controls inventory. The 35 percent reduction for other states was applied in the “what if”

inventory.

5.3.4 OTC 2006 Model Rule for Cement Manufacturing Plants

C ement kilns are located in Maine, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. The

OTC recommended state-specific rulemakings or other implementation methods that

would result in about a 60 percent reduction in uncontrolled levels NOx emissions or meet

the following emission limits based on kiln type:

Wet: 3.88 lb/ton clinker Long Dry: 3.44 lb/ton clinker

Preheater: 2.36 lb/ton clinker

Precalciner: 1.52 lb/ton clinkerDocumentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 65



### Cement kilns are already subject to NOx controls as part of Phase I of the NO

x 

### SIP call or

state -specific RACT requriements. The emission reductions resulting from the NOx SIP

c all or RACT requirements are already accounted for in the 2007 inventory.

The following methods were used to calculate the additional reductions from the OTC

2006 Control Measure in each state:

Maine has a single kiln that was converted from an existing wet process cement

kiln to a dry process (preheater/precalciner type) kiln and underwent a BACT

re view around 2005. The permitted emission rate is 1,533 tons per year with an

annual capacity of 766,500 tons of clinker (e.g., about 4 lbs/ton of clinker). Maine

does not plan on any additional controls, so no incremental reductions were applied

for the either the existing controls or “what if” inventory.

Maryland indicated controls will become effective in 2011 for the two facilities in

the state. Maryland specified a 25 percent reduction for the Holcim facility and a

40 percent reduction for the Lehigh facility for the existing controls inventory. No

re ductions were specified for the two kilns at the Essroc facility for the existing

c ontrols inventory. No additional reductions were specified for any cement kiln for

the “what if” inventory.

New York three cement plants: Each has a different RACT requirement effective

7/1/2012. The three limits are; 6.59 lb/ton, 2.88 lb/ton and 1.5 lb/tom (30 day

rolling average). For this inventory, we have assumed that these post-2007 RACT

requirements have an incremental control efficiency of 40 percent and we have

applied this reduction in the existing controls inventory. No additional reductions

were specified for any cement kiln for the “what if” inventory.

Pennsylvania provided kiln-specific projected future year NOx emissions for 2017

and 2020 based on existing post-2007 state requirements. A kiln-specific control

factor was calculated based on the ratio of the future year emissions to the 2007

emissions and was applied for the existing controls inventory. No additional

re ductions were specified for any cement kiln for the “what if” inventory.

Virginia has a single preheater/precalciner kiln that is not located in the OTR.

Virginia does not plan on any additional controls since the facility is not in the

OTR , so no incremental reductions were applied for the either the existing controls

or “what if “ inventories.Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 66



### 5.3.5 OTC 2006 Model Rule for Glass and Fiberglass Furnaces

The OTC recommended state-specific rulemakings or other implementation methods to

achieve an approximately 85 percent reduction in NOx emissions from uncontrolled levels.

Emission reductions for glass and fiberglass furnaces were calculated using the

methodology previously developed and documented in the OTC report (OTC 2007). Glass

and fiberglass furnaces are located in Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York,

Pennsylvania, and Virginia. The following methods were used to calculate the additional

reductions from the OTC 2006 Control Measure in each state:

Ma ryland indicated that a 48 percent reduction should be applied to the single glass

manufacturing facility in Maryland.

Massachusetts indicated that they have a single facility with two furnaces furnaces;

one furnace installing oxy-firing at 1.3 lb NOx per ton of glass, and the other at 5.3

lb/ton. The facility will be complying with EPA NSR enforcement Consent Decree

by 2017. Massachusetts indicated that plant-wide emissions are expected to

decrease by 35 percent in 2017 and 2020.

New Jersey indicated that a 50 percent reduction in NOx emissions should be

a pplied to glass and fiberglass furnaces in 2013, 2017, 2020 and 2025.

New York did not provide guidance regarding glass and fiberglass furnaces. We

used the percent reductions developed and documented in the previous round of

emission projections developed for MARAMA (MARAMA 2007). An

incremental control efficiency of 70 percent was used for New York glass and

fiberglass furnaces in that inventory.

Virginia indicated that they have no plans to implement the OTC measure, and no

NOx reductions were applied to glass/fiberglass furnaces in Virginia.

All of the above reductions for glass and fiberglass furnaces were accounted for in the

existing controls inventory. No additional reductions were specified for any glass or

fiberglass furnace for the “what if” inventory.

5.3.6 OTC 2006 Model Rule for ICI Boilers

In Resolution 06-02, the OTC recommended that OTC member states pursue as necessary

and appropriate state-specific rulemakings or other implementation methods to establish

e mission reduction percentages, emission rates or technologies for ICI boilers based on

guidelines that varied by boiler size and fuel type..Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 67



### States were polled to determine whether they have adopted a rule that would achieve

reductions equivalent to the 2006 OTC recommendations and whether the estimated

reduction in NOx emissions should be applied in 2017 and 2020. Most states have not

adopted rules equivalent to the 2006 OTC recommendations. These states indicated that

they will likely to depend on USEPA national rule for possible inclusion in the BOTW

inventory. Specifically, the OTC Resolution 10-01 (June, 2010) called on USEPA for

na tional regulations for ICI boilers.

Thr ee states specified that that have adopted post-2007 ICI boiler rules to reduce NOx

emissions. The percent reductions for ICI boilers were for these states were calculated as

describe in the following paragraphs.

New Jersey provided NOx percent reductions that varied by heat input rate and fuel/boiler

type and included an 80 percent rule effectiveness adjustment, as shown in Exhibit 5.4.

The NIF file submitted by New Jersey for this project did not include the boiler design

capacity. This data gap was filled using the boiler design capacities previously developed

for the OTC study in 2006, if available; otherwise the SCC description was used to assign

a default boiler design capacity. No additional reductions were specified for the “what if”

inventory for New Jersey.

Exhibit 5.4 NonEGU Point Source Emission Reductions from

New Jersey ICI Boiler NOx Rules

Heat Input Rate (mmBtu/hr) Fuel/Boiler Type Overall %

Reduction

2007

- 201 7

at least 5 but < 10 All 20%

at least 10 but < 20 All 20%

at least 25 but < 50 Natural gas only 40%

No. 2 Fuel oil only 40%

Refinery fuel gas and other gaseous fuels 40%

Other liquid fuels 40%

Duel Fuel using fuel oil and/or natural gas 40%

at least 50 but < 100 Natural gas only 40%

No. 2 Fuel oil only 27%

Other liquid fuels 27%

Duel Fuel using fuel oil and/or natural gas 40%

at least 100 or greater No. 2 Fuel oil only 40%Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 68



### New York specified that a 50 percent reduction should be applied in the existing controls

inventory for all boilers with greater than 25 mmBtu/hour design capacity. The NIF file

submitted by New York for this project did not include the boiler design capacity. This

data gap was filled using the boiler design capacities previously developed for the OTC

study in 2006, if available; otherwise the SCC description was used to assign a default

boiler design capacity. No additional reductions were specified for the “what if” inventory

for New York.

New Hampshire specified that reductions should be applied to boilers in the 50-100 and

100-250 mmBtu/hour size ranges. We used the methodology previously developed and

documented in the OTC report (OTC 2007). Reductions vary by size range and fuel type.

State- by -state emission reduction percentages were developed by comparing the state

emission limit in lbs/mmBTU to the OTC 2006 recommended limit. There are no coalfired ICI boilers in New Hampshire. For other fossil fuels used in New Hampshire, the

NOx percent reduction was as follows:

Natural gas, 50-100 mmBtu/hr: 50% reduction

Natural gas, 100-250 mmBtu/hr: 0% reduction

Residual/distillate oil, 50-100 mmBtu/hr: 33.3% reduction

Residual/distillate oil, 100-250 mmBtu/hr: 33.3% reduction

No additional reductions were specified for the “what if” inventory for New Hampshire.

All other states do not have existing rules that would result in post-2007 emission

reductions. These states indicated that they will likely to depend on USEPA national rule

for possible inclusion in the BOTW inventory. Specifically, the OTC Resolution 10-01

(J une, 2010) called on USEPA for national regulations for ICI boilers. However, in order

to estimate the potential NOx emission reductions for the “what if” control scenario, the

guidelines from OTC Resolution 06-02 shown in Exhibit 5.5 were used to estimate

potential NO x reductions in the “what if” inventory for those states without existing rules,

e xcept Virginia.

Exhibit 5.5 OTC Resolution 06-02 Guidelines for ICI Boiler NOx Rules

Boiler Size (mmBtu/hr) NOx Percent Reduction from Base Emissions by Fuel Type

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 76 40 40 40*Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 69

>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 potential controls inventory.



### Since the above guidelines vary by boiler size and fuel type, the specific percent reduction

applied to an individual source 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. The following

hierarchy was used in filling in gaps where design capacities were missing:

Use the design capacity field from the NIF EU table, if available;

Use the design capacities provided by agencies to fill in the data gaps in the

MAN E-VU 2002 inventory;

Use design capacity as reported either the Unit Description field in the NIF EU

table or the Process Description field from 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 natural gas-fired boiler, SCC 1-02-006 -02

de scribes a 10-100 mmBtu/hr natural gas-fired boiler).

After performing this gap-filling exercise, each boiler was assigned to one of the size

ranges and fuel types shown in the above table. The emission reduction percentages by

boiler size range and fuel type were then applied.

5.4 FUEL OIL SULFUR LIMITS

MANE-VU developed a low sulfur fuel oil strategy to help states develop Regional Haze

SIPs (MANE-VU 2007). As previously discussed in Section 4.5, Each state was polled

and asked to indicate when, if at all, the MANE-VU strategy would be incorporated into

their state rules. States were also asked to provide the 2007 sulfur contents for each fuel

type by county in order to calculate the percent reduction in emissions for the future years.

Three states (MD, NJ, and NY) have adopted or are committed to adopting the strategy

into their rules. The reductions for these three states were accounted for in the “existingDocumentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 70



### controls” inventory. All other jurisdictions indicated that not enough regulatory

development progress has been made to include the reductions in future years with

absolute certainty. The potential reductions for these states were accounted for in the

“ potential new controls” inventory. One state (VA) has no plans to adopt the low sulfur

fuel oil strategy. The percent reductions by fuel type and county are contained in

Appendix K.

5.5 STATE-SPECIFIC NONEGU CONTROL FACTOR S

The following state-specific nonEGU control factors were provided:

Bellefield Boiler Plant, Allegheny County. Allegheny County indicated that this

facility changed their fuel source from coal to natural gas in July 2009 and future

year emissions were changed to reflect the fuel switch.

USS Clairton Works

, Allegheny County. The facility will remove Batteries 7-9

and have Battery C operational by 2013, resulting in a change in PM emissions in

2013. Also, USS Clairton Works will remove Batteries 1-3 and have Battery D

operational in 2015, resulting in a change in PM emissions in 2017 and 2020.

Chrysler, Delaware. The Chrysler facility (ID 1000300128) shut down in 2009.

Delaware specified that only a 25 percent reduction should be taken for all

pollutants since some emissions will be banked for future use by other sources.

O S G Ship Management (ID 1000500093), Delaware. Delaware provided

source-specific growth factors and percent reductions in VOC emissions for 2017

and 2020 from the lightering operations at O S G Ship Management (ID

1000500093).

Control Technology Guidance (CTG) Documents, Delaware. Delaware

determined that VOC emission reductions from new CTG recommendations would

be very small. Although the new CTGs set up new recommendations for higher

c ontrol efficiencies, the actual VOC reductions would be minimum, if not none,

because most DE’s existing facilities are not affected by the new requirements and

e missions from those facilities are relatively small (based on 2002 inventory).

Unit Shutdowns, Delaware. Delaware identified several emission units that have

shut down at the following facilities: Dow Reichhold Specialty Latex (ID

1000100016), SPI Poly-Ols (ID 1000300426), and Invistas (ID 1000500002).

Emissions for all pollutants were set to zero for these units.Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 71



### Dover Air Force Base, Delaware. Delaware identified four boilers at Dover Air

Force Base (ID 1000100001) that ceased using fuel oil in March 2010. SO2

emissions for these boilers were set to zero.

Premcor Refinery NOx Plantwide Cap, Delaware. The refinery was sold to the

Delaware City Refining Company and an agreement was reached with DNREC's

S ecretary that allows plant-wide applicability limit (cap) for NOx. To project

emissions, as well as for modeling purposes, Delaware decided to spread out the

NOx -cap to each stack. Delaware estimated a plantwide reduction of 10.05 percent

in 2013 and 41.22 percent in both 2017 and 2020.

Wausau Paper Specialty Products, Maine. The Wausau Paper Specialty

Products facility (ID 2300700007) closed in 2009. All emissions were set to zero

for this facility in the 2017 and 2020 projection inventories.

2009 NJ Rule for NOx for Municipal Solid Waste Incinerators, New Jersey.

This rule will achieve a 27 percent reduction from one facility - Camden County

Ene rgy Recovery Associates, L.P. (ID 3400751614).

NJ rule for VOC Storage Tanks, New Jersey. New Jersey provided expected

VOC emission reductions resulting from post-2007 rules for VOC storage tanks.

For refinery floating roof storage tanks (SCC 4-03-011-xx), the reductions are 75

pe rcent for 2013, 82 percent for 2017, and 85 percent for 2020. For bulk terminal

tanks (SCC 4-04 -001-xx), the reductions are 20 percent for 2013, 40 percent for

2017, and 50 percent for 2020. For pipeline breakout stations (SCCs 4-04-002-xx

a nd 4 -06 -005 -xx), the reductions are 26 percent for 2013, 52 percent for 2017, and

65 percent for 2020.

International Paper – Franklin Mill, Virginia. The International Paper –

Franklin Mill (ID 5109300006) closed effective 2010. All emissions were set to

zero for this facility in the 2017 and 2020 projection inventories.Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 72



## 6.0 NONROAD MODEL CATEGORIES

The USEPA’s NONROAD model estimates emissions from equipment such as

re creational marine vessels, recreational land-based vehicles, farm and construction

machinery, lawn and garden equipment, aircraft ground support equipment (GSE) and rail

maintenance equipment. This equipment is powered by diesel, gasoline, compressed

natural gas (CNG) or liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) engines.

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

c ounty-level emission estimates for certain types of nonroad equipment. NMIM uses the

c urrent version the NONROAD model to develop emission estimates and was used to

de velop the projection inventories discussed here. The NMIM national county database

contains monthly input data to reflect county specific fuel parameters and temperatures.

Most of the work associated with executing NMIM involved updating the NMIM county

database with State-specific information. For this analysis, we used the NMIM2008

software (version NMIM20090504), the National County Database (version

NCD20090531), and NONROAD2008a (July 2009 version) as a starting point. Changes

were made to the NCD20090531 based on review of data by the States. The purpose of

this review was to create a new NCD specific to the 2007 base year model runs and the

three projection year model runs. Changes were made to a copy of the NCD20090531 to

create a new NCD used for the emission inventory runs. That NCD is called

NCD20090910MARAMA.

6.1 STATE REVIEW OF NMIM FUEL CHARACTERISTICS

For the 2017 and 2020 projection year inventories, AMEC provided data on fuel

characteristics from the NCD20090531 to the States to determine if they had additional

changes required for the fuel characteristics for future year inventories. None of the States

had changes to the fuel characteristics, except for CT which provided revisions to the six

fuels that they had provided for the 2007 base year inventory to account for a number of

changes including changes to RVP and fuel sulfur.

Connecticut provided updated values for the volume and market share components for

ethanol which is used by NMIM to determine the oxygen percentage for NONROAD runs.

Complete data replacement records were obtained for CT for the following tables: gasoline

inputs, diesel inputs, countymonthyear inputs, and datasource inputs. CT added six new

fuels which were given NRGasolineIds of 5000-5005 inclusive. Data was provided for

both t he base year (2007) and projection years (2013, 2017, and 2020).Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 73



### The diesel fuel sulfur values for the projection years were maintained at their default

values for all other States since they matched the USEPA recommended values.

6.2 USE OF EXTERNAL FILES IN THE PROJECTION YEAR NMIM

RUNS

For the 2007 base year inventory (MARAMA 2012), revisions were made to the allocation

files f or several categories. These files are used to allocate emissions calculated at the state

level down to the county level and to add entries to the countynrfile NCD table. States

were asked if they would like to revise this table for future years. No revisions were

recommended. Thus external files used for the 2007 base year runs were used in the runs

for the projection years.

6.3 NMIM RUN SPECIFICATIONS

The specifications for each NMIM run were developed for groups of States within the

MANE-VU+VA region. All States except for CT, NY, NJ and PA were run together for

each year. CT was run alone for 2007, 2017, and 2020 because changes were requested for

the base year. NY, NJ and PA were run together for each individual projection year. The

settings for each specification panel within the NMIM model for the projection year runs

are detailed below.

Description: A short descriptive term for the run was entered for each specific run.

Geography: The “county” option was selected for each run. All counties within the

State were selected.

Time: Every month in the Months check box area was selected. On the time panel, the year (2017 or 2020) was selected in the drop down box and added to the year selections area. With the exception of the CT, all runs were performed for only one year. The Use Yearly Weather Data check box was selected; however, year specific data was not available within NMIM for the projection years. The only years included within the NMIM model for NCD20090531 are 1999-2008 inclusive. If the specific year requested is not available, then NMIM uses 20 year average data for the estimates. Thus while the Use Yearly Weather Data box waschecked, since the specific year was not there (except for the CT 2007 base year rerun), the 20 year average data in the countymonthhour table are used. However, because the meteorology data for future years will be assumed to be the same as was used for 2007, AMEC revised the AverageTemp and AverageRelHumidity values in the countymonthhour table of the NCD20090910MARAMA to reflect actual 2007 values. Thus the values in that table are 2007 values not 20 year average values and thus causes the NMIM model to run with the same data used for the 2007 base year runs.

Vehicles/Equipment: Only the nonroad vehicle/equipment area was selected. All fuels and all vehicle types were selected for each State run. Aircraft ground supportDocumentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 74



### eq uipment was included in the run specifications but those records were removed during post-processing steps.

Fleet: No selections or information was entered in this panel.

Pollutants: Exhaust PM10, PM2.5, and Criteria pollutants (with HC reported as VOC) were selected except for CO 2



### . Advanced features: Only the server and database were selected in this panel.

Output: Under the Geographic Representation panel the County selection was made. In the General Output area, a new database was selected on the server for the output.

All added external files for use in each State run were placed in the externalfiles directory

of the NCD. Entries for all external files included were included in the countynrfiles table

of the NCD.

6.4 REMOVAL OF AIRPORT GROUND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT

The NMIM/NONROAD model calculates emissions from airport ground support

equipment. As discussed in Section 7 of this TSD, emissions from airport ground support

equipment is also included in USEPA’s aircraft inventory prepared using the Federal

Aviation Administration’s Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS).

C orrespondence with USEPA indicated that USEPA considers the emissions calculated by

EDMS to be better than those calculated by NONROAD. For this reason, all emissions

calculated by NMIM/NONROAD for airport ground support equipment were removed

from the inventory to avoid double counting.

6.5 STATE AND STAKEHOLDER REVIEW AND COMMENT

New York state provided the results of their own NONROAD model runs for 2017 and

2020. The se model results were provided by month and were used instead of the NMIM

model runs made by MACTEC.

6.6 CHANGES MADE FOR VERSION 3 MODEL RUNS

Two sectors of the inventory were updated in version 3. First, Virginia and New York

requested that their emissions be recalculated using the information developed through

Version 2 of the inventory for the MARAMA States. The Virginia reruns were performed

for all categories except for ground support equipment and for recreational marine vessels.

Recreational marine vessel emissions for Virginia were calculated along with those for

other states (see below). Those values replaced the SEMAP supplied values used in

versions prior to Version 3. In addition, estimates for all sectors of the inventory for New

York other than ground support equipment and recreational marine vessels were calculatedDocumentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 75



### using NMIM default data for the MARAMA area. New York had originally provided data

from NONROAD model runs that they performed separately. For Version 3 of the

inventory, New York emissions were calculated using NMIM runs set up using the same

c riteria as those for other states in earlier versions of the inventory. Both New York and

Virginia were provided with the opportunity to review fuel characteristics prior to their

runs. Only Virginia made changes to the fuels, however the only changes that were made

were to assign alternative default fuels to counties. The fuel characteristics were not

modified from the NMIM defaults, only the fuel IDs associated with a particular

county/month combination were changed to another default fuel. Those changes were

instituted in the NCD developed specifically for MARAMA. New York did not request

any changes to the default values. In addition, the revisions made to the housing

population allocation files were instituted for both states.

The second change in version 3 was to modify the recreational marine vessel populations

for all states except Vermont and Maine. A revised population file was prepared for

Virginia but not utilized in the version 3 runs. Estimates for Virginia, Vermont and Maine

were prepared using the growth algorithm built into the NMIM/NONROAD model. For

all other states, revised population data was estimated for the years 2017 and 2020. EPA

had recommended that rather than use the default growth algorithm of the model for those

states that had their 2007 base year data updated for this category, separate population

estimates for each projection year should be prepared and included in the population files.

The 2007 population data was provided by the National Marine Manufacturers Association

(NMMA). Total state populations for each of the three major categories contained in the

NONROAD model (outboard, inboard/sterndrive and personal watercraft) were provided

for each state. Because the population files used by the NONROAD model (and thus

NMIM) were configured with population values for various horsepower categories, AMEC

(formerly AMEC) determined the fraction of the total for each marine vessel type in each

horsepower category from the NONROAD default population files. These fractions were

then used to allocate the total state population obtained from NMMA to the various

horsepower categories.

The only exception to this was that some states added in data for sailboats. The sailboat

populations were split among two of the default categories. In addition, New Hampshire

provided their own revised population file. Their population data for New Hampshire was

provided by the New Hampshire DMV and is not from NMMA.

AMEC then used the national growth factors supplied in the default NMIM/NONROAD

model to estimate populations for each year. Each horsepower/population category in the

2007 population file was grown to either 2017 or 2020 using the ratio between the 2005Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 76



### and 2015 growth factors (to represent growth between 2007 and 2017) and between the

2005 and 2025 growth factors (to represent growth between 2007 and 2020). Those ratios

were used to grow the 2007 population to 2017 and 2020 respectively. The only exception

to this was Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania presented data indicating that there was little

growth expected during the time periods that were considered and thus maintained the

2007 population estimates for both 2017 and 2020.

Pennsylvania presented information showing from historical data that indicated a

downward trend in the overall motorized pleasure craft population in 6 of the last 9 years.

The data also indicated that the population was essentially unchanged in the last three years

due to an adverse economic environment. Populations of all motorized pleasure craft in

Pennsylvania as tracked by the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission showed nearly a 6

percent decline from 2001 to 2007 or an average annual decline of 1.0 percent over that

period. Pleasure craft populations remained nearly unchanged from 2008 to 2010.

As a consequence, they forecaste zero percent growth for pleasure craft is from 2007 to

2017 and 2007 to 2020. The types of pleasure craft affected by this growth rate are:

2282005010, 2-stroke outboard,

2282005015, 2-stroke personal water craft,

2282010005, 4-stroke inboard/sterndrive,

2282020005, diesel inboard/sterndrive, and

2282020010, diesel outboards

6.7 NMIM/NONROAD GROWTH AND CONTROL INFORMATION

In estimating future year emissions, the NMIM/NONROAD model includes growth and

sc rappage rates for equipment in addition to a variety of control programs. It is not

possible separate out the future year emissions due to “growth only” or “control only” in a

single run. That is, the model run provides a single future year estimate that is a “growth

and control” scenario.

The growth data used in the NMIM/NONROAD model is documented in a USEPA report

(USEPA 2004c). The GROWTH packet of the NONROAD model cross-references each

SCC to a growth indicator code. The indicator code is an arbitrary code that identifies an

actual predicted value such as human population or employment that is used to estimate

the future year equipment population. The GROWTH packet also defines the scrappage

curves used to estimate the future year model year distribution.Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 77



### The NMIM/NONROAD model also accounts for all USEPA emission standards for

nonroad equipment. There are mulitiple standards that vary by equipment type, rated

power, model year, and pollutatant. Exhibit 6.1 is a summary of the emission control

programs accounted for in the NMIM/NONROAD model. A complete summary of the

nonroad equipment emission standards can be found on the USEPA nonroad emission

standards reference guide website (USEPA 2011).

Exhibit 6 .1 Control Programs Included in the NMIM/NONROAD Model

Regulation Description

Control of Air Pollution; Determination of Significance for

Nonroad Sources and Emission

Standards for New Nonroad Compression Ignition Engines At or

Above 37 Kilowatts

59 FR 31036

June 17, 1994 This rule establishes Tier 1 exhaust emission standards for HC, NOx, CO, and PM for nonroad compression

- ignition (CI) engines ≥37kW (≥50hp). Marine engines are not included in this rule. The start dates and pollutants affected vary by hp categor y as follows:

50

- 100 hp: Tier 1,1998; NOx only

100

- 175 hp: Tier 1, 1997; NOx only

175

- 750 hp: Tier 1, 1996; HC, CO, NOx, PM >750 hp: Tier 1, 2000; HC, CO, NOx, PM

Emissions for New Nonroad Spark

Ignition Engines At or Below 19 Kilowatts; Final Rule

60 FR 34581 July 3, 1995 This rule establishes Phase 1 exhaust emission standards for HC, NOx, and CO for nonroad spark

- ignition engines ≤19kW (≤25hp). This rule includes both handheld (HH) and nonhandheld (NHH) engines. The Phase 1 standards

become effective in 1997 for : Class I NHH engines (<225cc), Class II NHH engines (≥225cc), Class III HH engines (<20cc), and Class IV HH engines (≥20cc and <50cc).

The Phase 1 standards become effective in 1998 for:

Class V HH engines (≥50cc)

Final Rule for New Gasoline Spark

Ignition Marine Engines; Exemptions for New Nonroad Compression

Ignition Engines at or Above 37 Kilowatts and New Nonroad Spark

Ignition Engines at or Below 19

Kilowatts

61 FR 52088 October 4, 1996 This rule establishes exhaust emission standards for HC+NOx for personal watercraft and outboard (PWC/OB) marine SI engines. The standards are phased in from

1998

- 2006.

Control of Emissions of Air Pollution From Nonroad Diesel Engines

63 FR 56967 October 23, 1998 This final rule sets Tier 1 standards for engines under 50 hp, phasing in from 1999 to 2000. It also phases in more stringent Tier 2 standards for all engine sizes from 2001 to 2006, and yet more stringent Tier 3 standards for engines rated over 50 hp from 2006 to 2008. The Tier 2 standards apply to NMHC+NOx, CO, and PM, whereas the Tier 3 standards apply to NMHC+NOx and CO. The start dates by hp category and tier are as follows:Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 78

Regulation Description

hp<25: Tier 1,2000; Tier 2, 2005; no Tier 3

25

- 50 hp: Tier 1, 1999; Tier 2, 2004; no Tier 3

50

- 100 hp: Tier 2, 2004; Tier 3, 2008

100

- 175 hp: Tier 2, 2003; Tier 3, 2007

175

- 300 hp: Tier 2, 2003; Tier 3, 2006

300

- 600 hp: Tier 2, 2001, Tier 3, 2006

600

- 750 hp: Tier 2, 2002; Tier 3, 2006 >750 hp: Tier 2, 2006, no Tier 3

This rule does not apply to marine diesel engines above 50 hp.

Phase 2: Emission Standards for New Nonroad Nonhandheld Spark Ignition Engines At or Below 19

Kilowatts

64 FR 15207 March 30, 1999 This rule establishes Phase 2 exhaust emission standards
for HC+NOx for nonr oad nonhandheld (NHH) spark

- ignition engines ≤19kW (≤25hp). The Phase 2 standards for Class I NHH engines (<225cc) become effective on August 1, 2007 (or August 1, 2003 for any engine initially produced on or after that date). The Phase 2 standards for C lass II NHH engines (≥225cc) are phased in from 2001

- 2005.

Phase 2: Emission Standards for New Nonroad Spark

- Ignition Handheld Engines At or Below 19

Kilowatts and Minor Amendments to Emission Requirements Applicable to Small Spark

- Ignition Engines and

Ma rine Spark

- Ignition Engines; Final

Rule

65 FR 24268 April 25, 2000 This rule establishes Phase 2 exhaust emission standards for HC+NOx for nonroad handheld (HH) spark

- ignition engines ≤19kW (≤25hp). The Phase 2 standards are phased in from 2002

- 2005 for C lass III and Class IV engines and are phased in from 2004

- 2007 for Class V engines.

Control of Emissions From Nonroad Large Spark

- Ignition Engines and Recreational Engines (Marine and

Land

- Based); Final Rule

67 FR 68241 November 8, 2002 This rule establis hes exhaust and evaporative standards for several nonroad categories:

1) Two tiers of emission standards are established for large spark

- ignition engines over 19 kW. Tier 1 includes exhaust standards for HC+NOx and CO and is phased in from

2004

- 2006. T ier 2 becomes effective in 2007 and includes

exhaust standards for HC+NOx and CO as well as evaporative controls affecting fuel line permeation, diurnal emissions and running loss emissions.
2) Exhaust and evaporative emission standards are

established fo r recreational vehicles, which include snowmobiles, off

- highway motorcycles, and all

- terrain vehicles (ATVs). For snowmobiles, HC and CO exhaust standards are phased

- in from 2006

- 2012. For off

- highway motorcycles, HC+NOx and CO exhaust emission

standards are phased in from 2006

- 2007. For ATVs, HC+NOx and CO exhaust emission standards are phased

in from 2006

- 2007. Evaporative emission standards for fuel tank and hose permeation apply to all recreational vehicles beginning in 2008.
3) Exhaust emission sta ndards for HC+NOx, CO, and PM for recreational marine diesel engines over 50 hp begin in

2006

- 2009, depending on the engine displacement. These are “Tier 2” equivalent standards.Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 79

Regulation Description

Control of Emissions of Air Pollution From Nonroad Diesel Engines and Fuel; Final Rule (Clean Air Nonroad

Diesel Rule

– Tier 4)

69 FR 38958 June 29, 2004 This final rule sets Tier 4 exhaust standards for CI engines covering all hp categories (except marine and locomotives), and also regulates nonroad diesel fuel sulfur

content.
1) The Tier 4 start dates and pollutants affected vary by hp

and tier as follows: hp<25: 2008, PM only

25

- 50 hp: Tier 4 transitional, 2008, PM only;

Tier 4 final, 2013, NMHC+NOx and PM

50

- 75 hp: Tier 4 transitional, 2008; PM only;

Tier 4 final, 2013, NMHC+NOx and PM

75

- 175 hp: Tier 4 transitional, 2012, HC, NOx, and PM;

Tier 4 final, 2014, HC,NOx,PM

175

- 750 hp:Tier 4 transitional, 2011, HC, N Ox, and PM;

Tier 4 final, 2014, HC,NOx,PM >750 hp: Tier 4 transitional, 2011, HC, NOx, and PM;

Tier 4 final, 2015, HC,NOx,PM

2) This rule will reduce nonroad diesel fuel sulfur levels in two steps. First, starting in 2007, fuel sulfur levels in

nonroad diesel fuel will be limited to a maximum of 500 ppm, the same as for current highway diesel fuel. Second, starting in 2010, fuel sulfur levels in most nonroad diesel fuel will be reduced to 15 ppm.

Control of Emissi ons From Nonroad Spark

- Ignition Engines and Equipment; Final Rule (Bond Rule)

73 FR 59034 October 8, 2008 This rule establishes exhaust and evaporative standards for small SI engines and marine SI engines:

1) Phase 3 HC+NOx exhaust emission standards are

e stablished for Class I NHH engines starting in 2012 and for Class II NHH engines starting in 2011. There are no new exhaust emission standards for handheld engines. New evaporative standards are adopted for both handheld and nonhandheld equipment. The n ew evaporative standards control fuel tank permeation, fuel hose permeation, and diffusion losses. The evaporative standards begin in 2012 for Class I NHH engines and 2011 for Class II NHH engines. For handheld engines, the evaporative standards are phas ed

- in from 2012

- 2016.

2) More stringent HC+NOx and CO standards are established for marine SI PWC/OB engines beginning in 2010. In addition, new exhaust HC+NOx and CO standards are established for sterndrive and inboard (SD/I) marine SI engines also begin ning in 2010. High performance SD/I engines are subject to separate HC+NOx and CO exhaust standards that are phased

- in

from 2010

- 2011. New evaporative standards were also adopted for all marine SI engines that control fuel hose permeation, diurnal emissi ons, and fuel tank permeation emissions. The hose permeation, diurnal, and tank permeation standards take effect in 2009, 2010, and 2011.

Source: USEPA 2010eDocumentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 80



## 7.0 NONROAD MAR SOURCE CATEGORIES

The USEPA’s NONROAD model does not estimate emissions for three nonroad source

c ategories: commercial marine vessel, aircraft, and railroad locomotives. The emission

projection methodology and data sources for these three categories (collectively referred to

as marine, airport, railroad {or MAR}) are discussed in this section. The data used to

c alculate the growth and control factors for MAR sources are included in Appendix L.

7.1 COMMERCIAL MARINE VESSELS

For the purpose of emission calculations, marine vessel engines are divided into three

categories based on displacement (swept volume) per cylinder. Category 1 and Category 2

marine diesel engines typically range in size from about 500 to 8,000 kW (700 to 11,000

hp). These engines are used to provide propulsion power on many kinds of vessels

including tugboats, pushboats, supply vessels, fishing vessels, and other commercial

vessels in and around ports. They are also used as stand-alone generators for auxiliary

electrical power on vessels. Category 3 marine diesel engines typically range in size from

2,500 to 70,000 kW (3,000 to 100,000 hp). These are very large marine diesel engines used

for propulsion power on ocean-going vessels such as container ships, oil tankers, bulk

carriers, and cruise ships.

The majority of marine vessels are powered by diesel engines that are either fueled with

distillate or residual fuel oil blends. For the purpose of emission inventories, USEPA has

assumed that Category 3 vessels primarily use residual blends while Category 1 and 2

vessels typically use distillate fuels.

EPA developed national emission inventories for Category 1 and 2 vessels and Category 3

vessels for calendar years 2002 through 2040 as part of its effort to develop emission

standards for these vessels. The methodologies used to develop the emission projections

(for both a baseline and controlled scenario) are documented in a regulatory impact

a ssessment (USEPA 2008c). We used the USEPA data and methodologies from these

RIAs to develop separate growth and control factors for Category 1 and 2 vessels (diesel)

an d Category 3 vessels (residual).

7.1.1 CMV Diesel Growth Factors

For Category 1 and 2 diesel vessels, USEPA used projection data for domestic shipping

from the AEO2006 (EIA 2006). The annual growth rate reported in the RIA is 0.9%.

More recent growth data for domestic shipping is available in the AEO2010 (EIA 2010).

Since Category 1 and 2 vessels primarily accounts for activity data for ships that carry

domestic cargo, we decided to use the recent growth data for domestic shipping availableDocumentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 81



### in the AEO2010. We used Table A-7 of the AEO2010 for international shipping to

calculate the growth factor for 2007-2013 to be 0.975, for 2007-2017 to be 1.003, and for

2007- 2020 to be 1/033. These growth factors were used for for CMV diesel port emissions

(SC C 22-80-002 -100) and CMV diesel underway emissions (SCC 22-80-002 -200).

7.1.2 CMV Diesel Control Factors

In developing their emission projections, USEPA developed two scenarios that accounted

for both the 2004 nonroad diesel rule and the 2008 diesel marine vessel rule:

The USEPA’s baseline (pre-control) inventory accounted for:

1. the 0.9 percent annual growth in fuel use,

2. the impact of existing engine regulations that took effect in 2008,

3. the 2004 Clean Air Nonroad Diesel Rule that will decrease the allowable

leve ls of sulfur in fuel beginning in 2012, and

4. fleet turnover.

The USEPA’s controlled inventory accounted for:

1. the 0.9 percent annual growth in fuel use;

2. the reductions included in the baseline inventory, and the reductions from
USEPA’s 2008 rule Final Locomotive-Marine rule for Tier 3 and 4 engines ;
and

3. The 2008 final rule that includes the first-ever national emission standards

for existing marine diesel engines, applying to engines larger than 600kW
when they are remanufactured. The rule also sets Tier 3 emissions

standa rds for newly-built engines that are phasing in from 2009. Finally,

the r ule establishes Tier 4 standards for newly-built commercial marine
diesel engines above 600kW, phasing in beginning in 2014.

T o calculate a control factor that accounts for reductions included in the USEPA controlled

inventory, it was necessary to first calculate a “growth only” scenario applying USEPA’s

0.9 percent annual growth rate to the 2006 base emissions. Once the growth rate was

a pplied, then a control factor for each pollutant was calculated by dividing the future year

controlled emissions by the future year “growth only” emissions. Exhibit 7.1 shows the

control factors for 2017 and 2020 for diesel commercial marine vessels.Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 82



### Exhibit 7 .1 CMV Diesel Control Factors by Year and Pollutant

Year CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SO2 VOC

2013 0.885 0.787 0.747 0.747 0.464 0.871

2017 0.830 0.642 0.550 0.550 0.076 0.708

2020 0.801 0.537 0.460 0.460 0.032 0.586



### 7.1.3 CMV Residual Oil Growth Factors

For Category 3 residual oil vessels, data from an USEPA-sponsored study was used to

develop an annualized growth factor of 4.5 percent for the region. A few states considered

the growth rate to be extremely high and not reflective of recent economic conditions.

Since USEPA’s Category 3 vessel inventory is primarily based on activity data for ships

that carry foreign cargo, we decided to use the recent growth data for international

shipping available in the AEO2010. We used data from Table A-7 of the AEO2010 for

international shipping to calculate the growth factor for 2007-2013 to be 0.940, for 2007-

2017 to be 0.946, and for 2007-2020 to be 0.950. These growth factors were used for

CMV residual oil port emissions (SCC 22-80-003 -100) and CMV residual oil underway

emissions (SCC 22-80-003-200).

7.1.4 CMV Residual Oil Control Factors

On December 22nd, 2009, USEPA announced final emission standards under the Clean

Air Act for new marine diesel engines with per-cylinder displacement at or above 30 liters

(called Category 3 marine diesel engines) installed on U.S.-flagged vessels. The final

engine standards are equivalent to those adopted in the amendments to Annex VI to the

International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (a treaty called

"MARPOL"). The emission standards apply in two stages: near-term standards for newlybuilt engines will apply beginning in 2011, and long-term standards requiring an 80

percent reduction in NOx will begin in 2016. USEPA also adopted changes to the diesel

fuel program to allow for the production and sale of diesel fuel with no more than 1,000

ppm sulfur for use in Category 3 marine vessels. The regulations generally forbid

production and sale of fuels with more than 1,000 ppm sulfur for use in most U.S. waters,

unless operators achieve equivalent emission reductions in other ways.

On March 26, 2010, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) officially designated

waters off North American coasts as an emissions control area (ECA) in which stringent

international emission standards will apply to ships. In practice, implementation of the

ECA means that ships entering the designated area would need to use compliant fuel for

the duration of their voyage that is within that area, including time in port and voyages

whose routes pass through the area without calling on a port. The North American ECADocumentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 83



### includes waters adjacent the Atlantic extending up to 200 nautical miles from east coast of

the United States. The quality of fuel that complies with the ECA standard will change

over time. From the effective date in 2012 until 2015, fuel used by vessels operating in

designated areas cannot exceed 1.0 percent sulfur (10,000 ppm). Beginning in 2015, fuel

used by vessels operating in these areas cannot exceed 0.1 percent sulfur (1000 ppm).

Beginning in 2016, NOx aftertreatment requirements become applicable.

To calculate a control factor that accounted for reductions included in the USEPA

controlled inventory, it was necessary to first calculate a “growth only” scenario applying

USEPA’s 4.5 percent annual growth rate to the 2006 base emissions. Once the growth rate

was applied, then a control factor for each pollutant was calculated by dividing the future

year controlled emissions by the future year “growth only” emissions.

Exhibit 7.2 shows the control factors for 2017 and 2020 for residual oil commercial marine

ve ssels.

Exhibit 7 .2 CMV Residual Oil Control Factors by Year and Polluta nt

Year CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SO2 VOC

2013 1.000 0.736 0.353 0.353 0.270 1.000

2017 1.000 0.654 0.216 0.216 0.120 1.000

2020 1.000 0.597 0.137 0.137 0.036 1.000



### 7.1.5 Military Vessels Growth and Control Factors

Virginia reported emissions for military vessels, but did not distinguish between diesel or

residual fuels. We assumed that there would be “no growth” for military vessel activity

and emissions in Virginia would remain at 2007 levels in 2017 and 2020. Virginia was the

onl y state to report emission from military vessels.

7.2 AIRCRAFT

Aircraft emissions in the 2007 MANE-VU+VA inventory are available on either a countyby -county or airport- by -airport basis for six types of aircraft operations:

Air carrier operations represent landings and take-offs (LTOs) of commercial

aircraft with seating capacity of more than 60 seats;

Commuter/air taxi operations are one category. Commuter operations include

LTOs by aircraft with 60 or fewer seats that transport regional passengers onDocumentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 84



### scheduled commercial flights. Air taxi operations include LTOs by aircraft with 60

or fewer seats conducted on non-scheduled or for-hire flights;

General aviation represents all civil aviation LTOs not classified as commercial;

Military operations represent LTOs by military aircraft;

Ground Support Equipment (GSE) typically includes aircraft refueling and baggage

handling vehicles and equipment, aircraft towing vehicles, and passenger buses ;

and

Auxiliary power units (APUs) provide power to start the main engines and run the

he ating, cooling, and ventilation systems prior to starting the main engines.

7.2.1 Aircraft Growth Factors

Aircraft operations were projected to future years by applying activity growth using data

on itinerant (ITN) operations at airports as reported in the Federal Aviation

Administration’s (FAA) Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) System for 2009-2030 (FAA

2010). The ITN operations are defined as aircraft take-offs or landings. This information is

available for approximately 3300 individual airports. Actual LTOs are reported for 2007

and projected LTOs are provided for all years up to 2030.

We aggregated and applied this information at the county level for the four operation

types: commercial, general, air taxi, military. We computed growth factors for each

operation type by dividing future-year ITN by 2007-year ITN. We assigned factors to

inventory SCCs based on the operation type, as shown in Exhibit 7.3.

E xhibit 7.3 Crosswalk between SCC and FAA Operations Type

SCC SCC Description FAA Operation Type Used for

Growth Factor

2265008005 Airport Ground Support Equipment, 4

- Stroke Gas Total Itinerant Operations

2267008005 Airport Ground Support Equipment, LPG Total Itinerant Operations

2268008005 Airport Ground Support Equipment, CNG Total Itinerant Operations

2270008000 Airport Ground Support Equipment, Diesel Total Itinerant Operations

2270008005 Airport Ground Support Equipment, Diesel Total Itinerant Operations

2275001000 Aircraft /Military Aircraft /Total Itinerant Military Operations

2275020000 Aircraft /Commercial Aircraft /Total: All Types Itinerant Air Carrier Operations

2275050000 Aircraft /General Aviation /Total Itinerant General Aviation Operations

2275050011 Aircraft /General Aviation /Piston Itinerant General Aviation Operations

2275050012 Aircraft /General Aviation /Turbine Itinerant General Aviation OperationsDocumentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 85

SCC SCC Description FAA Operation Type Used for

Growth Factor

2275060000 Aircraft /Air Taxi /Total Itinerant Air Taxi Operations

2275060011 Aircraft /Air Taxi /Piston Itinerant Air Taxi Operations

2275060012 Aircraft /Air Taxi /Turbine Itinerant Air Taxi Operations

2275070000 Aircraft /Aircraft Auxiliary Power Units /Total Total Itinerant Operations



### Exhibit 7.4 summarizes the region-wide growth factors by FAA operation type. The

growth factor for individual airports/counties may deviate substantially from these regionwide growth factors.

Exhibit 7 .4 Region-wide Growth Factors from 2007 by FAA Operations Type

7.2.2 Aircraft Control Factors

The NOx aircraft engine emissions standards adopted by USEPA in November 2005

(USEPA 2005b) were reviewed. The standards are equivalent to the NOx emission

standa rds (adopted in 1999 for implementation beginning in 2004) of the United Nations

I nternational Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), and will bring the United States aircraft

standards into alignment with the international standards. The standards apply to new

aircraft engines used on commercial aircraft including small regional jets, single-aisle andDocumentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 86



### twin-aisle aircraft, and 747s and larger aircraft. The standards also apply to general

aviation and military aircraft, which sometimes use commercial engines. For example,

small regional jet engines are used in executive general aviation aircraft, and larger

commercial aircraft engines may be used in military transport aircraft.

N early all previously certified or in-production engine models currently meet or perform

better than the standards USEPA adopt ed in the November 2005 rule. In addition,

manufacturers have already been developing improved technology in response to the

ICAO standards. According to USEPA’s recent analysis for the proposed transport rule

(U SEPA 2010a), this rule is expected to reduce NOx emissions by approximately 2 percent

in 2015 and 3 percent in 2020. Because of the relatively small amount of NOx reductions,

our aircraft emission projections do not account for this control program.

EPA has also issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) on lead

emissions from piston-engine aircraft using leaded aviation gasoline (U S EPA 2010d).

How ever, this rule has not yet been adopted and co-benefits for criteria air pollutants are

likely to be small. Therefore, the effects of this rule were not included in the future-year

emissions projections.

7.3 RAILROAD EQUIPMENT

Railroad locomotive engine emissions in the 2007 MARAMA inventory are classified into

the f ollowing categories:

Class I line haul locomotives are operated by large freight railroad companies and

are used to power freight train operations over long distances (SCC 22-85-002-

006);

Class II/III line haul locomotives are operated by smaller freight railroad

companies and are used to power freight train operations over long distances (SCC

22 -85 -002 -007);

Inter-city passenger train locomotives are operated primarily by Amtrak to provide

inter-city passenger transport (SCC 22-85-002 -008);

Independent commuter rail systems operate locomotives provide passenger

transport within a metropolitan area (SCC 22-85-002-009); and

Yard/switch locomotives are used in freight yards to assemble and disassemble

trains, or for short hauls of trains that are made up of only a few cars (SCC 22-85-

002 -010 ).Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 87



### 7.3.1 Railroad Growth Factors

In March 2008, USEPA finalized a three part program that will dramatically reduce

e missions from diesel locomotives of all types

-- line-haul, switch, and passenger rail. As

pa rt of this work USEPA developed a national emission inventory for calendar years 2002

through 2040. Emission projections methodologies for a baseline and controlled scenario

were developed and documented (USEPA 2008c). USEPA used projection data from the

AEO2006 (EIA 2006). Table A-7 of AEO2006 showed that freight rail energy use will

g row 1.6 percent annually

.

More recent growth data is available in the AEO2010 which was published in May 2010.

There are separate projections for passenger rail and freight rail energy use. For the

MANE VU+VA inventory we relied on the more recent AEO2010 growth projections.

Passenger rail data from AEO2010 Table A-7 was used to calculate the growth factor for

2007-2013 to be 1.046, for 2007-2017 to be 1.121, and for 2007-2020 to be 1.171. These

growth factors were applied to inter-city passenger train locomotives (SCC 22-85-002-

008) and independent commuter rail systems (SCC 22-85-002 -009).

For freight rail, the data from AEO2010 Table A-7 was used to calculate the growth factor

for 2007-2013 to be 0.969, for 2007-2017 to be 1.018, and for 2007-2020 to be 1.053. We

used the freight rail annual growth factors for Class I line haul (SCC 22-85-002 -006),

Class II/III line haul (SCC 22-85-002 -007), and yard switch (SCC 22-85-002-010)

locomoti ves.

7.3.2 Railroad Control Factors

USEPA developed two scenarios that accounted for both the 2004 nonroad diesel rule and

the 2008 diesel locomotive rule:

The USEPA baseline (pre-control) inventory accounted for

1. AEO2006 annual growth in fuel use,

2. The impact of existing regulations for Tier 0, 1, and 2 locomotive engines

that take effect in 2008,

3. The 2004 Clean Air Nonroad Diesel Rule that will decrease allowable

leve ls of sulfur in locomotives fuel beginning in 2012, and

4. Fleet turnover.

The USEPA controlled inventory accounted for

1. AEO2006 annual growth in fuel use,

2. Reductions included in the baseline inventory, andDocumentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 88



### 3. Reductions from USEPA’s 2008 rule Final Locomotive-Marine rule for
Tier 3 and 4 engines. This rule lowered diesel sulfur content and tightened
emission standards for existing and new locomotives.

4. Voluntary retrofits under the National Clean Diesel Campaign are not
included in our projections.

To calculate a factor that accounted for reductions included in the USEPA controlled

inventory, it was necessary to first calculate a “growth only” scenario applying USEPA’s

1.6% annual growth rate to the 2006 base emissions. Once the growth rate was applied,

then a control factor for each pollutant was calculated by dividing the future year

controlled emissions by the future year “growth only” emissions.

Exhibit 7.5 shows the control factors for 2017 and 2020 for the five locomotive

c lassifications and pollutants.

Exhibit 7 .5 Rail Control Factors by Year, Pollutant, and SCC

Year NOx PM10 PM2.5 HC CO VOC SO2

SCC 22

- 85

- 002

- 006 Line Haul Class I Operations

2017 0.633 0.449 0.449 0.480 1.000 0.480 0.003

2020 0.547 0.364 0.364 0.382 1.000 0.382 0.003

SCC 22

- 85

- 002

- 00 7 Line Haul Class I I / III Operations

2017 0.960 0.791 0.791 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.003

2020 0.920 0.752 0.752 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.003

SCC 22

- 85

- 002

- 00 8 Inter

- City Passenger

2017 0.421 0.402 0.402 0.437 0.917 0.437 0.003

2020 0.340 0.294 0.294 0.290 0.895 0.290 0.003

SCC 22

- 85

- 002

- 00 9 Commuter Rail

2017 0.421 0.402 0.402 0.437 0.917 0.437 0.003

2020 0.340 0.294 0.294 0.290 0.895 0.290 0.003

SCC 22

- 85

- 002

- 0 10 Yard / Switch

2017 0.843 0.712 0.712 0.809 1.000 0.809 0.003

2020 0.771 0.650 0.650 0.726 1.000 0.726 0.003Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 89



## 8.0 SUMMARY OF PROJECTED EMISSIONS

8.1 AREA SOURCE PROJECTED EMISSIONS

Exhibits 8.1 to 8.7 summarize the 2007 and projected future year area source emissions by

state for each criteria air pollutant. Seven values are listed for each pollutant:

2007 emissions 2017 projected emissions with growth only (GO) 2017 projected emissions with growth and existing controls (GC) 2017 projected emissions with growth, existing and potential new OTC controls (GX) 2020 projected emissions with growth only (GO) 2020 projected emissions with growth and existing controls (GC) 2020 projected emissions with growth, existing and potential new OTC controls (GX)

Detailed summaries by County and SCC are provided on MARAMA’s ftp site.

CO emissions in most states decline between 2007 and 2020, primarily due to decreases in

residential wood combustion emissions resulting from the turnover to NSPS-compliant

wood stoves. The two exceptions are DC and NY, where there is a slight increase in CO

emissions from 2007 to 2020. There are no additional reductions expected from potential

new OTC control measures.

NH3 emissions are projected to increase in most states between 2007 and 2020. This is

due primarily to the growth predicted for fertilizer application on cropland and certain

livestock waste products. There are no additional reductions expected from any existing

c ontrol program or any potential new OTC control measures.

Un der the “growth only” scenario, NOx emissions are projected to decline by about 5

percent between 2007 and 2017 due to AEO fuel use projections that generally show

de creases in residential, commercial, and industrial fuel consumption. Under the “existing

controls” scenario, NOx emissions in 2017 are projected to decrease by about 6.7 percent
regionwide from 2007 levels due primarily to RICE MACT controls. Under the “potential

new OTC controls” scenario, NOx emissions are projected to decrease by about 17 percent

be tween 2007 and 2017 due to potential new controls on ICI boilers and new, small,

natural gas-fired units.

PM10-PRI emissions are projected to increase slightly in all states between 2007 and 2017.

R eentrained road dust on paved roads is a large source of PM10-PRI emissions and is

directly proportional to the projected increases in VMT on paved roads. These increases

fr om paved road dust are somewhat offset by decreases resulting from the turnover to

NSPS-compliant wood stoves and the AEO fuel use projections that generally showDocumentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 90



### decreases in residential, commercial, and industrial fuel consumption, especially for coal

and oil. There are no additional reductions expected from potential new OTC control

measures.

PM25-PRI emissions are projected to increase slightly from 2007 to 2020. Increases from

paved road dust are somewhat offset by decreases resulting from the turnover to NSPScompliant wood stoves and the AEO fuel use projections that generally show decreases in

residential, commercial, and industrial fuel consumption, especially for coal and oil. There

a re no additional reductions expected from potential new OTC control measures.

Under the “growth only” scenario, SO2 emissions are projected to decline by about 16

percent between 2007 and 2017 due to AEO fuel use projections that generally show

decreases in residential, commercial, and industrial fuel consumption, especially for coal

and oil. Under the “existing controls” scenario, SO2 emissions in 2017 are projected to

de crease by about 42 percent regionwide from 2007 levels due primarily to low sulfur fuel

oil limits in MD, NJ, and NY. Under the “potential new OTC controls” scenario, SO2

emissions are projected to decrease by about 68 percent between 2007 and 2017 due to the

potential implementation of low sulfur fuel oil limits in other MANE-VU states.

Under the “growth only” scenario, VOC emissions are projected to decrease slightly due to

the turnover to NSPS-compliant wood stoves and the turnover over of vehicles equipped

with on-board vapor recovery canisters. Under the “existing controls” scenario, VOC

emissions in 2017 are projected to decrease by about 10 percent regionwide from 2007

leve ls due implementation of various OTC control measures in multiple states. Under the

“potential new OTC controls” scenario, VOC emissions are projected to decrease by about

1 5 percent between 2007 and 2017 due to the continued implementation of both OTC

control measures.Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 91



### Exhibit 8 .1 2007 and Projected Future Year Area Source CO Emissions (tons)

2007 201 7

Growth Only 201 7
Growth & Existing

Control s 201 7

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s 20 20

Growth Only 20 20
Growth & Existing

Control s 20 20

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s

State 2007 201 7 GO 201 7 GC 2017 G X 20 20 G O 2020 G C 2020 G X

CT 41,496 38,245 38,161 38,161 37,352 37,266 37,266

DE 8,266 7,961 7,881 7,881 7,857 7,776 7,776

DC 5,488 5,319 5,247 5,247 5,274 5,200 5,200

ME 50,496 47,290 47,266 47,266 46,359 46,337 46,337

MD 74,188 72,896 72,631 72,631 72,501 72,231 72,231

MA 79,226 75,912 75,482 75,482 75,073 74,626 74,626

NH 39,677 37,470 37,405 37,405 36,883 36,816 36,816

NJ 77,687 74,444 73,562 73,562 73,298 72,406 72,406

NY 205,055 218,875 218,374 218,374 223,510 223,021 223,021

PA 217,079 205,020 203,489 203,489 202,084 200,507 200,507

RI 15,419 14,391 14,308 14,308 14,097 14,011 14,011

VT 51,109 46,595 46,551 46,551 45,288 45,243 45,243

VA 132,098 129,923 129,479 129,479 129,390 128,937 128,937

997,285 974,342 969,836 969,836 968,966 964,377 964,377Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 92



### Exhibit 8.2 2007 and Projected Future Year Area Source NH3 Emissions (tons)

2007 201 7

Growth Only 201 7
Growth & Existing

Control s 201 7

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s 20 20

Growth Only 20 20
Growth & Existing

Control s 20 20

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s

State 2007 201 7 GO 201 7 GC 2017 G X 20 20 G O 2020 G C 2020 G X

CT 4,421 4,451 4,451 4,451 4,476 4,476 4,476

DE 12,382 15,233 15,233 15,233 15,924 15,924 15,924

DC 183 188 188 188 191 191 191

ME 5,736 6,203 6,203 6,203 6,337 6,337 6,337

MD 26,006 26,081 26,081 26,081 26,102 26,102 26,102

MA 13,791 13,913 13,913 13,913 13,996 13,996 13,996

NH 1,500 1,528 1,528 1,528 1,534 1,534 1,534

NJ 15,736 16,375 16,375 16,375 16,593 16,593 16,593

NY 45,693 46,221 46,221 46,221 46,368 46,368 46,368

PA 72,569 77,383 77,383 77,383 78,550 78,550 78,550

RI 625 629 629 629 636 636 636

VT 8,013 8,013 8,013 8,013 8,013 8,013 8,013

VA 43,394 45,862 45,862 45,862 46,434 46,434 46,434

250,049 262,079 262,079 262,079 265,152 265,152 265,152Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 93



### Exhibit 8.3 2007 and Projected Future Year Area Source NOx Emissions (tons)

2007 201 7

Growth Only 201 7
Growth & Existing

Control s 201 7

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s 20 20

Growth Only 20 20
Growth & Existing

Control s 20 20

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s

State 2007 201 7 GO 201 7 GC 2017 G X 20 20 G O 2020 G C 2020 G X

CT 12,421 11,278 11,101 9,747 11,232 11,049 9,560

DE 2,237 2,292 2,210 1,796 2,300 2,218 1,768

DC 1,547 1,620 1,560 1,318 1,654 1,592 1,325

ME 6,656 5,960 5,960 5,734 5,851 5,851 5,633

MD 10,312 11,148 10,948 9,887 11,389 11,185 9,978

MA 20,252 19,316 18,984 16,730 19,498 19,151 16,638

NH 4,737 4,196 4,152 3,761 4,156 4,111 3,699

NJ 24,175 24,662 23,331 22,727 24,685 23,339 22,310

NY 72,053 63,961 63,711 55,057 63,337 63,082 53,872

PA 47,545 47,179 45,925 37,636 47,613 46,318 37,392

RI 3,469 3,370 3,301 2,830 3,400 3,329 2,788

VT 3,996 3,667 3,641 3,305 3,672 3,645 3,302

VA 19,056 18,704 18,411 18,411 18,821 18,520 18,520

228,457 217,352 213,235 188,939 217,608 213,387 186,784Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 94



### Exhibit 8.4 2007 and Projected Future Year Area Source PM10-PRI Emissions (tons)

2007 201 7

Growth Only 201 7
Growth & Existing

Control s 201 7

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s 20 20

Growth Only 20 20
Growth & Existing

Control s 20 20

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s

State 2007 201 7 GO 201 7 GC 2017 G X 20 20 G O 2020 G C 2020 G X

CT 30,577 31,061 31,052 31,052 31,224 31,214 31,214

DE 10,499 11,169 11,168 11,168 11,675 11,675 11,675

DC 4,873 5,078 5,077 5,077 5,141 5,141 5,141

ME 54,445 54,438 54,431 54,431 54,995 54,988 54,988

MD 72,454 78,559 78,555 78,555 80,345 80,340 80,340

MA 148,756 148,471 148,459 148,459 148,577 148,564 148,564

NH 27,742 28,916 28,912 28,912 29,420 29,416 29,416

NJ 39,140 41,202 41,189 41,189 42,104 42,090 42,090

NY 272,674 291,578 291,476 291,476 297,738 297,639 297,639

PA 287,998 295,026 295,006 295,006 298,020 298,001 298,001

RI 11,361 12,151 12,150 12,150 12,395 12,394 12,394

VT 47,993 47,675 47,671 47,671 47,823 47,819 47,819

VA 183,341 188,240 188,211 188,211 190,126 190,097 190,097

1,191,853 1,233,566 1,233,356 1,233,356 1,249,581 1,249,377 1,249,377Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 95



### Exhibit 8.5 2007 and Projected Future Year Area Source PM25-PRI Emissions (tons)

2007 201 7

Growth Only 201 7
Growth & Existing

Control s 201 7

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s 20 20

Growth Only 20 20
Growth & Existing

Control s 20 20

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s

State 2007 201 7 GO 201 7 GC 2017 G X 20 20 G O 2020 G C 2020 G X

CT 10,606 10,298 10,290 10,290 10,225 10,217 10,217

DE 3,031 3,131 3,131 3,131 3,212 3,212 3,212

DC 1,542 1,560 1,560 1,560 1,567 1,566 1,566

ME 12,526 12,068 12,062 12,062 12,005 11,999 11,999

MD 19,789 20,888 20,884 20,884 21,206 21,201 21,201

MA 30,438 29,955 29,945 29,945 29,893 29,883 29,883

NH 8,623 8,602 8,598 8,598 8,637 8,633 8,633

NJ 18,299 18,453 18,441 18,441 18,579 18,568 18,568

NY 63,906 68,492 68,408 68,408 70,080 70,000 70,000

PA 73,514 73,070 73,054 73,054 73,243 73,227 73,227

RI 3,896 3,923 3,922 3,922 3,937 3,936 3,936

VT 13,106 12,596 12,593 12,593 12,520 12,517 12,517

VA 44,102 44,872 44,851 44,851 45,237 45,216 45,216

303,378 307,908 307,739 307,739 310,340 310,175 310,175Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 96



### Exhibit 8.6 2007 and Projected Future Year Area Source SO2 Emissions (tons)

2007 201 7

Growth Only 201 7
Growth & Existing

Control s 201 7

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s 20 20

Growth Only 20 20
Growth & Existing

Control s 20 20

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s

State 2007 201 7 GO 201 7 GC 2017 G X 20 20 G O 2020 G C 2020 G X

CT 16,083 12,943 12,943 3,325 12,401 12,401 838

DE 1,144 946 946 107 911 911 106

DC 1,241 995 995 181 953 953 23

ME 9,812 7,870 7,870 1,450 7,609 7,609 200

MD 5,960 6,566 1,674 1,674 6,745 1,704 1,704

MA 19,859 15,996 15,996 4,093 15,357 15,357 1,391

NH 5,283 4,176 4,176 804 3,991 3,991 147

NJ 8,811 7,423 706 706 7,090 704 704

NY 70,044 58,753 11,651 11,651 57,030 11,670 11,670

PA 66,584 55,878 55,878 32,309 55,018 55,018 32,278

RI 3,897 3,222 3,222 1,270 3,108 3,108 491

VT 3,752 3,158 3,158 1,654 3,085 3,085 634

VA 17,098 14,880 14,880 14,880 14,616 14,616 14,616

229,569 192,807 134,097 74,104 187,914 131,127 64,803Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 97



### Exhibit 8.7 2007 and Projected Future Year Area Source VOC Emissions (tons)

2007 201 7

Growth Only 201 7
Growth & Existing

Control s 201 7

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s 20 20

Growth Only 20 20
Growth & Existing

Control s 20 20

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s

State 2007 201 7 GO 201 7 GC 2017 G X 20 20 G O 2020 G C 2020 G X

CT 57,253 55,386 46,364 43,764 54,857 45,849 43,229

DE 9,482 9,525 8,631 7,910 9,596 8,673 7,930

DC 5,568 5,540 5,324 4,932 5,591 5,369 4,965

ME 31,966 29,957 26,113 25,412 29,422 25,631 24,931

MD 64,429 66,399 57,045 52,018 66,825 57,042 51,901

MA 85,870 82,334 66,211 59,886 81,373 65,306 58,945

NH 22,343 22,117 20,894 17,258 22,041 20,807 17,164

NJ 98,121 97,769 89,972 83,323 97,551 89,699 82,956

NY 195,976 199,975 184,269 173,703 199,522 183,721 173,081

PA 176,781 170,123 164,863 153,166 167,744 162,374 150,596

RI 24,214 22,319 20,292 19,603 21,796 19,750 19,053

VT 14,108 12,516 12,311 10,972 12,127 11,904 10,561

VA 142,218 139,719 135,379 135,379 139,631 135,002 135,002

928,330 913,678 837,668 787,325 908,077 831,128 780,314Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 98



### 8.2 N ON EGU POINT SOURCE PROJECTED EMISSIONS

Exhibits 8.8 to 8.14 summarize the 2007 and projected future year area source emissions

by state for each criteria air pollutant. Seven values are listed for each pollutant:

2007 emissions 2017 projected emissions with growth only (GO) 2017 projected emissions with growth and existing controls (GC) 2017 projected emissions with growth, existing and potential new OTC controls (GX) 2020 projected emissions with growth only (GO) 2020 projected emissions with growth and existing controls (GC) 2020 projected emissions with growth, existing and potential new OTC controls (GX)

Detailed summaries by County and SCC are provided on MARAMA’s ftp site.

Regionwide, CO emissions increase slightly between 2007 and 2020. Maryland shows a

significant decline due to a source closure. Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont show

significant increases due to projected increases in nonEGU wood combustion. There are no

a dditional reductions expected from potential new OTC control measures.

NH3 emissions are projected to increase slightly between 2007 and 2020. There are no

additional reductions expected from any existing control program or any potential new

OTC control measures.

Under the “growth only” scenario, regional NOx emissions are projected to increase by

about 12 percent from 2007 to 2017. This is due partially to the projected increases in fuel

consumption and the addition of ERCs to the inventory. Under the “existing controls”

sc enario, NOx emissions are projected to be about 2 percent lower in 2017 than in 2007

because of petroleum refinery enforcement settlements; source shutdowns; ICI boiler

controls in New Hampshire, New Jersey, and New York; and additional controls on glass

furnace and cement kilns. Under the “potential new OTC controls” scenario, NOx

emissions are projected to be about 5 percent lower in 2017 than in 2007 because of ICI

boiler controls in additional states.

Unde r the “growth only” scenario, regional PM10-PRI and PM2.5-PRI emissions are

projected to increase slightly. Under the “existing controls” scenario, PM10-PRI and

P M2.5-PRI are project to be about 5 percent lower in 2017 than in 2007 due primarily to

reductions the ICI boiler MACT standard and source closures. There are no additional

re ductions expected from potential new OTC control measures.

Under the “growth only” scenario, regional SO2 emissions are projected to remain

relatively constant from 2007 to 2017. Under the “existing controls” scenario, SO2Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 99



### emissions are projected to be about 5 percent lower in 2017 than in 2007 because of

petroleum refinery enforcement settlements; source shutdowns; and low sulfur fuel oil

requirements in Maryland, New Jersey, and New York. Under the “potential new OTC

controls” scenario, SO2 emissions are projected to be about 8 percent lower in 2017 than

in 2007 because of low sulfur fuel oil limits in additional states. SO2 emission are

projected to be about 12 percent lower in 2020 than in 2007 because of additional low

sulfur fuel oil limits in outer zone states that are projected to take effect in 2018..

VOC emissions are projected to increase slightly between 2007 and 2020 under the

“growth only” scenario due primarily to the inclusion of ERCs in the future year

inventor ies. Under the “existing controls” scenario, VOC emissions are projected to be

less than 1 percent lower in 2017 than in 2007, with reductions resulting from the RICE

MACT standard and OTC adhesives application rule. Under the “potential new OTC

controls” scenario, VOC emissions are projected to be about 1.5 percent lower in 2017

than in 2007 due to the projected implementation of the OTC rule on large storage tanks.Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 100



### Exhibit 8.8 2007 and Projected Future Year NonEGU CO Emissions (tons)

2007 201 7

Growth Only 201 7
Growth & Existing

Control s 201 7

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s 20 20

Growth Only 20 20
Growth & Existing

Control s 20 20

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s

State 2007 201 7 GO 201 7 GC 2017 G X 20 20 G O 2020 G C 2020 G X

CT 2,583 3,067 3,041 3,041 3,197 3,171 3,171

DE 7,027 7,300 7,271 7,271 7,320 7,292 7,292

DC 301 335 327 327 338 330 330

ME 14,023 20,975 20,941 20,941 21,238 21,204 21,204

MD 77,574 68,273 68,221 68,221 68,323 68,268 68,268

MA 4,592 5,999 5,919 5,919 6,165 6,082 6,082

NH 2,255 4,977 4,975 4,975 5,084 5,081 5,081

NJ 6,907 7,227 7,151 7,151 7,323 7,246 7,246

NY 52,877 54,959 54,646 54,646 55,439 55,115 55,115

PA 80,540 84,178 83,211 83,211 84,799 83,800 83,800

RI 1,051 873 870 870 940 937 937

VT 702 1,242 1,242 1,242 1,294 1,294 1,294

VA 63,079 67,090 65,740 65,740 67,833 66,212 66,212

313,512 326,496 323,556 323,556 329,293 326,031 326,031Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 101



### Exhibit 8.9 2007 and Projected Future Year NonEGU NH3 Emissions (tons)

2007 201 7

Growth Only 201 7
Growth & Existing

Control s 201 7

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s 20 20

Growth Only 20 20
Growth & Existing

Control s 20 20

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s

State 2007 201 7 GO 201 7 GC 2017 G X 20 20 G O 2020 G C 2020 G X

CT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

DE 62 63 58 58 63 58 58

DC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

ME 605 588 585 585 569 566 566

MD 137 137 137 137 137 137 137

MA 365 353 353 353 357 357 357

NH 30 36 36 36 36 36 36

NJ 208 216 216 216 219 219 219

NY 1,064 1,083 1,083 1,083 1,086 1,086 1,086

PA 2,070 2,111 2,111 2,111 2,119 2,119 2,119

RI 16 13 13 13 13 13 13

VT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

VA 1,618 1,698 1,698 1,698 1,709 1,709 1,709

6,175 6,298 6,290 6,290 6,307 6,300 6,300Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 102



### Exhibit 8.10 2007 and Projected Future Year NonEGU NOx Emissions (tons)

2007 201 7

Growth Only 201 7
Growth & Existing

Control s 201 7

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s 20 20

Growth Only 20 20
Growth & Existing

Control s 20 20

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s

State 2007 201 7 GO 201 7 GC 2017 G X 20 20 G O 2020 G C 2020 G X

CT 6,302 8,949 8,913 8,531 9,336 9,297 8,900

DE 5,122 4,774 3,328 2,861 4,652 3,271 2,796

DC 734 844 779 598 860 792 609

ME 17,050 20,527 20,398 19,272 20,573 20,447 19,332

MD 23,472 28,520 26,322 25,197 28,694 26,496 25,353

MA 12,872 15,011 14,797 13,238 15,525 15,298 13,695

NH 2,687 5,529 3,388 3,277 5,642 3,467 3,356

NJ 13,517 14,880 11,879 11,879 15,155 12,092 12,092

NY 35,583 38,125 27,632 27,632 38,686 28,080 28,080

PA 71,382 76,378 63,904 61,046 77,220 62,606 59,691

RI 950 857 854 720 868 862 727

VT 441 791 791 743 808 808 761

VA 50,265 53,919 53,236 53,236 54,476 53,591 53,591

240,378 269,103 236,221 228,228 272,496 237,107 228,984Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 103



### Exhibit 8.11 2007 and Projected Future Year NonEGU PM10-PRI Emissions (tons)

2007 201 7

Growth Only 201 7
Growth & Existing

Control s 201 7

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s 20 20

Growth Only 20 20
Growth & Existing

Control s 20 20

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s

State 2007 201 7 GO 201 7 GC 2017 G X 20 20 G O 2020 G C 2020 G X

CT 645 702 594 594 717 609 609

DE 1,197 1,140 973 973 1,115 947 947

DC 46 52 29 29 53 30 30

ME 4,748 4,667 4,475 4,475 4,636 4,449 4,449

MD 5,711 6,177 5,498 5,498 6,181 5,502 5,502

MA 3,029 2,927 2,904 2,904 2,977 2,953 2,953

NH 1,141 1,259 1,258 1,258 1,270 1,269 1,269

NJ 3,147 3,381 3,331 3,331 3,444 3,392 3,392

NY 4,463 4,572 4,260 4,260 4,595 4,283 4,283

PA 22,275 22,832 20,891 20,891 22,937 20,996 20,996

RI 173 174 174 174 179 179 179

VT 146 128 128 128 128 128 128

VA 13,028 13,419 12,517 12,517 13,507 12,602 12,602

59,749 61,430 57,032 57,032 61,741 57,339 57,339Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 104



### Exhibit 8.12 2007 and Projected Future Year NonEGU PM25-PRI Emissions (tons)

2007 201 7

Growth Only 201 7
Growth & Existing

Control s 201 7

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s 20 20

Growth Only 20 20
Growth & Existing

Control s 20 20

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s

State 2007 201 7 GO 201 7 GC 2017 G X 20 20 G O 2020 G C 2020 G X

CT 573 627 526 526 641 540 540

DE 1,083 1,021 876 876 993 848 848

DC 43 48 28 28 48 29 29

ME 3,727 3,811 3,658 3,658 3,802 3,653 3,653

MD 3,876 4,328 3,764 3,764 4,336 3,772 3,772

MA 2,572 2,495 2,485 2,485 2,542 2,532 2,532

NH 1,061 1,169 1,169 1,169 1,179 1,179 1,179

NJ 2,452 2,583 2,533 2,533 2,625 2,574 2,574

NY 2,415 2,517 2,329 2,329 2,538 2,350 2,350

PA 13,389 13,851 12,729 12,729 13,934 12,845 12,845

RI 124 124 124 124 128 128 128

VT 114 98 98 98 97 97 97

VA 10,296 10,611 9,885 9,885 10,674 9,947 9,947

41,726 43,281 40,204 40,204 43,538 40,492 40,492Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 105



### Exhibit 8.13 2007 and Projected Future Year NonEGU SO2 Emissions (tons)

2007 201 7

Growth Only 201 7
Growth & Existing

Control s 201 7

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s 20 20

Growth Only 20 20
Growth & Existing

Control s 20 20

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s

State 2007 201 7 GO 201 7 GC 2017 G X 20 20 G O 2020 G C 2020 G X

CT 3,185 3,236 3,236 3,117 3,253 3,253 2,773

DE 8,206 7,883 6,541 5,598 7,703 6,357 5,378

DC 471 510 380 358 518 382 337

ME 15,571 13,194 12,678 12,462 13,049 12,545 6,510

MD 31,176 36,658 34,278 34,278 36,636 34,289 34,289

MA 9,057 8,259 8,041 7,592 8,254 8,041 5,192

NH 2,734 2,655 2,655 2,582 2,658 2,658 1,030

NJ 3,401 3,736 2,591 2,591 3,818 2,645 2,645

NY 44,307 44,712 42,072 42,072 44,792 42,150 42,150

PA 57,330 58,464 53,489 49,814 58,627 53,652 49,975

RI 1,501 1,415 1,415 1,321 1,437 1,437 1,002

VT 316 248 248 243 243 243 92

VA 54,486 55,328 52,044 52,044 55,623 52,338 52,338

231,742 236,297 219,668 214,071 236,610 219,988 203,710Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 106



### Exhibit 8.14 2007 and Projected Future Year NonEGU VOC Emissions (tons)

2007 201 7

Growth Only 201 7
Growth & Existing

Control s 201 7

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s 20 20

Growth Only 20 20
Growth & Existing

Control s 20 20

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s

State 2007 201 7 GO 201 7 GC 2017 G X 20 20 G O 2020 G C 2020 G X

CT 1,447 1,547 1,530 1,468 1,574 1,556 1,476

DE 3,406 3,068 2,588 2,547 2,972 2,572 2,530

DC 58 60 59 59 60 59 59

ME 4,987 4,931 4,885 4,745 4,760 4,718 4,559

MD 4,598 5,745 5,715 5,466 5,707 5,677 5,367

MA 4,094 4,156 4,102 4,057 4,077 4,022 3,965

NH 807 1,490 1,489 1,448 1,479 1,478 1,440

NJ 10,106 11,044 10,086 10,086 11,180 10,041 10,041

NY 9,772 9,948 9,815 9,640 9,985 9,849 9,635

PA 28,195 29,153 28,712 28,236 29,376 28,925 28,396

RI 922 950 945 919 967 963 930

VT 373 316 316 316 302 302 302

VA 35,018 35,538 35,461 35,461 35,670 35,593 35,593

103,783 107,947 105,705 104,450 108,110 105,755 104,292Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 107



### 8.3 NONROAD NMIM S OURCE PROJECT EMISSIONS

Exhibits 8.15 to 8

. 21 summarize the 2007 and projected emissions for NONROAD model

sources by state for each criteria air pollutant. Seven values are listed for each pollutant:

2007 emissions 2017 projected emissions with growth only (GO) 2017 projected emissions with growth and existing controls (GC) 2017 projected emissions with growth, existing and potential new OTC controls (GX) 2020 projected emissions with growth only (GO) 2020 projected emissions with growth and existing controls (GC) 2020 projected emissions with growth, existing and potential new OTC controls (GX)

Detailed summaries by County and SCC are provided on MARAMA’s ftp site.

It is not possible to isolate the emission changes due to growth versus the emission changes

due to future controls in a single NMIM run. Therefore, the emissions under the growth

only (GO) and growth and existing controls (GC) scenarios are the same. There are

currently no potential new OTC control measures for sources whose emissions are

estimated by the NONROAD model. Therefore, the emissions under the growth and

existing controls (GC) and with growth, existing and potential new OTC controls (GX)

scenarios are the same.

Exhibit 8. 1 5 presents a state-level comparison of 2007, 2017 and 2020 annual CO

emissions for NMIM/NONROAD sources. Emissions decrease by about 21% between

2007 and 2013, but remain relatively flat from 2017 to 2020.

Exhibit 8.16 shows that annual NH3 emissions are very small relative to other source

sectors (e.g., agricultural ammonia) and generally increase slightly from 2007 to 2020.

Ex hibit 8.17 shows that annual NOx emissions decrease by about 42% between 2007 and

2020 a nd by about 49% between 2007 and 2020 due to the turnover to newer engines

subject to more stringent national emission standards.

Exhibit s 8 .18 and 8 .19 shows that PM10-PRI and PM25-PRI emissions decrease about

33% between 2007 and 2020 and by about 41% between 2007 and 2020.

Exhibit 8.20 shows that annual SO2 emissions are virtually eliminated by 2017 due to

lowe r national limits on the sulfur content of nonroad diesel fuel.

Exhibit 8.21 shows that annual VOC emissions decrease by about 41% between 2007 and

2020 a nd by about 46% between 2007 and 2020 due to the turnover to newer engines

subject to more stringent national emission standards.Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 108



### Exhibit 8.15 2007/2013/2017/2020 NMIM/NONROAD CO Emissions by State (tons)

2007 201 7

Growth Only 201 7
Growth & Existing

Control s 201 7

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s 20 20

Growth Only 20 20
Growth & Existing

Control s 20 20

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s

State 2007 201 7 GO 201 7 GC 2017 G X 20 20 G O 2020 G C 2020 G X

CT 181,817 143,586 143,586 143,586 147,193 147,193 147,193

DE 55,173 40,188 40,188 40,188 40,703 40,703 40,703

DC 14,319 10,246 10,246 10,246 10,322 10,322 10,322

ME 131,319 92,029 92,029 92,029 90,629 90,629 90,629

MD 297,832 247,766 247,766 247,766 254,083 254,083 254,083

MA 324,793 240,812 240,812 240,812 246,540 246,540 246,540

NH 90,461 73,012 73,012 73,012 73,294 73,294 73,294

NJ 445,302 362,054 362,054 362,054 372,857 372,857 372,857

NY 911,813 716,153 716,153 716,153 730,897 730,897 730,897

PA 719,517 533,798 533,798 533,798 542,133 542,133 542,133

RI 54,028 35,863 35,863 35,863 36,713 36,713 36,713

VT 52,497 35,978 35,978 35,978 35,608 35,608 35,608

VA 415,093 335,531 335,531 335,531 341,458 341,458 341,458

3,693,965 2,867,016 2,867,016 2,867,016 2,922,431 2,922,431 2,922,431Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 109



### Exhibit 8.16 2007/2013/2017/2020 NMIM/NONROAD NH3 Emissions by State (tons)

2007 201 7

Growth Only 201 7
Growth & Existing

Control s 201 7

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s 20 20

Growth Only 20 20
Growth & Existing

Control s 20 20

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s

State 2007 201 7 GO 201 7 GC 2017 G X 20 20 G O 2020 G C 2020 G X

CT 16 20 20 20 21 21 21

DE 6 6 6 6 7 7 7

DC 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

ME 13 15 15 15 15 15 15

MD 29 35 35 35 37 37 37

MA 28 34 34 34 36 36 36

NH 10 12 12 12 13 13 13

NJ 40 47 47 47 50 50 50

NY 83 99 99 99 105 105 105

PA 60 71 71 71 74 74 74

RI 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

VT 5 6 6 6 6 6 6

VA 45 53 53 53 55 55 55

342 405 405 405 427 427 427Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 110



### Exhibit 8.17 2007/2013/2017/2020 NMIM/NONROAD NOx Emissions by State (tons)

2007 201 7

Growth Only 201 7
Growth & Existing

Control s 201 7

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s 20 20

Growth Only 20 20
Growth & Existing

Control s 20 20

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s

State 2007 201 7 GO 201 7 GC 2017 G X 20 20 G O 2020 G C 2020 G X

CT 16,056 8,748 8,748 8,748 7,786 7,786 7,786

DE 4,998 3,096 3,096 3,096 2,723 2,723 2,723

DC 2,788 1,534 1,534 1,534 1,250 1,250 1,250

ME 7,439 5,216 5,216 5,216 4,783 4,783 4,783

MD 25,726 15,357 15,357 15,357 13,481 13,481 13,481

MA 26,471 14,820 14,820 14,820 13,163 13,163 13,163

NH 8,562 5,530 5,530 5,530 5,277 5,277 5,277

NJ 36,345 20,713 20,713 20,713 18,361 18,361 18,361

NY 72,271 43,490 43,490 43,490 38,871 38,871 38,871

PA 55,362 30,467 30,467 30,467 26,182 26,182 26,182

RI 4,388 2,348 2,348 2,348 2,114 2,114 2,114

VT 3,743 2,364 2,364 2,364 2,109 2,109 2,109

VA 41,325 23,658 23,658 23,658 20,189 20,189 20,189

305,475 177,343 177,343 177,343 156,288 156,288 156,288Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 111



### Exhibit 8.18 2007/2013/2017/2020 NMIM/NONROAD PM10-PRI Emissions by State

(tons)

2007 201 7

Growth Only 201 7
Growth & Existing

Control s 201 7

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s 20 20

Growth Only 20 20
Growth & Existing

Control s 20 20

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s

State 2007 201 7 GO 201 7 GC 2017 G X 20 20 G O 2020 G C 2020 G X

CT 1,412 976 976 976 868 868 868

DE 476 300 300 300 258 258 258

DC 242 138 138 138 106 106 106

ME 1,151 810 810 810 706 706 706

MD 2,600 1,781 1,781 1,781 1,570 1,570 1,570

MA 2,384 1,630 1,630 1,630 1,438 1,438 1,438

NH 846 595 595 595 527 527 527

NJ 3,377 2,347 2,347 2,347 2,086 2,086 2,086

NY 7,059 4,684 4,684 4,684 4,075 4,075 4,075

PA 5,623 3,717 3,717 3,717 3,217 3,217 3,217

RI 367 229 229 229 202 202 202

VT 482 327 327 327 281 281 281

VA 4,128 2,695 2,695 2,695 2,319 2,319 2,319

30,146 20,229 20,229 20,229 17,652 17,652 17,652Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 112



### Exhibit 8.19 2007/2013/2017/2020 NMIM/NONROAD PM25-PRI Emissions by State

(tons)

2007 201 7

Growth Only 201 7
Growth & Existing

Control s 201 7

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s 20 20

Growth Only 20 20
Growth & Existing

Control s 20 20

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s

State 2007 201 7 GO 201 7 GC 2017 G X 20 20 G O 2020 G C 2020 G X

CT 1,343 922 922 922 818 818 818

DE 453 284 284 284 243 243 243

DC 234 132 132 132 102 102 102

ME 1,080 756 756 756 657 657 657

MD 2,473 1,681 1,681 1,681 1,477 1,477 1,477

MA 2,268 1,540 1,540 1,540 1,355 1,355 1,355

NH 799 559 559 559 494 494 494

NJ 3,213 2,217 2,217 2,217 1,964 1,964 1,964

NY 6,715 4,430 4,430 4,430 3,843 3,843 3,843

PA 5,346 3,511 3,511 3,511 3,029 3,029 3,029

RI 349 216 216 216 191 191 191

VT 455 307 307 307 263 263 263

VA 3,933 2,549 2,549 2,549 2,185 2,185 2,185

28,660 19,105 19,105 19,105 16,621 16,621 16,621Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 113



### Exhibit 8.20 2007/2013/2017/2020 NMIM/NONROAD SO2 Emissions by State (tons)

2007 201 7

Growth Only 201 7
Growth & Existing

Control s 201 7

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s 20 20

Growth Only 20 20
Growth & Existing

Control s 20 20

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s

State 2007 201 7 GO 201 7 GC 2017 G X 20 20 G O 2020 G C 2020 G X

CT 802 30 30 30 32 32 32

DE 266 7 7 7 7 7 7

DC 196 3 3 3 3 3 3

ME 416 16 16 16 17 17 17

MD 1,436 36 36 36 38 38 38

MA 1,377 41 41 41 44 44 44

NH 441 16 16 16 18 18 18

NJ 1,905 55 55 55 58 58 58

NY 3,957 118 118 118 126 126 126

PA 2,972 84 84 84 86 86 86

RI 211 7 7 7 7 7 7

VT 202 7 7 7 7 7 7

VA 2,284 90 90 90 94 94 94

16,464 511 511 511 537 537 537Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 114



### Exhibit 8 .21 2007/2013/2017/2020 NMIM/NONROAD VOC Emissions by State

(tons)

2007 201 7

Growth Only 201 7
Growth & Existing

Control s 201 7

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s 20 20

Growth Only 20 20
Growth & Existing

Control s 20 20

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s

State 2007 201 7 GO 201 7 GC 2017 G X 20 20 G O 2020 G C 2020 G X

CT 20,721 11,803 11,803 11,803 10,985 10,985 10,985

DE 7,157 3,888 3,888 3,888 3,498 3,498 3,498

DC 1,324 749 749 749 710 710 710

ME 29,880 19,303 19,303 19,303 16,729 16,729 16,729

MD 35,160 21,226 21,226 21,226 19,890 19,890 19,890

MA 35,676 20,510 20,510 20,510 18,990 18,990 18,990

NH 17,108 11,030 11,030 11,030 9,785 9,785 9,785

NJ 47,521 27,430 27,430 27,430 25,802 25,802 25,802

NY 114,935 67,238 67,238 67,238 60,945 60,945 60,945

PA 86,397 51,382 51,382 51,382 46,399 46,399 46,399

RI 6,721 2,885 2,885 2,885 2,657 2,657 2,657

VT 10,339 6,714 6,714 6,714 5,864 5,864 5,864

VA 55,135 32,141 32,141 32,141 29,303 29,303 29,303

468,074 276,299 276,299 276,299 251,556 251,556 251,556Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 115



### 8.4 NONROAD COMMERCIAL MARINE VESSEL EMISSIONS

Exhibits 8.22 to 8

. 28 summarize the 2007 and projected future year commercial marine

vessel emissions by state for each criteria air pollutant. Seven values are listed for each

pollutant:

2007 emissions

201 7 projected emissions with growth only (GO)

201 7 projected emissions with growth and existing controls (GC) 2017 projected emissions with growth, existing and potential new OTC controls (G X )

20 20 projected emissions with growth only (GO) 2020 projected emissions with growth and existing controls (G C ) 2020 projected emissions with growth, existing and potential new OTC controls (G X )

Detailed summaries by County and SCC are provided on MARAMA’s ftp site.

Emissions of all pollutants except NH3 are projected to decrease as a result of Federal

rules affecting Category 1 / 2 and Category 3 marine engines, including more stringent

engine emission standards and sulfur in fuel limitations. There are currently no potential

new OTC control measures for commercial marine vessels.

Exhibit 8.22 presents a state-level comparison of 2007, 2017 and 2020 annual CO

emissions for commercial marine vessels. Emissions decrease by about 13 percent from

2007 to 2017, and 12 percent from 2007 to 2020.

Exhibit 8.23 shows that there are very little NH3 emissions from this sector.

Exhibit 8.24 shows that annual NOx emissions from commercial marine vessels decrease

by 32 percent from 2007 to 2017 and 40 percent from 2007 to 2020.

Exhibits 9.25 and 9.26 show that annual PM10-PRI and PM2.5-PRI emissions from

commercial marine vessels decrease substantially after 2007. For both pollutants,

emissions are reduced by about 57 percent from 2007 to 2017 and 66 percent from 2007 to

2020.

Exhibit 8.27 shows that that annual SO2 emissions from commercial marine vessels

decrease dramatically after 2007. SO2 emissions are reduced by about 89 percent from

2007 to 2017 and 93 percent from 2007 to 2020.

Ex hibit 8.28 shows that annual VOC emissions from commercial marine vessels decrease

b y 15 percent from 2007 to 2017, and 20 percent from 2007 to 2020.Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 116



### Ex hibit 8.22 2007 and Projected CO Emissions for CMV (tons)

2007 201 7

Growth Only 201 7
Growth & Existing

Control s 201 7

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s 20 20

Growth Only 20 20
Growth & Existing

Control s 20 20

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s

State 2007 201 7 GO 201 7 GC 2017 G X 20 20 G O 2020 G C 2020 G X

CT 1,078 1,073 912 912 1,102 908 908

DE 554 543 485 485 554 484 484

DC 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

ME 522 521 438 438 536 435 435

MD 2,795 2,792 2,350 2,350 2,871 2,337 2,337

MA 1,473 1,475 1,232 1,232 1,518 1,225 1,225

NH 89 84 83 83 85 84 84

NJ 1,619 2,202 2,067 2,067 2,427 2,254 2,254

NY 3,476 3,452 2,961 2,961 3,541 2,949 2,949

PA 1,294 1,283 1,106 1,106 1,315 1,102 1,102

RI 522 523 437 437 538 434 434

VT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

VA 3,735 3,731 3,166 3,166 3,831 3,150 3,150

17,156 17,681 15,238 15,238 18,319 15,363 15,363Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 117



### Exhibit 8.23 2007 and Projected NH3 Emissions for CMV (tons)

2007 201 7

Growth Only 201 7
Growth & Existing

Control s 201 7

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s 20 20

Growth Only 20 20
Growth & Existing

Control s 20 20

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s

State 2007 201 7 GO 201 7 GC 2017 G X 20 20 G O 2020 G C 2020 G X

CT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

DE 0 0 0 0 0 0

DC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

ME 0 0 0 0 0 0

MD 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

MA 0 0 0 0 0 0

NH 0 0 0 0 0 0

NJ 8 11 11 11 12 12 12

NY 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

PA 13 12 12 12 13 13 13

RI 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

VT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

VA 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

44 46 46 46 47 47 47Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 118



### Exhibit 8.24 2007 and Projected NOx Emissions for CMV (tons)

2007 201 7

Growth Only 201 7
Growth & Existing

Control s 201 7

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s 20 20

Growth Only 20 20
Growth & Existing

Control s 20 20

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s

State 2007 201 7 GO 201 7 GC 2017 G X 20 20 G O 2020 G C 2020 G X

CT 6,528 6,454 4,162 4,162 6,608 3,642 3,642

DE 5,095 4,966 3,217 3,217 5,054 2,857 2,857

DC 6 6 4 4 6 3 3

ME 1,659 1,638 1,057 1,057 1,676 926 926

MD 16,027 15,929 10,256 10,256 16,343 8,922 8,922

MA 3,246 3,247 2,086 2,086 3,340 1,803 1,803

NH 271 258 169 169 260 154 154

NJ 11,197 15,318 11,140 11,140 16,906 10,251 10,251

NY 28,180 27,913 17,990 17,990 28,598 15,709 15,709

PA 11,378 11,237 7,249 7,249 11,498 6,350 6,350

RI 2,829 2,825 1,816 1,816 2,904 1,572 1,572

VT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

VA 21,760 21,643 14,445 14,445 22,172 12,750 12,750

108,175 111,435 73,591 73,591 115,365 64,937 64,937Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 119



### Exhibit 8.25 2007 and Projected PM10-PRI Emissions for CMV (tons)

2007 201 7

Growth Only 201 7
Growth & Existing

Control s 201 7

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s 20 20

Growth Only 20 20
Growth & Existing

Control s 20 20

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s

State 2007 201 7 GO 201 7 GC 2017 G X 20 20 G O 2020 G C 2020 G X

CT 312 305 124 124 310 101 101

DE 327 315 99 99 319 75 75

DC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

ME 395 384 144 144 391 114 114

MD 657 649 301 301 664 251 251

MA 316 315 162 162 323 138 138

NH 13 12 3 3 13 2 2

NJ 622 887 244 244 989 241 241

NY 1,671 1,649 753 753 1,686 626 626

PA 524 511 197 197 519 158 158

RI 112 112 55 55 115 47 47

VT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

VA 947 934 461 461 953 394 394

5,897 6,072 2,543 2,543 6,283 2,146 2,146Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 120



### Exhibit 8.26 2007 and Projected PM25-PRI Emissions for CMV (tons)

2007 201 7

Growth Only 201 7
Growth & Existing

Control s 201 7

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s 20 20

Growth Only 20 20
Growth & Existing

Control s 20 20

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s

State 2007 201 7 GO 201 7 GC 2017 G X 20 20 G O 2020 G C 2020 G X

CT 296 290 119 119 295 97 97

DE 305 294 93 93 297 70 70

DC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

ME 364 354 132 132 359 105 105

MD 606 600 285 285 614 239 239

MA 290 289 149 149 297 127 127

NH 12 11 3 3 12 2 2

NJ 575 820 225 225 915 223 223

NY 1,541 1,520 695 695 1,555 578 578

PA 484 472 183 183 480 146 146

RI 108 107 53 53 110 45 45

VT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

VA 908 896 446 446 915 383 383

5,491 5,654 2,384 2,384 5,851 2,016 2,016Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 121



### Exhibit 8.27 2007 and Projected SO2 Emissions for CMV (tons)

2007 201 7

Growth Only 201 7
Growth & Existing

Control s 201 7

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s 20 20

Growth Only 20 20
Growth & Existing

Control s 20 20

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s

State 2007 201 7 GO 201 7 GC 2017 G X 20 20 G O 2020 G C 2020 G X

CT 1,386 1,327 147 147 1,341 60 60

DE 2,079 1,984 225 225 2,000 84 84

DC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0

ME 189 185 17 17 189 12 12

MD 2,170 2,099 217 217 2,128 109 109

MA 698 684 64 64 698 42 42

NH 506 482 55 55 486 20 20

NJ 6,712 10,085 403 403 11,405 452 452

NY 9,321 9,181 821 821 9,383 601 601

PA 3,067 2,909 343 343 2,925 111 111

RI 632 607 66 66 613 28 28

VT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

VA 4,058 3,928 940 940 3,969 747 747

30,820 33,473 3,296 3,296 35,139 2,268 2,268Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 122



### Exhibit 8.28 2007 and Projected VOC Emissions for CMV (tons)

2007 201 7

Growth Only 201 7
Growth & Existing

Control s 201 7

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s 20 20

Growth Only 20 20
Growth & Existing

Control s 20 20

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s

State 2007 201 7 GO 201 7 GC 2017 G X 20 20 G O 2020 G C 2020 G X

CT 

### 161 158 127 127 162 117 117

DE 

### 158 153 133 133 156 127 127

DC 

### 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

ME 

### 234 234 168 168 240 145 145

MD 

### 371 367 282 282 376 252 252

MA 

### 528 529 381 381 544 328 328

NH 

### 23 21 21 21 22 21 21

NJ 

### 658 857 753 753 933 754 754

NY 

### 1,906 1,895 1,681 1,681 1,918 1,606 1,606

PA 

### 538 534 406 406 547 360 360

RI 

### 64 64 47 47 66 42 42

VT 

### 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

VA 

### 523 518 409 409 530 370 370

5,164 5,331 4,410 4,410 5,493 4,121 4,121Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 123



### 8.5 NONROAD AIRPORT EMISSIONS

Exhibits 9.29 to 9.35 summarize the 2007 and projected future year airport emissions by

state for each criteria air pollutant. Seven values are listed for each pollutant:

2007 emissions 2017 projected emissions with growth only (GO) 2017 projected emissions with growth and existing controls (GC) 2017 projected emissions with growth, existing and potential new OTC controls (GX) 2020 projected emissions with growth only (GO) 2020 projected emissions with growth and existing controls (GC) 2020 projected emissions with growth, existing and potential new OTC controls (GX)

Detailed summaries by County and SCC are provided on MARAMA’s ftp site.

There were no NH3 emissions reported for airport operations. Emissions of other

poll utants are projected to change as a result of changes in airline activity levels. No state

or Federal rules were identified that would reduce emissions from aircraft operations in the

future. There are currently no potential new OTC control measures for airports.

CO , PM10, PM2.5 and VOC emissions are projected to remain relatively constant between

2007 levels by 2017. By 2020, the will be a slight increase in emissions from 2007 due to

increased operations by 2020.

NOx and SO2 emissions are project ed to increase by 7 percent from 2007 levels by 2017

and by 13 percent by 2020 due to increased air traffic.Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 124



### Exhibit 8.29 2007 and Projected CO Emissions for Airports (tons)

2007 201 7

Growth Only 201 7
Growth & Existing

Control s 201 7

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s 20 20

Growth Only 20 20
Growth & Existing

Control s 20 20

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s

State 2007 201 7 GO 201 7 GC 2017 G X 20 20 G O 2020 G C 2020 G X

CT 4,659 4,224 4,224 4,224 4,386 4,386 4,386

DE 1,625 1,550 1,550 1,550 1,593 1,593 1,593

DC 14 14 14 14 14 14 14

ME 32,879 32,774 32,774 32,774 32,802 32,802 32,802

MD 10,265 10,042 10,042 10,042 10,335 10,335 10,335

MA 15,495 14,592 14,592 14,592 14,940 14,940 14,940

NH 2,089 1,861 1,861 1,861 1,883 1,883 1,883

NJ 21,878 21,837 21,837 21,837 22,411 22,411 22,411

NY 17,403 18,579 18,579 18,579 19,706 19,706 19,706

PA 26,540 26,165 26,165 26,165 27,345 27,345 27,345

RI 1,739 2,255 2,255 2,255 2,280 2,280 2,280

VT 2,420 2,100 2,100 2,100 2,127 2,127 2,127

VA 22,009 22,689 22,689 22,689 23,190 23,190 23,190

159,016 158,684 158,684 158,684 163,012 163,012 163,012Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 125



### Exhibit 8.30 2007 and Projected NH3 Emissions for Airports (tons)

2007 201 7

Growth Only 201 7
Growth & Existing

Control s 201 7

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s 20 20

Growth Only 20 20
Growth & Existing

Control s 20 20

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s

State 2007 201 7 GO 201 7 GC 2017 G X 20 20 G O 2020 G C 2020 G X

CT 

### 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

DE 

### 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

DC 

### 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

ME 

### 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

MD 

### 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

MA 

### 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NH 

### 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NJ 

### 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NY 

### 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

PA 

### 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

RI 

### 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

VT 

### 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

VA 

### 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 126



### Exhibit 8.31 2007 and Projected NOx Emissions for Airports (tons)

2007 201 7

Growth Only 201 7
Growth & Existing

Control s 201 7

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s 20 20

Growth Only 20 20
Growth & Existing

Control s 20 20

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s

State 2007 201 7 GO 201 7 GC 2017 G X 20 20 G O 2020 G C 2020 G X

CT 713 657 657 657 688 688 688

DE 805 801 801 801 802 802 802

DC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

ME 134 144 144 144 144 144 144

MD 1,910 2,021 2,021 2,021 2,119 2,119 2,119

MA 3,190 3,267 3,267 3,267 3,365 3,365 3,365

NH 278 256 256 256 260 260 260

NJ 5,105 5,408 5,408 5,408 5,612 5,612 5,612

NY 6,998 8,081 8,081 8,081 8,789 8,789 8,789

PA 3,738 4,094 4,094 4,094 4,406 4,406 4,406

RI 289 281 281 281 294 294 294

VT 103 113 113 113 117 117 117

VA 5,520 5,762 5,762 5,762 5,889 5,889 5,889

28,783 30,885 30,885 30,885 32,485 32,485 32,485Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 127



### Exhibit 8.32 2007 and Projected PM10-PRI Emissions for Airports (tons)

2007 201 7

Growth Only 201 7
Growth & Existing

Control s 201 7

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s 20 20

Growth Only 20 20
Growth & Existing

Control s 20 20

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s

State 2007 201 7 GO 201 7 GC 2017 G X 20 20 G O 2020 G C 2020 G X

CT 66 59 59 59 61 61 61

DE 27 25 25 25 25 25 25

DC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

ME 83 82 82 82 82 82 82

MD 74 70 70 70 73 73 73

MA 295 284 284 284 289 289 289

NH 37 34 34 34 34 34 34

NJ 170 173 173 173 177 177 177

NY 140 158 158 158 170 170 170

PA 396 385 385 385 400 400 400

RI 22 33 33 33 33 33 33

VT 46 40 40 40 40 40 40

VA 821 840 840 840 847 847 847

2,176 2,183 2,183 2,183 2,234 2,234 2,234Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 128



### Exhibit 8.33 2007 and Projected PM25-PRI Emissions for Airports (tons)

2007 201 7

Growth Only 201 7
Growth & Existing

Control s 201 7

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s 20 20

Growth Only 20 20
Growth & Existing

Control s 20 20

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s

State 2007 201 7 GO 201 7 GC 2017 G X 20 20 G O 2020 G C 2020 G X

CT 51 46 46 46 48 48 48

DE 19 17 17 17 18 18 18

DC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

ME 61 61 61 61 61 61 61

MD 16 17 17 17 17 17 17

MA 215 208 208 208 212 212 212

NH 27 25 25 25 25 25 25

NJ 143 146 146 146 150 150 150

NY 139 157 157 157 170 170 170

PA 294 288 288 288 300 300 300

RI 17 25 25 25 25 25 25

VT 32 28 28 28 29 29 29

VA 580 595 595 595 601 601 601

1,595 1,613 1,613 1,613 1,656 1,656 1,656Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 129



### Exhibit 8.34 2007 and Projected SO2 Emissions for Airports (tons)

2007 201 7

Growth Only 201 7
Growth & Existing

Control s 201 7

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s 20 20

Growth Only 20 20
Growth & Existing

Control s 20 20

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s

State 2007 201 7 GO 201 7 GC 2017 G X 20 20 G O 2020 G C 2020 G X

CT 96 87 87 87 91 91 91

DE 55 55 55 55 55 55 55

DC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

ME 14 16 16 16 16 16 16

MD 247 255 255 255 266 266 266

MA 218 226 226 226 236 236 236

NH 28 26 26 26 26 26 26

NJ 507 534 534 534 557 557 557

NY 699 808 808 808 877 877 877

PA 416 455 455 455 488 488 488

RI 30 29 29 29 31 31 31

VT 12 13 13 13 13 13 13

VA 424 455 455 455 466 466 466

2,746 2,959 2,959 2,959 3,122 3,122 3,122Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 130



### Exhibit 8.35 2007 and Projected VOC Emissions for Airports (tons)

2007 201 7

Growth Only 201 7
Growth & Existing

Control s 201 7

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s 20 20

Growth Only 20 20
Growth & Existing

Control s 20 20

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s

State 2007 201 7 GO 201 7 GC 2017 G X 20 20 G O 2020 G C 2020 G X

CT 509 452 452 452 469 469 469

DE 620 598 598 598 600 600 600

DC 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

ME 161 161 161 161 162 162 162

MD 1,365 1,228 1,228 1,228 1,265 1,265 1,265

MA 1,129 1,080 1,080 1,080 1,105 1,105 1,105

NH 134 116 116 116 118 118 118

NJ 2,438 2,426 2,426 2,426 2,498 2,498 2,498

NY 1,571 1,761 1,761 1,761 1,896 1,896 1,896

PA 2,813 2,879 2,879 2,879 3,004 3,004 3,004

RI 112 166 166 166 168 168 168

VT 204 179 179 179 181 181 181

VA 2,764 2,764 2,764 2,764 2,802 2,802 2,802

13,822 13,813 13,813 13,813 14,269 14,269 14,269Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 131



### 8.6 NONROAD RAILROAD LOCOMOTIVE EMISSIONS

Exhibits 9.36 to 9.42 summarize the 2007 and projected future year railroad locomotive

emissions by state for each criteria air pollutant. Seven values are listed for each pollutant:

2007 emissions 2017 projected emissions with growth only (GO)

2017 projected emissions with growth and existing controls (GC) 2017 projected emissions with growth, existing and potential new OTC controls (GX) 2020 projected emissions with growth only (GO) 2020 projected emissions with growth and existing controls (GC)

202 0 projected emissions with growth, existing and potential new OTC controls (GX)

Detailed summaries by County and SCC are provided on MARAMA’s ftp site.

Emissions of all pollutants except CO and NH3 are projected to decrease as a result of

Federal rules affecting railroad locomotive engines, including more stringent engine

emission standards and sulfur in fuel limitations. There are currently no potential new

OTC control measures for railroad locomotives.

Exhibit 8.36 presents a state-level comparison of 2007, 2017 and 2020 annual CO

emissions for railroad locomotives. CO emissions show small changes (< 7 percent)

between 2007 and 2017/2020.

Ex hibit 8.37 shows that there are very little NH3 emissions from this sector.

Exhibit 8.38 shows that annual NOx emissions from railroad locomotives decrease by 33

pe rcent from 2007 to 2017, and 39 percent from 2007 to 2020.

Exhibits 9.39 and 9. 40 show that annual PM10-PRI and PM2.5-PRI emissions from

railroad locomotives decrease substantially after 2007. For both pollutants, emissions are

re duced by about 49 percent from 2007 to 2017, and 57 percent from 2007 to 2020.

Ex hibit 8.41 shows that SO2 emissions from railroad locomotives are virtually eliminatd

b y 201 7

.

Exhibit 8.42 shows that annual VOC emissions from railroad locomotives decrease by 42

percent from 2007 to 2017 and 50 percent from 2007 to 2020.Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 132



### Exhibit 8.36 2007 and Projected CO Emissions for Railroads (tons)

2007 201 7

Growth Only 201 7
Growth & Existing

Control s 201 7

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s 20 20

Growth Only 20 20
Growth & Existing

Control s 20 20

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s

State 2007 201 7 GO 201 7 GC 2017 G X 20 20 G O 2020 G C 2020 G X

CT 184 198 188 188 206 193 193

DE 75 76 76 76 79 79 79

DC 73 75 75 75 78 77 77

ME 188 191 191 191 198 198 198

MD 700 720 713 713 746 736 736

MA 646 695 662 662 723 679 679

NH 88 90 90 90 93 93 93

NJ 665 780 744 744 818 771 771

NY 3,061 3,181 3,122 3,122 3,298 3,220 3,220

PA 2,987 3,044 3,041 3,041 3,149 3,145 3,145

RI 15 15 15 15 16 16 16

VT 72 74 74 74 76 76 76

VA 2,701 2,758 2,750 2,750 2,854 2,843 2,843

11,456 11,899 11,741 11,741 12,333 12,126 12,126Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 133



### Exhibit 8.37 2007 and Projected NH3 Emissions for Railroads (tons)

2007 201 7

Growth Only 201 7
Growth & Existing

Control s 201 7

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s 20 20

Growth Only 20 20
Growth & Existing

Control s 20 20

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s

State 2007 201 7 GO 201 7 GC 2017 G X 20 20 G O 2020 G C 2020 G X

CT 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

DE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

DC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

ME 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

MD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

MA 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

NH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NJ 2 2 2 2 3 3 3

NY 0 1 1 1 1 1 1

PA 9 9 9 9 10 10 10

RI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

VT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

VA 8 8 8 8 9 9 9

23 24 24 24 25 25 25Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 134



### Exhibit 8.38 2007 and Projected NOx Emissions for Railroads (tons)

2007 201 7

Growth Only 201 7
Growth & Existing

Control s 201 7

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s 20 20

Growth Only 20 20
Growth & Existing

Control s 20 20

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s

State 2007 201 7 GO 201 7 GC 2017 G X 20 20 G O 2020 G C 2020 G X

CT 

### 1,723 1,866 1,088 1,088 1,942 991 991

DE 

### 384 391 279 279 404 256 256

DC 

### 505 521 353 353 540 322 322

ME 

### 1,369 1,394 1,289 1,289 1,442 1,262 1,262

MD 

### 4,767 4,904 3,127 3,127 5,078 2,815 2,815

MA 

### 6,133 6,623 3,743 3,743 6,893 3,368 3,368

NH 

### 891 907 871 871 939 864 864

NJ 

### 5,957 6,982 3,839 3,839 7,323 3,469 3,469

NY 

### 20,675 21,473 13,144 13,144 22,259 11,782 11,782

PA 

### 20,675 21,080 14,413 14,413 21,808 13,174 13,174

RI 

### 144 147 99 99 152 90 90

VT 

### 736 749 719 719 775 713 713

VA 

### 18,319 18,728 12,061 12,061 19,381 10,856 10,856

82,279 85,765 55,025 55,025 88,936 49,960 49,960Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 135



### Exhibit 8.39 2007 and Projected PM10-PRI Emissions for Railroads (tons)

2007 201 7

Growth Only 201 7
Growth & Existing

Control s 201 7

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s 20 20

Growth Only 20 20
Growth & Existing

Control s 20 20

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s

State 2007 201 7 GO 201 7 GC 2017 G X 20 20 G O 2020 G C 2020 G X

CT 46 49 27 27 51 23 23

DE 15 16 8 8 16 7 7

DC 12 12 6 6 13 6 6

ME 28 28 22 22 29 21 21

MD 166 171 80 80 177 68 68

MA 159 171 84 84 178 71 71

NH 22 22 18 18 23 17 17

NJ 160 187 89 89 196 75 75

NY 608 631 295 295 654 249 249

PA 704 717 356 356 742 309 309

RI 4 4 2 2 4 2 2

VT 18 18 15 15 19 14 14

VA 634 648 303 303 670 257 257

2,574 2,675 1,303 1,303 2,772 1,119 1,119Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 136



### Exhibit 8.40 2007 and Projected PM25-PRI Emissions for Railroads (tons)

2007 201 7

Growth Only 201 7
Growth & Existing

Control s 201 7

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s 20 20

Growth Only 20 20
Growth & Existing

Control s 20 20

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s

State 2007 201 7 GO 201 7 GC 2017 G X 20 20 G O 2020 G C 2020 G X

CT 39 42 22 22 44 19 19

DE 15 15 8 8 16 7 7

DC 11 12 6 6 12 6 6

ME 25 26 20 20 27 19 19

MD 161 166 78 78 172 66 66

MA 145 157 77 77 163 65 65

NH 21 21 17 17 22 17 17

NJ 147 173 82 82 181 69 69

NY 572 595 278 278 616 235 235

PA 650 663 330 330 686 286 286

RI 3 3 2 2 3 1 1

VT 17 17 13 13 18 13 13

VA 586 599 280 280 620 238 238

2,395 2,488 1,213 1,213 2,579 1,041 1,041Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 137



### Exhibit 8.41 2007 and Projected SO2 Emissions for Railroads (tons)

2007 201 7

Growth Only 201 7
Growth & Existing

Control s 201 7

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s 20 20

Growth Only 20 20
Growth & Existing

Control s 20 20

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s

State 2007 201 7 GO 201 7 GC 2017 G X 20 20 G O 2020 G C 2020 G X

CT 57 61 5 5 64 5 5

DE 5 5 0 0 6 0 0

DC 37 38 0 0 39 0 0

ME 92 94 0 0 97 0 0

MD 64 66 0 0 68 0 0

MA 66 70 0 0 73 0 0

NH 10 10 0 0 11 0 0

NJ 52 61 0 0 64 0 0

NY 616 641 2 2 665 2 2

PA 211 216 1 1 223 1 1

RI 5 6 0 0 6 0 0

VT 5 5 0 0 5 0 0

VA 192 196 1 1 203 1 1

1,413 1,469 9 9 1,522 10 10Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 138



### Exhibit 8.42 2007 and Projected VOC Emissions for Railroads (tons)

2007 201 7

Growth Only 201 7
Growth & Existing

Control s 201 7

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s 20 20

Growth Only 20 20
Growth & Existing

Control s 20 20

Growth & Existing &

New OTC

Control s

State 2007 201 7 GO 201 7 GC 2017 G X 20 20 G O 2020 G C 2020 G X

CT 73 79 49 49 82 42 42

DE 28 29 17 17 30 15 15

DC 34 35 23 23 36 20 20

ME 51 51 47 47 53 47 47

MD 271 279 146 146 289 122 122

MA 267 286 162 162 298 135 135

NH 35 36 36 36 37 37 37

NJ 258 302 216 216 317 200 200

NY 1,112 1,155 596 596 1,197 493 493

PA 1,153 1,176 655 655 1,216 569 569

RI 8 8 4 4 8 4 4

VT 29 29 29 29 30 30 30

VA 1,025 1,047 537 537 1,083 451 451

4,343 4,511 2,519 2,519 4,676 2,167 2,167Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 139



## 9.0 PREPARATION OF SMOKE MODEL FILES

Air quality modelers in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern states use the SMOKE

Modeling System to create gridded, speciated, hourly emissions for input into a variety of

air quality models. This section describes how the SMOKE inventory files were

developed. It also describes how the SMOKE the temporal allocation, speciation, and

spatial allocation profiles, respectively, were developed. . SMOKE inventory files were

created for the following types of sources (which are described in Section 1.3):

9.1 NONEGU POINT SOURCE SMOKE EMISSION FILES

Annual nonEGU point source inventories were prepared in SMOKE PTINV ORL format.

9.2 AREA SOURCE SMOKE EMISSION FILES

Annua l area source inventories for 2017 and 2020 were prepared in SMOKE ARINV ORL

for mat. In developing the SMOKE ARINV ORL files for area sources, the USEPA

“ transport factor” was applied to reduce fugitive dust emissions to account for the removal

of particles near their emission source by vegetation and surface features. The transport

factor was NOT applied to the NIF-formatted annual emissions, but only to the SMOKE

AR INV ORL-formatted file.

The standard transport fractions and SCC assignments from the USEPA CHIEF website

(USE PA 2007c) were used to reduce the PM10-PRI and PM25-PRI emissions in the area

so urce inventories. Two files were used. The first file contains a list of SCCs for which

the transport factor was applied. The major source categories included paved and unpaved

roads, construction activity, agricultural crop land tilling, and agricultural livestock

operations. The second file contains the transport factor which varies by county. For

example, in Connecticut the transport fraction ranges from 0.21 in Tolland County to 0.44

in New Haven County.

Applying the transport factor to area source fugitive dust emissions significantly reduces

that amount of particulate matter included in the air quality modeling. Region wide,

PM10-PRI emissions are reduced by about 54 percent and PM25-PRI emissions are

reduced by about 25 percent by applying the transport fraction. The percent reduction

va ries by state due to the relative importance of the area source fugitive dust emissions

c ompared to non-fugitive dust source emissions.

9.3 NONROAD NMIM SMOKE EMISSION FILES

As discussed in Section 7, the NMIM/NONROAD model was executed using

specifications to generate monthly emission files. Monthly SMOKE ARINV ORL filesDocumentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 140



### were created. Average day emissions were calculated by dividing the NONROAD

generated monthly emissions by the number of days in each month. Summary reports

we re prepared to verify agreement between the average day, monthly, and annual

emissions.

9.4 NONROAD MAR SMOKE EMISSION FILES

Annual inventories for marine vessels, airport operations and railroad locomotives were

prepared in SMOKE ARINV ORL format for each county in the region. Average day

emissions were calculated by dividing the annual emissions by 365 days. The ORL files

for Category 3 commercial marine vessels include only the emissions that occur in state

waters (generally from the shoreline to 3– 10 nautical miles from shore).Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 141



## 10.0 FINAL DELIVERABLES

Exhibits 1 0 .1 to10

. 3 identify the deliverable products for the 2017 and 2020 MANEVU+VA emission inventories developed by MACTEC under this contract. The exhibit

a lso identifies deliverables associated with the 2017 and 2020 MANE-VU+VA inventories

unde r development by other agencies.

Files are stored on MARAMA ftp site:

Address: ftp.marama.org

Login ID: regionalei

Password: marama2007

Files are stored in the following directories:

\MARAMA 07-17-20 Version 3\Final 2017 2020 (Version 3_3)/NIF

\MARAMA 07-17-20 Version 3\Final 2017 2020 (Version 3_3)/SMOKE

\MARAMA 07-17-20 Version 3\Final 2017 2020 (Version 3_3)/TSD

\MARAMA 07-17-20 Version 3\Final 2017 2020 (Version 3_3)/XLS

The contents of each folder are provided in Exhibits 10.1, 1 0

. 2, and 1 0 .3

.Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 142



### Exhibit 10 .1

– NIF Data Files for the 2017/2020 MANE-VU+VA Emission Inventories

File Description File Name Format Notes

2017 Annual Point Source Emission Inventory in NOF format MANEVU+VA_V3_3 Point_2017_NOF.mdb NOF ACCESS File includes only those point

sources classified as “nonEGU” according to the ERTAC definition.

See file for Field Definitions 2020 Annual Point Source Emission Inventory in NOF format MANEVU+VA_V3_3 Point_20 20 _NOF.mdb NOF ACCESS

20 17 Annual Area Source Emission Inventory in NOF format MANEVU+VA_V3_3 Area _20 17 _NOF.mdb NOF ACCESS See file for Field Definitions

20 20 Annual Area Source Emission Inventory in NOF format MANEVU+VA_V3_3 Area_ 20 20 _NOF.mdb NOF ACCESS See file for Field Definitions

20 17 Annual NMIM/NONROAD Emission Inventory in NOF format 2017MARAMANMIMv3.mdb NOF ACCESS See file for Field Definitions

20 20 Annual NMIM/NONROAD Emission Inventory in NOF format 2020MARAMANMIMv3.mdb NOF ACCESS See file for Field Definitions

20 17 Annual MAR Emission Inventory in NOF format MANEVU+VA_V3_3_MAR_2017_NOF.mdb NOF ACCESS See file for Field Definitions

20 20 Annual MAR Emission Inventory in NOF format MANEVU+VA_V3_3_MAR_20 20 _NOF.mdb NOF ACCESS See file for Field DefinitionsDocumentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 143



### Exhibit 10.2

–

Summary Spreadsheet Files for the 2017/2020 MANE-VU+VA Emission Inventories

File Description File Name Format Notes

County/SCC level emissions

for all 2017/2020 scenarios V3_3 Area_07_17_20.xlsx MS EXCEL See file for Field

Definitions

Excel summary of emissions by State and SCC for 2017 MANEVU+VA_V3_3_Area_2017_ExistingControls_StateSCCSummaries.xlsx MS EXCEL See file for Field

Definitions

Excel summary of emissions by State and SCC for 2017 MANEVU+VA_V3_3_Area_2017_ What If Controls_StateSCCSummaries.xlsx MS EXCEL See file for Field

Definitions

Excel summary of emissions by State and SCC for 2020 MANEVU+VA_V3_3_Area_20 20 _ExistingControls_StateSCCSummaries.xlsx MS EXCEL See file for Field

Definitions

Excel summary of emissions by State and SCC for 2020 MANEVU+VA_V3_3_Area_20 20

_ What If Controls_StateSCCSummaries.xlsx MS EXCEL See file for Field

Definitions

Tables and graphs used in the

TSD TSD V3_3 2017_2020 Area Graphs.xlsx MS EXCEL See file for Field

Definitions

County/SCC level emissions

for all 2017/2020 scenarios V3_3 MAR _07_17_20.xlsx MS EXCEL See file for Field

Definitions

Excel summary of emissions by State and SCC for 2017 MANEVU+VA_V3_3_ MAR _2017_StateSCCSummaries.xlsx MS EXCEL See file for Field

Definitions

Excel summary of emissions by State and SCC for 2020 MANEVU +VA_V3_3_ MAR _20 20 _StateSCCSummaries.xlsx MS EXCEL See file for Field

Definitions

Tables and graphs used in the

TSD TSD V3_3 2017_2020 MAR Graphs.xlsx MS EXCEL See file for Field

Definitions

Process level emissions for all

2017/2020 scenarios V3_3 NonEGU _07_17_20.xlsx MS EXCEL See file for Field

Definitions

Excel summary of emissions by State and SCC for 2017 MANEVU+VA_V3_3_ NonEGU _2017_ExistingControls_StateSCCSummaries.xlsx MS EXCEL See file for Field

Definitions

Excel summary of emissions by State and SCC for 2017 MANEVU+VA_V3_3_ NonEGU _2017_ What If

Controls_StateSCCSummaries.xlsx MS EXCEL See file for Field

Definitions

Excel summary of emissions by State and SCC for 2020 MANEVU+VA_V3_3_ NonEGU _20 20 _ExistingControls_StateSCCSummaries.xlsx MS EXCEL See fi le for Field

DefinitionsDocumentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 144

Excel summary of emissions by State and SCC for 2020 MANEVU+VA_V3_3_ NonEGU _20 20

_ What If

Controls_StateSCCSummaries.xlsx MS EXCEL See file for Field

Definitions

Tables and graphs used in the

TSD TSD V3_3 2017_2020 NonEGU Graphs.xlsx MS EXCEL See file for Field

Definitions

Excel summary of emissions by State and SCC for 2017 MANEVU+VA_V3_3_ NMIM _2017_StateSCCSummaries.xlsx MS EXCEL See file for Field

Definitions

Excel summary of emissions by State and SCC for 2020 MANEVU+VA_V3_3_ NMIM _20 20 _StateSCCSummaries.xlsx MS EXCEL See file for Field

Definitions

Tables and graphs used in the

TSD TSD V3_3 2017_2020 NMIM Graphs.xlsx MS EXCEL See file for Field

DefinitionsDocumentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 145



### Exhibit 1 0.2

–

SMOKE Files for the 2013/2017/2020 MANE-VU+VA Emission Inventories

File Description File Name Format Notes

20 17 Annual Point Source Emission Inventory in SMOKE ORL format PTINV_201 7 _Non Hourly

_ ExistingControls_Jan2012 .orl SMOKE

PTINV

ORL Files includes only those point

sources classified as “nonEGU” according to the ERTAC definition.

See file for Field Definitions 20 1 7 Annual Point Source Emission Inventory in SMOKE ORL format PTINV_201 7 _Non Hourly

_ WhatIfControls_Jan2012 .orl SMOKE

PTINV

ORL

20 20 Annual Point Source Emission Inventory in SMOKE ORL format PTINV_20 20 _Non Hourly_ ExistingControls_Jan2012 .orl SMOKE

PTINV

ORL

20 20 Annual Point Source Emission Inventory in SMOKE ORL format PTINV_20 20 _Non Hourly

_ WhatIfControls_Jan2012 .orl SMOKE

PTINV

OR L

20 17 Annual Area Source Emission Inventory in SMOKE ORL format AR INV_201 7

_ Area

_ ExistingControls_Jan2012 .orl SMOKE

ARINV

ORL Nonpoint Th ese file s ha ve the PM transport

factor s by county applied to the NOF

emissions. See section 10.2 for

discussion.

See http://www.smoke

model.org/version2.6/html/ for file

format 20 17 Annual Area Source Emission Inventory in SMOKE ORL format AR INV_201 7

_ Area

_ WhatIfControls_Jan2012 .orl SMOKE

ARINV

ORL Nonpoint

20 20 Annual Area Source Emission Inventory in SMOKE ORL format ARI NV_20 20

_ Area

_ ExistingControls_Jan2012 .orl SMOKE

ARINV

ORL nonpoint

20 20 Annual Area Source Emission Inventory in SMOKE ORL format AR INV_20 20

_ Area

_ WhatIfControls_Jan2012 .orl SMOKE

ARINV

ORL nonpoint

20 13 Annual MAR Source Emission Inventory in SMOKE

ORL format ARINV_2017_ MAR_ Jan2012 .txt SMOKE

ARINV

ORL Nonpoint See http://www.smoke

model.org/version2.6/html/ for file

format

20 17 Annual MAR Source Emission Inventory in SMOKE

ORL format ARINV_2020_MAR_Jan2012 .txt SMOKE

ARINV

ORL Nonpoint See http://www.smoke

model.org/version2.6/html/ for file

formatDocumentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 146



## 11.0 REFERENCES

CENSUS 2000. U.S. Census Bureau. 1997 Economic Census: Bridge Between NAICS

and SIC . June 2000. http://www.census.gov/epcd/ec97brdg

EEA2005. Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. (Prepared for Oak Ridge National

L aboratory). Characterization of the U.S. Industrial/Commercial Boiler Population , May

2005. http://www.cibo.org/pubs/industrialboilerpopulationanalysis.pdf

EIA 2006 . U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. Annual

Energy Outlook with Projections to 2030 (AEO2006). DOE/EIA-0383(2006). February

2006. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/archive/aeo06/pdf/0383(2006).pdf

EIA 2010 . U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. Annual

Energy Outlook with Projections to 2035 (AEO2010) ; D OE/EIA-0383(2010). April 2010.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/assumption/pdf/0554(2010).pdf

EIA 2011 . U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. Annual

Energy Outlook with Projections to 2035 (AEO2011) ; DOE/EIA-0383(2011). April 2011.

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383(2011).pdf

FAA 2010. Federal Aviation Administration. Terminal Area Forecast 2009-2030

. Da tabase file (APO100_TAF_Final_2010.zip) downloaded July 2010.

http://aspm.faa.gov/main/taf.asp

MANE-VU 2007. Mid-Atlantic / Northeast Visibility. Statement of the MidAtlantic/Northeast Visibility Union Concerning a Course of Action within MANE-VU

Toward Assuring Reasonable Progress . June 20, 2007.

http://www.otcair.org/manevu/document.asp?fview=Formal%20Actions

MARAMA 2007. Prepared by MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. for the Mid-Atlantic

Regional Air Management Association. Development of Emissions Projections for 2009,

2012, and 2018 for NonEGU Point, Area, and Nonroad Sources in the MANE-VU Region.

February 2007. http://www.marama.org/technical-center/emissions-inventory/2002-

inventory-and-projections/mane-vu-future-year-emissions-inventory

MARAMA 2011a. Prepared by MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. for the MidAtlantic Regional Air Management Association. Technical Support Document for the

Development of the 2007 Emission Inventory for Regional Air Quality Modeling in the

Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region . February 27, 2011.Documentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 147



### MARAMA 2011b. Prepared by MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. for the MidAtlantic Regional Air Management Association. Technical Support Document for the

Development of the 2013 / 2017/ 2020 Emission Inventories for Regional Air Quality

M odeling in the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region . February 27, 2011.

MARAMA 2012. Prepared by AMEC Environment and Infrastructure and SRA

I nternational for the Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association. Technical

Support Document for the Development of the 2007 Emission Inventory for Regional Air

Quality Modeling in the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region Version 3_3

. January 23, 2012.

OT C 2001. Prepared by E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc. for the Ozone Transport

Commission. Control Measure Development Support Analysis of Ozone Transport

Commission Model Rules . March 31, 2001.

http://www.otcair.org/Document.asp?fview=Report#

OTC 2007. Prepared by MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. for the Ozone Transport

Commission. Identification and Evaluation of Candidate Control Measures – Final

Technical Support Document. February 28, 2007.

http://www.otcair.org/Document.asp?fview=Report#

OTC 2009. Ozone Transport Commission. Status Report on OTC States’ Efforts to

Promulgate Regulations Based on OTC 2001 Model Rules . October 19, 2009.

http://www.otcair.org/interest.asp?Fview=stationary

OTC 2011a. Ozone Transport Commission. Status Report on OTC States’ Efforts to

Promulgate Regulations Based on OTC 2006 Model Rules

. May 9, 2011.

http://www.otcair.org/interest.asp?Fview=stationary

OTC 2011b. Ozone Transport Commission. Status Report on OTC States’ Efforts to

Promulgate Regulations Based on OTC 2009/2010 Model Rules

. May 9, 2011.

http://www.otcair.org/interest.asp?Fview=stationary

OTC 2011c. Ozone Transport Commission. Technical Support Document, NOx Section,

Draft for Public Comment . March 16, 2011.

OTC 2011d. Ozone Transport Commission. Technical Support Document, VOC Section,

Draft for Public Comment . March 16, 2011. (with editss provided by Judy Rand, NJDEP).

USEPA 1999. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emission Inventory Improvement

Program, Volume 10, Emission Projections. . December 1999.

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eiip/techreport/volume10/x01.pdfDocumentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 14 8



### USEPA 2004a. E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc. for the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency Crosswalk Between Source Classification Code (SCC)and Emission Activity

Growth Factors – Final Technical Memorandum. September 9, 2004.

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/SCCcrosswalk.pdf

USEPA 2004b. E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc. for the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency Crosswalk Between Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Codes and Emission

Activity Growth Factors – Final Technical Memorandum. S eptember 9, 2004.

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/SICcrosswalk.pdf

USEPA 2004c. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. N onroadEngine Grwoth

Estimates . EPA-420/P-04-08. April 2004.

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/nonrdmdl/nonrdmdl2004/420p04008.pdf

USEPA 2005a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emissions Inventory Guidance

for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality

Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations . EPA-454/R-05-001. August 2005.

htt p://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eidocs/eiguid/eiguidfinal_nov2005.pdf

USEPA 2005b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Control of Air Pollution From

Aircraft and Aircraft Engines; Emission Standards and Test Procedures: Final Rule.

November 17, 2005. http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/2005/November/Day17/a22704.pdf

USEPA 2007a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Guidance on the Use of Models

and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5,

and Regional Haze. April 2007.

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/guide/final-03-pm- rh -guidance.pdf

USEPA 2007b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Guidance for Estimating VOC

and NOx Emission Changes from MACT Rules . EPA-457/B-07-001. May 2007.

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/o3imp8hr/documents/guidance/200705_epa457_b-07-

001_emission_changes_mact_rules.pdf

USEPA 2007c. U.S. Environmental Protections Agency. Emissions Modeling

Clearinghouse - Fugitive Dust Fractions . F ebruary 2007.

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/dustfractions )

USEPA 2008a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Technical Support Document:

Preparation of Emissions Inventories For the 2002-based Platform, Version 3, Criteria AirDocumentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 149



### Pollutants. January 2008.

http://www.epa.gov/scram001/reports/Emissions%20TSD%20Vol1_02- 28 -08.pdf

USEPA 2008b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Control Techniques Guidelines

. http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1ctg.html

USEPA 2008c. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Regulatory Impact Analysis:

Control or Emissions of Air Pollution from Locomotive Engines and Marine Compression

Engines Less than 30 Liters Per Cylinder. EPA420-R-08-001a. May 2008.

htt p://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroad/420r08001a.pdf

USEPA 2009a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Clean Air Markets – Data and

Maps Web Site; Unit Level Emissions Query for 2007. File downloaded on September 9,

2009. http://camddataandmaps.epa.gov/gdm/index.cfm?fuseaction=emissions.wizard

USEPA 2009b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Suggested Nationwide Average

Fuel Properties . EPA-420-B-09-018. April 2009

http://www.epa.gov/oms/models/nonrdmdl/nonrdmdl2008/420b09018.pdf

USEPA 2009c. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Regulatory Impact Analysis:

Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from Category 3 Marine Diesel Engines. EPA420-R09 -019. December 2009. http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroad/marine/ci/420r09019.pdf

USEPA 2009d. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Proposal to Designate an

Emissions Control Area for Nitrogen Oxides, Sulfur Oxides, and Particulate Matter. EPA420-R-09-007. April 2009. http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroad/marine/ci/420r09007-

chap2.pdf

USEPA 2010a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Technical Support Document

(TSD) for the Transport Rule: Emission Inventories. Docket ID No. EPA- HQ

- OAR -2009-

0491. June 2010.

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/transport/tr_proposal_emissions_tsd.pdf

USEPA 2010b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2020 Emissions Data from

EPA’s 2005-based V4 Modeling Platform; Projection and Control Factors . Provided by

Rich Mason on April 15, 2010.

ftp://ftp.epa.gov/EmisInventory/2005v4/projection_control_packets

USEPA 2010c. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Transport Rule Emission

Inventories Notice of Data Availability (NODA). Docket ID No. EPA- HQ

- OAR -2009-

0491. October 27, 2010. TR_EI_NODA_relevant_CoSTpackets_and_inventories.xls

ftp://ftp.epa.gov/EmisInventory/2005v4/tr_ei_nodaDocumentation for the 2017/2020 Emission Inventories for the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region January 23, 2012 Page 150



### USEPA 2010d. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Advance Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking on Lead Emissions from Piston-Engine Aircraft Using Leaded Aviation

Gasoline . April 2010. http://www.epa.gov/oms/regs/nonroad/aviation/420f10013.pdf

USEPA 2010e. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Nonroad Regulations 9-9-10

. S eptember 9, 2010. Provided by Penny Carey, USEPA Office of Transporation and Air

Qua lity.

USEPA 2011. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emission Standards Reference

Guide. http://www.epa.gov/oms/regs/nonroad/aviation/420f10013.pdf

# APPENDIX C3

Technical Support Document for the Development of the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in

the MANE- VU Region Version 3.3 Rev.1 (AMEC Environment & Infrastructure and SRA International, Inc. for MARAMA, January 2012)

Bureau of Air Quality Department of Environmental Protection

### [This page intentionally left blank.]

# Technical Support Document

for the

Development of the 2025

Emission Inventory

for PM Nonattainment Counties

in the MANE- VU Region

Version 3.3

Revision 2 .1

Initial report and Revision 1 - January 23, 2012

MARAMA Contract Agreement FY2011-004

Prepared for: Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association (MARAMA)

8600 LaSalle Road, Suite 636 Towson, MD 21286 (443) 901 -1882

Submitted by AMEC Environment & Infrastructure SRA International, Inc. 4021 Stirrup Creek Drive 652 Peter Jefferson Parkway

Suite 100 Suite 300 Durham, NC 27703 Charlottesville, VA 22911

919 381 -9900 571 499-0833



# Revision 2 – June 13, 2012

Completed in house by MARAMA staff

Note: Revision 1 includes a revision by New Jersey to Exhibit 7.7.

Revision 2 includes revised CT & VA NMIM runs.

### Acknowledgements

Funds for this CONTRACT are provided by MARAMA’s Memorandum of Agreement with the

Ozone Transport Commission (OTC), which is funded by USEPA grant agreement XA973181 –

R egional Haze Planning in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic States (CFDA 66.034). The purpose

of that Memorandum of Agreement is to support the Mid-Atlantic / Northeast Visibility Union

(MANE-VU) in developing programs to control regional haze or visibility impairment in the

Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states.

Abou t MARAMA

The Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association, Inc. is a voluntary, non-profit

association of ten state and local air pollution control agencies. MARAMA's mission is to

strengthen the skills and capabilities of member agencies and to help them work together to

prevent and reduce air pollution in the Mid-Atlantic Region. MARAMA provides cost-effective

approaches to regional collaboration by pooling resources to develop and analyze data, share

ideas, and train staff to implement common requirements.Documentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page i



## Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION

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

1.1 INVENTORY PURPOSE

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

1.2 SOURCE CATEGORIES

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

1.3 GEOGRAPHIC AND TEMPORAL RESOLUTION

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

1.4 POLLUTANTS

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

1.5 DATA FORMATS

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

1.6 INVENTORY VERSIONS

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

1.6.1 Version 2 Modeling Inventories with Existing Controls

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

1.6.2 Version 3 Modeling Inventories with Existing Controls

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

1.6.3 Version 3 2025 Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties Rev 1`

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

1.6.4 Version 3 2025 Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties - Rev 2

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

1.7 REPORT ORGANIZATION

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

2.0 AREA SOURCES

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

2.1 AREA SOURCE CATEGORIES

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

2.2 2007 INVENTORY DEVELOPMENT

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

2.2.1 Adjustments to the 2007 Inventory Used for the 2025 Projections

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

2.3 2025 INVENTORY DEVELOPMENT

......................................................................................................... 13

2.3.1 Area Source Growth Factors

................................ ............................................................................... 13

2.3.1.1 AEO Fuel Use Projection

................................ ................................................................................................ 13

2.3.1.2 Population Projections

................................ ..................................................................................................... 14

2.3.1.3 Employment Projections

................................ ................................................................................................ . 15

2.3.1.4 VMT Projections

................................ ............................................................................................................. 15

2.3.1.5 No Growth Assignment for Certain Area Source Categories

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

2.3.1.6 USEPA 2020 Projections for Residential Wood

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

2.3.1.7 SCC, SIC, NAICS and Growth Parameter Crosswalk

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

2.3.1.8 Final Version 2 Growth Factors for Area Sources

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

2.3.1.9 Version 3 Update to New Jersey Growth Factors for Area Sources

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

2.3.1.10 Version 3 Update to Growth Factors for the District of Columbia

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

2.3.2 Area Source Control Factors

................................ ............................................................................... 30

2.3.2.1 Federal Rules Affecting Area Sources

............................................................................................................ 30

2.3.2.2 Federal MACT Rules

................................ ...................................................................................................... 30

2.3.2.3 OTC Model Rules for VOC Sources

............................................................................................................... 31

2.3.2.4 OTC Model Rule for ICI Boilers

................................ ..................................................................................... 32

2.3.2.5 MANE-VU Fuel Oil Sulfur Strategy

............................................................................................................... 33

3.0 POINT SOURCES

............................................................................................................................................... 45

3.1 POINT SOURCE CATEGORIES

................................ ................................................................................. 45

3.2 2007 INVENTORY DEVELOPMENT

......................................................................................................... 45

3.2.1 Adjustments to the 2007 Inventory Used for the 2025 Projections

...................................................... 46

3.3 2025 NONEGU INVENTORY DEVELOPMENT

....................................................................................... 47

3.3.1 NonEGU Growth Factors

................................ .................................................................................... 47

3.3.2 Emission Reduction Credits

................................ ................................................................................. 49

3.3.3 NonEGU Control Factors

................................ .................................................................................... 50Documentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page ii

3.3.3.1 Federal Actions Affecting NonEGU Point Sources

........................................................................................ 50

3.3.3.2 OTC 2001 Model Rules for NonEGUs

........................................................................................................... 52

3.3.3.3 OTC 2006 Model Rules for NonEGUs

........................................................................................................... 52

3.3.3.4 MANE-VU Fuel Oil Sulfur Strategy

............................................................................................................... 55

3.3.3.5 State-specific NonEGU Control Factors

......................................................................................................... 55

3.4 2025 EGU INVENTORY DEVELOPMENT

................................................................................................ 57

3.4.1 EGU Growth Factors

................................ ........................................................................................... 58

3.4.2 EGU Control Factors

................................ .......................................................................................... 62

3. 4.3 Consideration of CSAPR Emission Allowances

................................................................................... 63

4.0 NONROAD MOBILE SOURCES INCLUDED IN NMIM

............................................................................. 64

4.1 NONROAD MODEL CATEGORIES

................................ .......................................................................... 64

4.2 2007 INVENTORY DEVELOPMENT

......................................................................................................... 64

4.3 2025 INVENTORY DEVELOPMENT

......................................................................................................... 66

4.4 REMOVAL OF AIRPORT GROUND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT

................................ ................................ 66

4.5 NMIM/NONROAD GROWTH AND CONTROL INFORMATION

........................................................... 66

5.0 MARINE VESSELS, AIRPORTS, AND RAILROADS

.................................................................................. 70

5.1 MAR INVENTORY CATEGORIES

................................ ............................................................................ 70

5.2 2007 INVENTORY DEVELOPMENT

......................................................................................................... 70

5.3 2025 INVENTORY DEVELOPMENT

......................................................................................................... 70

5.3.1 Commercial Marine Vessels

................................ ................................................................................ 70

5.3.1.1 CMV Diesel Growth Factors

................................ ........................................................................................... 71

5.3.1.2 CMV Diesel Control Factors

................................ ........................................................................................... 71

5.3.1.3 CMV Residual Oil Growth Factors

................................ ................................................................................. 72

5.3.1.4 CMV Residual Oil Control Factors

................................ ................................................................................. 73

5.3.1.5 Military Vessels Growth and Control Factors

................................................................................................ . 74

5.3.1.6 State-specific CMV Updates for 2025

............................................................................................................. 74

5.3.2 Airports

................................................................................................................................................ 74

5.3.2.1 Airport Growth Factors

................................ ................................................................................................... 75

5.3.2.2 Aircraft Control Factors

................................ .................................................................................................. 76

5.3.2.3 State-specific Airport Updates for 2025

.......................................................................................................... 77

5.3.3 Railroad Locomotives

................................ .......................................................................................... 77

5.3.3.1 Railroad Growth Factors

................................ ................................................................................................ . 77

5.3.3.2 Railroad Control Factors

................................ ................................................................................................ . 78

5.3.3.3 State-specific Railroad Updates for 2025

........................................................................................................ 79

6.0 ONROAD MOBILE SOURCES INCLUDED IN MOVES

............................................................................. 80

6.1 MOVES MODEL CATEGORIES

................................ ................................................................................ 80

6. 2 2007 MOVES MODEL INVENTORY

......................................................................................................... 80

6.3 2025 MOVES MODEL INVENTORY

......................................................................................................... 80

7.0 EMISSION SUMMARI ES

................................................................................................................................ . 81

8.0 DELIVERABLES

................................................................................................................................................ 94

9.0 REFERENC ES

.................................................................................................................................................... 96Documentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page iii



## List of Appendices

Appendix A1 AEO2010 New England.xls

Appendix A2 AEO2010 Mid Atlantic.xls

Appendix A3 AEO2010 South Atlantic.xls

Appendix A4 AEO2011 New England.xls

Appendix A5 AEO2011 Mid Atlantic.xls

Appendix A6 AEO2011 South Atlantic.xls

Appendix A7 AEO2010 vs AEO2011 Comparison.docx

Appendix B Population_Factors.xls

Appendix C Employment_Factors.xls

Appendix D VMT GF Nonattainment Counties.x ls

Appendix E EPA2020 Res Wood.xls

Appendix F AEO2011-Electricity Generation by EMM.xlsx

Appendix G UAF NEEDS Control FileMASTER92211.xls

Appendix H MAR Growth and Control.xlsDocumentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page iv



## List of Exhibits

Exhibit 1- 1 Comparison of Data Used for the 2025 PM Nonattainment Inventory and

Version 3 of the Modeling Inventory

Exhibit 1-2 List of PM Nonattainment Areas and Counties

Exhibit 2-1 Area Source SCCs Affected by PM Transport Fraction

Exhibit 2-2 PM Transport Fractions for PM Nonattainment Counties

Exhibit 2-3 Comparison of 2007 Paved Road Dust PM10 Emission Estimates

Exhibit 2-4 Comparison of 2007 Paved Road Dust PM2.5 Emission Estimates

Exhibit 2-5 Growth Factors for Coal Fuel Use by AEO Region 2007 - 2025

Exhibit 2-6 Growth Factors for Residual Oil Fuel Use by AEO Region 2007 - 2025

Exhibit 2-7 Growth Factors for Distillate Oil Fuel Use by AEO Region 2007 - 2025

Exhibit 2-8 Growth Factors for Natural Gas Fuel Use by AEO Region 2007 - 2025

Exhibit 2-9 Growth Factors for Gasoline Fuel Use by AEO Region 2007 – 2025

Exhibit 2- 10 Population Growth Factors by AEO Region 2007 – 2025

Exhibit 2- 11 Employment Growth Factors by AEO Region 2007 – 2025

Exhibit 2-12 2007 and 2025 VMT and the 2007-2025 Growth Factor

Exhibit 2-13 Area Source Categories with No Growth Assignment

Exhibit 2-14 State Recommendations to Address Negative Growth

and Other Growth Factors for the Area Source Sector

Exhibit 2-15 USEPA Estimated Percent Reductions for RICE MACT Standa rd

Exhibit 2- 16 Area Source Emission Reductions from New Jersey ICI Boiler NO

x 

### Rules

Exhibit 2- 17 MANE-VU Low Sulfur Fuel Oil Strategy

Exhibit 2- 18 Sulfur Content and Control Factors for Residential Fuel Oil Combustion

Exhibit 2- 19 Sulfur Content and Control Factors for Distillate Fuel Oil Combustion

Exhibit 2- 20 Sulfur Content and Control Factors for Residual Fuel Oil Combustion

Exhibit 3-1 NonEGU Point Source SCCs Affected by PM Transport Fraction

Exhibit 3-2 State Recommendations to Address Negative Growth for the NonEGU

Point Source Sector

Exhibit 3-3 USEPA Estimated Percent Reductions for RICE MACT Standard

Exhibit 3-4 NonEGU Point Source Emission Reductions from New Jersey

ICI Boiler NO

x



### Rules

Exhibit 3.5 Electricity Market Module Regions

Exhibit 3.6 Electricity Generation Growth Factors for Coal

Exhibit 3.7 Electricity Generation Growth Factors for Petroleum

Exhibit 3.8 Electricity Generation Growth Factors for Natural GasDocumentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page v



### Exhibit 3.9 Electricity Generation Growth Factors for Renewables

Exhibit 4-1 State by state data source for NMIM

Exhibit 4-2 Control Programs Included in the NMIM/NONROAD Model

Exhibit 5-1 CMV Diesel Control Factors by Year and Pollutant

Exhibit 5-2 CMV Residual Oil Control Factors by Year and Pollutant

Exhibit 5-3 Crosswalk between SCC and FAA Operations Type

Exhibit 5-4 Region-wide Growth Factors from 2007 by FAA Operations Type

Exhibit 5-5 Rail Control Factors by Year, Pollutant, and SCC

Exhibit 7.1 Comparison of 2007 and 2025 PM2.5 and PM Precursor Emissions

Nonattainment Area: Allentown, PA

Exhibit 7.2 Comparison of 2007 and 2025 PM2.5 and PM Precursor Emissions

Nonattainment Area: Baltimore, MD

Exhibit 7.3 Comparison of 2007 and 2025 PM2.5 and PM Precursor Emissions

Nonattainment Area: Hagerstown-Martinsburg, MD- WV

Exhibit 7.4 Comparison of 2007 and 2025 PM2.5 and PM Precursor Emissions

Nonattainment Area: Harrisburg- Lebanon -Carlisle-York, PA

Exhibit 7.5 Comparison of 2007 and 2025 PM2.5 and PM Precursor Emissions

Nonattainment Area: Johnstown, PA

Exhibit 7.6 Comparison of 2007 and 2025 PM2.5 and PM Precursor Emissions

Nonattainment Area: Lancaster, PA

Exhibit 7.7 Comparison of 2007 and 2025 PM2.5 and PM Precursor Emissions

Nonattainment Area: Metro New York/Northern New Jersey/Long Island

NY/NJ/CT

Exhibit 7.8 Comparison of 2007 and 2025 PM2.5 and PM Precursor Emissions

Nonattainment Area: Philadelphia-Wilmington, PA/DE/NJ

Exhibit 7.9 Comparison of 2007 and 2025 PM2.5 and PM Precursor Emissions

Nonattainment Area: Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, PA

Exhibit 7.10 Comparison of 2007 and 2025 PM2.5 and PM Precursor Emissions

Nonattainment Area: Reading, PA

Exhibit 7.11 Comparison of 2007 and 2025 PM2.5 and PM Precursor Emissions

Nonattainment Area: Washington DC/MD/VA

Exhibit 7.12 Comparison of 2007 and 2025 PM2.5 and PM Precursor Emissions

Nonattainment Area: York, PA

Exhibit 8.1 Final DeliverablesDocumentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page vi



## Acronyms and Abbreviations

Acronym Description

CAA Clean Air Act

CAMD Clean Air Markets Division ( US EPA)

CEM Continuous e mission m onitoring

CMV Commercial marine vessel

CO Carbon monoxide

EGU Electric g enerating u nit

ERTAC Eastern Regional Technical Advisory Co mmittee

FIPS Federal Information Processing Standard

GSE Ground support equipment

MACT Maximum achievable control technology

MANE

- VU Mid

- Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union

MANE

- VU+VA MANE

- VU states plus Virginia

MAR Marine, airport, rail

MARAMA Mid

- Atlantic Regional Air Management Association

MOBILE6 USEPA model

MOVES Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator model

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NAICS North American Industry Classification System code

NCD National county database

NEI National Emission Inventory

NESCAUM Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management

NIF3.0 N EI Input Format Version 3.0

NMIM National Mobile Input Model

N O F3.0 NEI Output Format Version 3.0

NONROAD USEPA model



### NO

x Oxides of nitrogen

ORL One

- record

- per

- line (SMOKE format)

OTAQ Office of Transportation and Air Quality ( US EPA)

PFC Portable fuel container

PM

- CON Primary PM, c ondensable portion only ( < 1 micron)

PM

- FIL Primary PM, Filterable portion only

PM

- PRI Primary PM, includes filterable and condensable

PM

- PRI= PM

- FIL + PM

- CON

PM10

- FIL Primary PM10, f ilterable portion only

PM10

- PRI Primary PM10, includes filterable and condensable

,

PM10

- PRI = PM0

- FIL + PM

- CON

PM25

- FIL Primary PM2.5, f ilterable portion onlyDocumentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page vii

Acronym Description

PM25

- PRI Primary PM2.5, includes filterable and condens a ble

PM25

- PRI= PM25

- FIL + PM

- CON

RWC Residential wood combustion

SEMAP Southeast Modeling, Analysis and Planning

SIC Standard Industrial Classification code

SIP State Implementation Plan

SCC Source c lassification c ode

S/L State/local

SMOKE Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions

SO 2 Sulfur d ioxide

TSD Technical Support Document

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

VISTAS Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the Southeast

VMT Vehicle miles traveled

VOC Volatile o rganic c ompoundsDocumentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 1



## 1.0 INTRODUCTION

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

preparing emission projections for 2025 for particulate matter (PM) nonattainment areas in

the Mid-Atlantic / Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU) region. The MANE- VU

region includes Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland,

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

Vermont. Virginia is not included in the MANE-VU region; however, several cities and

counties in northern Virginia were included in this inventory as they are part of a

nonattainment area that includes MANE-VU jurisdictions.

1.1 INVENTORY PURPOSE

The Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended, requires each state with areas failing to meet the

Na tional Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to develop State Implementation Plans

(SIPs) to expeditiously attain and maintain the standards. The CAA allows states to

re quest nonattainment areas to be re -designated to attainment provided certain criteria are

met. For particulate matter, the U.S. Environmental Protections Agency’s (USEPA ’s ) re

designation guidance requires the submittal of a comprehensive inventory of direct PM2.5

emissions and emissions of PM precursors representative of the year when the area

achieves attainment of the PM2.5 air quality standards. Another emission inventory

related requirement includes a projection of the emission inventory to a year at least 10

years following re -designation.

To support state’s efforts in developing PM2.5 maintenance plans and re -designation

requests, MARAMA issued a contract to AMEC to assemble a comprehensive emission

inventor y for 2025. A workgroup was formed to guide the 2025 inventory development

process. Participants included a member from each state with a PM2.5 nonattainment area,

as follows: Paul Bodner (CT), Dave Fees and Jack Sipple (DE), Roger Thunell (MD),

Judy Rand and Danny Wong (NJ), Ron Stannard (NY), Arleen Shulman (PA), and Doris

McLeod (VA). The committee has met via teleconference on multiple occasions to discuss

plans for the 2025 inventory. The 2025 inventory was developed using a combination of

MARAMA’s in-house resources, support from state agencies and contractor support from

AMEC a nd SRA International, Inc.

1.2 SOURCE CATEGORIES

This report documents the development of annual emission projections for 2025 for each

of these sectors, as follows:Documentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 2



###  EGU Point Source s are units that generate electric power and sell most of the

power generated to the electrical grid.

 NonEGU Point Source s are individual industrial, commercial, and institutional

facilities and are further subdivided by stack, emission unit, and emission process.

 Stationary Area Sources include sources that in and of themselves are quite small,

but in aggregate may contribute significant emissions. Examples include small

indus trial/commercial facilities, residential heating furnaces, VOCs volatizing from

house painting or consumer products, gasoline service stations, and agricultural

fertilizer/pesticide application.

 Non-road Mobile Sources include internal combustion engines used to prope l

mar ine vessels, airplanes, and locomotives, or to operate equipment such as

forklifts, lawn and garden equipment, portable generators, etc. For activities other

than ma rine vessels, airplanes, and railroad locomotives (MAR), the inventory was

developed using the most current version of USEPA’s NONROAD model as

embedded in the National Mobile Inventory Model (NMIM). Because the

NO NROAD model does not include emissions from MAR sources, these emissions

were estimated based on data and methodologies used in recent USEPA regulatory

impact analyses.

 On -road Mobile Sources are sources of air pollution from internal combustion

engines used to propel cars, trucks, buses, and other vehicles on public roadways.

Emission projections for on-road mobile sources were developed by MARAMA or

state staff using USEPA ’s Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES) model.

Biogenic/geogenic emissions are not included in this inventory.

1.3 GEOGRAPHIC AND TEMPORAL RESOLUTION

The geographic area for the 2025 inventory includes only those counties that are classified

as nonattainment for the annual (1997) or daily (2006) particulate matter NAAQS. The

inventory was developed at the county-level for non-point sources and at the process level

for point sources.

Annual inventories are required for re-designation of areas designated as nonattainment for

the 1997 and 2006 NAAQS. Other inventory elements required by USEPA (such as

interim inventory years) are being addressed by individual states in their SIP submittals.Documentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 3



### 1.4 POLLUTANTS

The inventory includes emissions for directly emitted PM and PM-precursors (oxides of

nitrogen {NO

x 

### }, and sulfur dioxide {SO 2 

### }). The PM species in the inventory are

categorized as particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 2.5

micrometers (PM25-PRI), which includes both condensable particles (PM-CON) and

filter able particles (PM25-FIL).

1.5 DATA FORMATS

For each sector, we prepared easy- to -review spreadsheets that provide 2007 emissions and

2025 g rowth factors, control factors, and emissions. We also prepared county level and

nonattainment area summaries for all PM nonattainment counties and areas. The

summaries show the 2007 and 2025 emissions, along with the percent change in emissions

fr om 2007 to 2025 for each source sector.

1.6 INVENTORY VERSIONS

The development of base and future year inventories is an iterative process that continually

attempts to use the best data available to meet air quality planning needs, given time and

resource constraints. The following subsections summarize the work completed to date.

1.6.1 Version 2 Modeling Inventories with Existing Controls

MARAMA developed comprehensive emission inventories to support air quality modeling

in the region. MARAMA developed a calendar year 2007 (MARAMA 2011a) inventory

for all sectors except the onroad sector. These inventories, completed in February of 2011,

are referred to as Version 2 of the MANE-VU+VA 2007 base year inventory. The

inventories were provided in formats required for air quality modeling. Under a separate

effort, the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) developed

a 2007 onroad inventory using the MOVES model to support air quality modeling.

MARAMA also prepared emission projections for 2013/2017/2020 (MARAMA 2011b)

for all sectors except the electric generation and onroad sectors. These projections reflect a

scenario representing the best estimates for the future year, accounting for all in-place

controls that are fully adopted into federal or individual state regulations or SIPs. In the

past, this inventory is also referred to as the "on-the-books" inventory. Modelers often

refer to this scenario as the "future base case".

1.6.2 Version 3 Modeling Inventories with Existing Controls

Beginning in the fall of 2011, MARAMA sponsored development of Version 3_3 of the

2007 base year modeling inventory to incorporate new paved road emission estimates,Documentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 4



### revised modeling of nonroad and onroad sources, and other state-specific changes

(MA RAMA2012a). MARAMA develop ed Version 3_3 of the future year inventory to

account for changes to the 2007 base year inventory and selected changes in growth and

control factors identified by states (MARAMA2012b). The future year modeling

inventories for electric generating units (EGUs) are currently being developed under a

separate effort lead by the Eastern Regional Technical Advisory Committee (ERTAC).

The future year modeling inventories for onroad sources are currently being developed by

NESCAUM, MARAMA or individual states.

1.6.3 Version 3 2025 Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties Rev 1`

The 2025 inventory for PM nonattainment counties was developed using Version 3_3 of

the modeling inventory, with the following exceptions:

 Growth and control factors for 2025 were developed for the area, nonEGU point,

and nonroad MAR sectors, using the same methodologies and data sources that

were used to develop the 2017/2020 inventories with existing controls.

 For nonroad sources included in NMIM, Version 2 results were available for 2007,

2017, and 2020. MARAMA and New York made additional NMIM runs for 2025

based on Version 2 inputs. MARAMA made revisions to some of the inputs to

NM IM for Version 3_3 of the modeling inventory; however, these revised NMIM

runs were not used in the 2025 PM nonattainment county inventory due to time

constraints.

 For onroad sources included in the MOVES model, MARAMA and states executed

the model in the inventory mode for 2007 and 2025. Version 3_3 of the modeling

inventory used results of the MOVES model executed in a manner to support air

quality modeling.

 For EGU point sources, the results of the ERTAC EGU projection methodology are

not currently available. An alternative methodology for projecting EGU emissions

based on growth and control factors was used, as described in Section 4.

 Only counties classified as nonattainment for the PM2.5 annual or 24-hour

NAAQS were included.

1.6.4 Version 3 2025 Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties - Rev 2

Onl y very minor changes are included in Revision 2 of the 2025 inventory. These

includedDocumentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 5



###  Updating the CT NMIM emissions to reflect the NMMA Pleasure Craft Population.

 Updating the VA NMIM emissions to reflect a rerun with improved fuel

characteristics. No change was made to the NMMA Pleasure Craft Population.

 Adding New York 2007 NMIM emissions. These emissions were provided by

New York staff. MARAMA does not have information about what pleasure craft

population was used in these runs.

Exhibit 1-1 shows the data sources used for the 2025 PM nonattainment area inventory.

Exhibit 1-2 lists the counties included in the 2025 PM nonattainment area inventory.

Exhibit 1. 1

– Comparison of Data Used for Version 3 of the Modeling Inventory

and the 2025 PM Nonattainment Inventory

Sector Modeling Inventory 2025 PM Nonattainment Inventory

2007 2017/2020 2007 2025

Area Version 3 _3 Version 3 _3 Version 3 _3 Version 3 _3

Nonroad

- NMIM Version 3 _3 Version 3 _3 Version 2 2025 NMIM run

based on Version 2 inputs (1)

Nonroad

- MAR Version 3 _3 Version 3 _3 Version 3 _3 Version 3 _3

Onroad MOVES runs by

NESCAUM to support AQ modeling MOVES runs by

NESCAUM to support AQ modeling MOVES runs by

MARAMA or

states in inventory mode MOVES runs by

MARAMA or

states in inventory mode

Point

- EGU Version 3 _3 To be developed by ERTAC Version 3 _3 See section 4 for proj ection methodology

Point

- nonEGU Version 3 _3 Version 3 _3 Version 3 _3 Version 3 _3


### (1) Except CT and VA where Version 3 inputs were used.

CT reflects NMMA Pleasure Craft Population

VA reflects NMMA Default Pleasure Craft population.

1.7 REPORT ORGANIZATION

Sections 2 to 6 describe the emission projection process for the following source sectors:

area sources; point sources; nonroad mobile sources included in the NMIM model; other

nonroad mobile sources (marine vessels, aircraft, and railroad locomotives); and onroad

mobile sources included in the MOVES model. Section 7 provides nonattainment area

emission pollutant summaries. Section 8 provides a description of the final deliverables,Documentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 6



### including the file names for all final deliverable products. References for the TSD are

provided in Section 9.

Exhibit 1.2 – List of PM Nonattainment Areas and Counties

Nonattainment Area State FIPS

Code County PM Nonattainment?

2006 Daily
NAAQS 1997

Annual
NAAQS
Allentown, PA PA 42077 Lehigh Yes Yes

PA 42095 Northampton Yes Yes

Baltimore, MD MD 24003 Anne Arundel No Yes

MD 24005 Baltimore No Yes

MD 24013 Carroll No Yes

MD 24025 Harford No Yes

MD 24027 Howard No Yes

MD 24510 Baltimore City No Yes
Hagerstown

- Martinsburg, MD

- WV MD 24043 Washington No Yes
Harrisburg

- Lebanon

- Carlisle

- York, PA PA 42041 Cumberland Yes Yes

PA 42043 Dauphin Yes Yes

PA 42075 Lebanon Yes Yes

PA 42133 York * Yes No

Johnstown, PA PA 42021 Cambria Yes Yes

PA 42063 Indiana (P) Yes Yes

Lancaster, PA PA 42071 Lancaster Yes Yes

New York

- N. New Jersey

- Long Island, CT 09001 Fairfield Yes Yes

NY

- NJ

- CT CT 09009 New Haven Yes Yes

NJ 34003 Bergen Yes Yes

NJ 34013 Essex Yes Yes

NJ 34017 Hudson Yes Yes

NJ 34021 Mercer Yes Yes

NJ 34023 Middlesex Yes Yes

NJ 34025 Monmouth Yes Yes

NJ 34027 Morris Yes Yes

NJ 34031 Passaic Yes Yes

NJ 34035 Somerset Yes Yes

NJ 34039 Union Yes Yes

NY 36005 Bronx Yes Yes

NY 36047 Kings Yes Yes

NY 36059 Nassau Yes Yes

NY 36061 New York Yes Yes

NY 36071 Orange Yes Yes

NY 36081 Queens Yes Yes

NY 36085 Richmond Yes Yes

NY 36087 Rockland Yes Yes

NY 36103 Suffolk Yes Yes

NY 36119 Westchester Yes Yes
Philadelphia

- Wilmington, PA

- NJ

- DE DE 10003 New Castle Yes Yes

NJ 34005 Burlington Yes YesDocumentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 7

Nonattainment Area State FIPS

Code County PM Nonattainment?

2006 Daily
NAAQS 1997

Annual
NAAQS

NJ 34007 Camden Yes Yes

NJ 34015 Gloucester Yes Yes

PA 42017 Bucks Yes Yes

PA 42029 Chester Yes Yes

PA 42045 Delaware Yes Yes

PA 42091 Montgomery Yes Yes

PA 42101 Philadelphia Yes Yes
Pittsburgh

- Beaver Valley, PA PA 42003 Allegheny (P) Yes Yes

PA 42005 Armstrong (P) Yes Yes

PA 42007 Beaver Yes Yes

PA 42019 Butler Yes Yes

PA 42059 Greene (P) Yes Yes

PA 42073 Lawrence (P)* Yes Yes

PA 42125 Washington Yes Yes

PA 42129 Westmoreland Yes Yes
Reading, PA PA 42011 Berks No Yes
Washington, DC

- MD

- VA DC 11001 Washington No Yes

MD 24017 Charles No Yes

MD 24021 Frederick No Yes

MD 24031 Montgomery No Yes

MD 24033 Prince George No Yes

VA 51013 Arlington No Yes

VA 51059 Fairfax No Yes

VA 51107 Loudoun No Yes

VA 51153 Prince William No Yes

VA 51510 Alexandria No Yes

VA 51600 Fairfax City No Yes

VA 51610 Falls Church No Yes

VA 51683 Manassas City No Yes

VA 51685 Manassas

Park No Yes

York, PA PA 42133 York * No Yes

* York County, PA, is in one nonattainment area for the 2006 24-hour standard (HarrisburgLebanon-Carlisle-York, PA) and another for the 1997 annual standard (York, PA)

.

(P) indicates that only part of the county is in the nonattainment area; for this inventory, emissions

for the entire county are included.Documentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 8



## 2.0 AREA SOURCES

2.1 AREA SOURCE CATEGORIES

The area source sector contains emissions estimates for sources which individually are too

small in magnitude or too numerous to inventory as individual point sources, and which

can often be estimated more accurately as a single aggregate source for a county.

Ex amples are emissions from home heating systems, house painting, consumer products

usage , and small industrial/commercial operations that are not permitted as point sources.

There are 356 individual area source categories in the MANE-VU+VA inventory,

categorized by a 10-digit SCC.

2.2 2007 INVENTORY DEVELOPMENT

The emission projections for the 2025 area source inventory were based on Version 3_3 of

the 2007 MANE-VU+VA inventory and are fully documented in the TSD for that effort

(MARAMA 2012a). The only adjustment to the 2007 Version 3_3 area source inventory

wa s to apply “transport factors” to fugitive dust sources, as described in the following

subsection.

2.2.1 Adjustments to the 2007 Inventory Used for the 2025 Projections

Grid air quality models consistently overestimate fugitive dust impacts as compared to

ambient samples. USEPA developed a methodolog y to reduce fugitive dust emissions for

use in grid modeling analyses. It is considered a logical step to improve the ability to

account for the removal of particles near their emission source by vegetation and surface

features and can be useful in grid-based modeling analyses.

In February 2011, MARAMA developed 2007 emission modeling files for area sources

which applied the USEPA “transport factor” to reduce fugitive dust emissions to account

for the removal of particles near their emission source by vegetation and surface features.

The standard transport fractions and SCC assignments from USEPA ’s CHIEF website

(USEPA 2007a) were used to reduce the PM25-PRI emissions in this inventory. Two files

were used. Exhibit 2.1 shows the list of nonEGU SCCs for which the transport factor was

a pplied. The major source categories included paved and unpaved roads, construction

activity, agricultural crop land tilling, and agricultural livestock operations. Exhibit 2.2

li sts the transport fractions for PM nonattainment counties which vary by county. For

e xample, the transport factors ranges from 0.1375 in Camden, New Jersey to 0.80 in

Suffolk County, New York. For Virginia, no transport fraction was provided for the City

of Fairfax; Fairfax County’s transport fraction was used for this jurisdiction.Documentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 9



### Exhibit 2

. 1 Area Source SCCs Affected by PM Transport Fraction

SCC SCC Description

2294000000 Paved Roads: All Paved Roads: Total: Fugitives

2296000000 Unpaved Roads: All Unpaved Roads: Total: Fugitives

2311000000 Construction: All Processes: Total

2311010000 Construction: General Building Construction: Total

2311020000 Construction: Heavy Construction: Total

2311030000 Construction: Road Construction: Total

2801000000 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production

- Crops;Agriculture

- Crops;Total

2801000001 Ag crops: Agriculture

- Crops: Land Breaking

2801000002 Ag crops: Agriculture

- Crops: Planting

2801000003 Ag crops: Agriculture

- Crops: Tilling

2801000004 Ag crops: Agriculture

- Crops: Defoliation

2801000005 Ag crops: Agriculture

- Crops: Harvesting

2801000006 Ag crops: Agriculture

- Crops: Drying

2801000007 Ag crops: Agriculture

- Crops: Loading

2801000008 Ag crops: Agriculture

- Crops: Transport

2805000000 Ag livestock: Agriculture

- Livestock: Total

2805001000 Ag livestock: Beef Cattle Feedlots: Total (also see 2805020000)

2805001001 Ag livestock: Beef Cattle Feedlots: Feed Preparation

2805005000 Ag livestock: Poultry Operations: Total

2805010000 Ag livestock: Dairy Operations: Total

2805015000 Ag livestock: Hog Operations: Total

2805020000 Ag livestock: Cattle and Calves Composite: Total

2805025000 Ag livestock: Hogs and Pigs Composite: Total

2805030000 Ag livestock: Poultry and Chickens Composite: Total

2805035000 Ag livestock: Horses and Ponies Composite: Total

2805040000 Ag livestock: Sheep and Lambs Composite: Total

2805045001 Ag livestock: Goats: TotalDocumentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 10



### Exhibit 2

. 2 PM Transport Fractions for PM Nonattainment Counties

State FIPS County PM Transport

Fraction

CT 09001 FAIRFIELD 0.4347

CT 09009 NEW HAVEN 0.4442

DE 10003 NEW CASTLE 0.5087

DC 11001 WASHINGTON 0.3953

MD 24003 ANNE ARUNDEL 0.4874

MD 24005 BALTIMORE 0.4047

MD 24013 CARROLL 0.5641

MD 24017 CHARLES 0.4879

MD 24021 FREDERICK 0.4904

MD 24025 HARFORD 0.5147

MD 24027 HOWARD 0.2798

MD 24031 MONTGOMERY 0.3089

MD 24033 PRINCE GEORGES 0.2950

MD 24043 WASHINGTON 0.4003

MD 24510 BALTIMORE (CITY) 0.4874

NJ 34003 BERGEN 0.2657

NJ 34005 BURLINGTON 0.3008

NJ 34007 CAMDEN 0.1375

NJ 34013 ESSEX 0.3461

NJ 34015 GLOUCESTER 0.4361

NJ 34017 HUDSON 0.5286

NJ 34021 MERCER 0.3472

NJ 34023 MIDDLESEX 0.3273

NJ 34025 MONMOUTH 0.5468

NJ 34027 MORRIS 0.2297

NJ 34031 PASSAIC 0.1971

NJ 34035 SOMERSET 0.3635

NJ 34039 UNION 0.3117

NY 36005 BRONX 0.6145

NY 36059 NASSAU 0.6595

NY 36061 NEW YORK 0.6483

NY 36071 ORANGE 0.3803

NY 36081 QUEENS 0.6505

NY 36085 RICHMOND 0.7159

NY 36087 ROCKLAND 0.3556

NY 36103 SUFFOLK 0.7997

NY 36119 WESTCHESTER 0.3531

PA 42003 ALLEGHENY 0.2308

PA 42005 ARMSTRONG 0.3289

PA 42007 BEAVER 0.3141Documentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 11

State FIPS County PM Transport

Fraction

PA 42011 BERKS 0.4682

PA 42017 BUCKS 0.3980

PA 42019 BUTLER 0.3621

PA 42021 CAMBRIA 0.2253

PA 42029 CHESTER 0.4757

PA 42041 CUMBERLAND 0.4649

PA 42043 DAUPHIN 0.3438

PA 42045 DELAWARE 0.3515

PA 42059 GREENE 0.3224

PA 42063 INDIANA 0.2884

PA 42071 LANCASTER 0.6183

PA 42073 LAWRENCE 0.4422

PA 42075 LEBANON 0.4521

PA 42077 LEHIGH 0.4487

PA 42091 MONTGOMERY 0.3729

PA 42095 NORTHAMPTON 0.4306

PA 42101 PHILADELPHIA 0.3471

PA 42125 WASHINGTON 0.3436

PA 42129 WESTMORELAND 0.2875

PA 42133 YORK 0.5134

VA 51013 ARLINGTON 0.3534

VA 51059 FAIRFAX 0.2457

VA 51107 LOUDOUN 0.3345

VA 51153 PRINCE WILLIAM 0.1814

VA 51510 ALEXANDRIA 0.3745

VA 51610 FALLS CHURCH 0.3400

VA 51683 MANASSAS 0.3474

VA 51685 MANASSAS PARK 0.3551Documentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 12



### Exhibit 2.3

– Comparison of 2007 Paved Road Dust PM10 Emission Estimates

Nonattainment Area Without

Transport Factor With

Transport Factor

Version2 Version 3

New

Method Version2 Version 3

New

Method

Allentown 4,228 1,733 1,859 764

Baltimore 15,175 5,412 6,658 2,400

Hagerstown 1,490 263 596 105

Harrisburg

- Lebanon

- Carlisle

- York 9,133 4,124 4,149 1,855

Johnstown 2,663 1,133 673 289

Lancaster 4,339 1,808 2,683 1,118

New York

- N orthern NJ

- Long Island

- CT 58,512 28, 747 29,128 14,2 60

Philadelphia

- Wilmington 29,379 12,644 11,070 4,801

Pittsburgh

- Beaver Valley 14,470 6,173 4,491 1,920

Reading 3,346 1,423 1,567 666

Washington, DC

- MD

- VA 21,067 9,909 6,846 3,194

York 3,684 1,458 1,891 749



### Exhibit 2.4

– Comparison of 2007 Paved Road Dust PM2.5 Emission Estimates

Nonattainment Area Without

Transport Factor With

Transport Factor

Version2 Version 3

New

Method Version2 Version 3

New

Method

Allentown 264 433 116 191

Baltimore 1,770 1,328 782 589

Hagerstown 196 64 78 26

Harrisburg

- Lebanon

- Carlisle

- York 605 1,031 277 464

Johnstown 198 283 50 72

Lancaster 295 452 182 280

New York

- Northern NJ

- Long Island

- CT 2,400 7, 173 1,252 3,5 47

Philadelphia

- Wilmington 1,396 3,165 547 1,202

Pittsburgh

- Beaver Valley 942 1,543 299 480

Reading 209 356 98 167

Washington, DC

- MD

- VA 1,713 2,432 594 784

York 257 365 132 187Documentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 13



### 2.3 2025 INVENTORY DEVELOPMENT

The general procedures and data used for projecting emissions for the area source sector

are summarized in this section. Growth factors were applied to the MANE-VU+VA 2007

inventory to account for changes in fuel use, population, economic activity. Next, control

fa ctors were applied to account for future emission reductions from control regulations.

The 2025 inventory accounts for post-2007 emission reductions from promulgated federal,

State, local, and site-specific control programs and proposed control programs that are

reasonably anticipated to result in post-2007 emission reductions.

2.3.1 Area Source Growth Factors

The area and nonEGU point source growth factors were developed using six sets of data:

 The Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) fuel consumption forecasts;

 County-level population projections;

 State-level employment projections by NAICS code;

 County-level vehicle miles travelled (VMT) projections;

 USEPA projections for livestock and residential wood combustion; and

 Other state-specific emission projection data.

The priority for applying these growth factors was to first use the state-supplied projection

da ta (if available). If state-supplied data were not provided, then the AEO projection

factors were used for fuel consumption sources, and the population/employment/VMT data

were used for other source categories.

2.3.1.1 

### AEO Fuel Use Projection

Th e AEO is published annually by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). It

presents long-term projections of energy supply, demand, and prices through 2035, based

on results from EIA’s National Energy Modeling System (NEMS). NEMS projects the

production, imports, conversion, consumption, and prices of energy, subject to

assumptions on macroeconomic and financial factors, world energy markets, resource

availability and costs, behavioral and technological choice criteria, energy technology cost

and performance characteristics, and demographics.

AEO provides regional fuel-use forecasts for various fuel types (e.g., coal, residual oil,

distillate oil, natural gas) by end use sector (e.g., residential, commercial, industrial,

transportation, and electr ic power). Energy use projections are reported at the Census

division level. The census divisions grouped states as follows:

 South Atlantic

- DE, DC, MD, VA

 Middle Atlantic – NJ, NY, PA

 New England – CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VTDocumentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 14



### Appendices A1, A2, and A3 contain the AEO2010 fuel use projections for each of these

three regions. Appendices A4, A5, and A6 contain the AEO2011 fuel use projections

Version 2 of the MANE-VU+VA future year inventories was developed using AEO2010

(EIA2010). After the release of Version 2, AEO2011 was published (EIA2011a).

MARAMA reviewed the updated fuel forecasts and compared the AEO2010 and

AEO2011 projections. Appendix A7 documents MARAMA’s analysis. MARAMA

calculated the difference in projected fuel usage between AEO2010 and AEO2011 for the

residential, commercial, industrial, transportation, and electric power sector for the

distillate fuel oil, residual fuel oil, coal, natural gas, and renewable fuel types. MARAMA

identifie d thresholds for what constitutes a major change as follows:

 An increase or decrease of 1% or less is considered to be no change and did not

warrant a change in the growth factors between Versions 2 and 3 of the inventory;

 An increase or decrease of between 1% and 5% is considered to be a minor change,

and states agreed that these differences between AEO2010 and AEO2011 did not

warrant a change in the growth factors between Versions 2 and 3 of the inventory;

 An increase or decrease above 5% is considered a major change, and warrants a

change in the growth factors used in Version 3.

MARAMA recommended that the AEO2010 projections be retained for all residential,

commercial, and industrial sector fuel use, except for industrial natural gas usage, where

the AEO2011 projections will be used for Version 3 of the future year modeling inventory.

New Jersey elected to use the more recent growth factors from AEO2011 instead of the

AEO2010 growth factors for all area source fossil fuel use categories.

Exhibits 2.5 to 2.9 summarize the projected fuel use rates by source sector (residential,

commercial, industrial, transportation) and AEO geographic area for the years 2007 to

2025. The unusual growth in commercial residual oil use in the South Atlantic region

c ould not be explained; Maryland elected to use employment instead of the AEO2010

g rowth factor for commercial residual oil combustion, while Virginia and the District

c hose to assume flat growth in this sector.

2.3.1.2 

### Population Projections

States provided county-level historic population data and projections for future years. The

historical and projection years varied from state to state, so values were interpolated, when

necessary, to create population estimates for each year from 2007 to 2025. The population

data were then normalized to create growth factors from 2007 for each year future year.Documentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 15



### For example, Delaware had a population of 861,087 in 2007, and the projected population

in 2017 is 953,204. Thus, the growth factor for 2017 is 953,204 / 861,087 = 1.107.

Exhibit 2.10 summarizes the population growth factors by state and AEO2010 region.

Population is projected to grow in every state between 2007 and 2025. The population

growth in the New England states varies significantly by state. Population growth in the

South Atlantic states is projected to be much higher than in the New England and MidAtlantic states. Appendix B contains the data use to develop the population projections.

2.3.1.3 

### Employment Projections

Every two years, the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics produces long-term industry and

oc cupation forecasts for ten future years, and states are asked to do the same for their

re spective economies. The most recent projections are from state Departments of Labor

for the period 2006 to 2016, most of which were published in 2008. These 10 -year forecasts are updated every other year. The next set of state-specific projections will be for

the period 2008 to 2018. Only the District of Columbia and Delaware were able to provide

employment projections for 2008 to 2017; the 2008 to 2018 projections were not available

for other states in time for use on this project. The employment projections are state-wide

by 3-digit NAICS code. Exhibit 2.11 summarizes the manufacturing employment (NAICS

sector 310) growth factors by state and AEO2010 region. States in the Northeast / MidAtlantic region show a marked decrease in manufacturing employment from 2007 forward.

Appendix C contains the data that were used to develop the employment projections.

2.3.1.4 

### VMT Projections

States developed projections of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for 2007 and 2025 which

were used as the growth factor for projecting emissions from re-entrained road dust from

travel on paved roads (SCC 22 -94 -000 -000). The 2007 and 2025 VMT are identical to

those used in the MOVES modeling discussed in Section 8. Exhibit 2.12 shows the county

level VMT for 2007 and 2025, and the growth factor for projecting 2007 emissions to

2025. Growth factors for 2013, 2017, and 2020 were based on a linear interpolation of the

2007 and 2025 VMT. Appendix D contains additional information on the data used to

develop the VMT growth factors.Documentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 16



### Exhibit 2. 5 AEO2010 Growth Factors for Coal by AEO Region 2007 – 2025Documentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 17



### Exhibit 2. 6 Growth Factors for Residual Oil by AEO Region 2007 – 2025Documentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 18



### Exhibit 2.7 AEO2010 Growth Factors for Distillate Oil by AEO Region 2007 – 2025Documentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 19



### Exhibit 2. 8 Growth Factors for Natural Gas by AEO Region 2007 – 2025 AEO2010 for Residential/Commercial, AEO2011 for IndustrialDocumentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 20



### Exhibit 2. 9 AEO2010 Growth Factors for Gasoline by AEO Region 2007 – 2025Documentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 21



### Exhibit 2. 10 Population Growth Factors by AEO Region 2007 – 2025Documentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 22



### Exhibit 2.11 Manufacturing Employment Growth Factors by Region 2007 - 2025Documentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 23



### Exhibit 2.1 2 2007 and 2025 VMT and the 2007-2025 Growth Factor

Million VMT Growth

Nonattainment Area County FIPS 2007 2025 2007

- 2005

Allentown Lehigh 42077 2,947 3,700 1.256

Allentown Northampton 42095 2,020 2,629 1.301

Baltimore Anne Arundel 24003 5,786 7,907 1.367

Baltimore Baltimore 24005 8,261 10,330 1.251

Baltimore Carroll 24013 1,296 1,766 1.363

Baltimore Harford 24025 2,362 3,060 1.296

Baltimore Howard 24027 3,815 6,059 1.588

Baltimore Baltimore City 24510 3,626 4,150 1.145

Hagerstown Washington 24043 2,090 2,940 1.407

Harrisburg

- Lebanon

- Carlisle

- York Cumberland 42041 2,861 3,704 1.295

Harrisburg

- Lebanon

- Carlisle

- York Dauphin 42043 3,072 3,689 1.201

Harrisburg

- Lebanon

- Carlisle

- York Lebanon 42075 1,209 1,507 1.247

Harrisburg

- Lebanon

- Carlisle

- York York 42133 3,304 4,209 1.274

Johnstown Cambria 42021 1,157 1,110 0.959

Johnstown Indiana 42063 844 928 1.100

Lancaster Lancaster 42071 4,255 5,395 1.268

New York Metro NY/NJ/CT Fairfield 9001 7,560 8,568 1.133

New York Metro NY/NJ/CT New Haven 9009 6,856 8,085 1.179

New York Metro NY/NJ/CT Bergen 34003 7,879 10,464 1.328

New York Metro NY/NJ/CT Essex 34013 4,895 6,131 1.253

New York Metro NY/NJ/CT Hudson 34017 2,313 2,801 1.211

New York Metro NY/NJ/CT Mercer 34021 3,566 3,996 1.121

New York Metro NY/NJ/CT Middlesex 34023 7,810 9,748 1.248

New York Metro NY/NJ/CT Monmouth 34025 6,319 8,595 1.360

New York Metro NY/NJ/CT Morris 34027 5,530 6,523 1.180

New York Metro NY/NJ/CT Passaic 34031 2,918 3,490 1.196

New York Metro NY/NJ/CT Somerset 34035 3,230 3,667 1.135

New York Metro NY/NJ/CT Union 34039 4,623 5,730 1.239

New York Metro NY/NJ/CT Bronx 36005 3,677 4,830 1.314

New York Metro NY/NJ/CT Kings 36047 5,461 6,272 1.148

New York Metro NY/NJ/CT Nassau 36059 11,780 14,705 1.248

New York Metro NY/NJ/CT New York 36061 3,938 5,203 1.321

New York Metro NY/NJ/CT Orange 36071 4,431 5,906 1.333

New York Metro NY/NJ/CT Queens 36081 8,859 10,949 1.236

New York Metro NY/NJ/CT Richmond 36085 2,152 3,354 1.558

New York Metro NY/NJ/CT Rockland 36087 2,675 4,060 1.517

New York Metro NY/NJ/CT Suffolk 36103 13,767 20,514 1.485

New York Metro NY/NJ/CT Westchester 36119 8,201 11,811 1.490
Philadelphia PA/DE/NJ New Castle 10003 5,544 6,959 1.255
Philadelphia PA/DE/NJ Burlington 34005 4,704 5,062 1.076Documentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 24

Million VMT Growth

Nonattainment Area County FIPS 2007 2025 2007

- 2005

Philadelphia PA/DE/NJ Camden 34007 4,090 4,267 1.043
Philadelphia PA/DE/NJ Gloucester 34015 2,723 3,284 1.206
Philadelphia PA/DE/NJ Bucks 42017 5,047 6,516 1.291
Philadelphia PA/DE/NJ Chester 42029 4,423 6,201 1.402
Philadelphia PA/DE/NJ Delaware 42045 3,766 4,371 1.161
Philadelphia PA/DE/NJ Montgomery 42091 7,075 8,220 1.162
Philadelphia PA/DE/NJ Philadelphia 42101 5,973 6,337 1.061

Pittsburgh

- Beaver Valley Allegheny 42003 9,345 10,134 1.084
Pittsburgh

- Beaver Valley Armstrong 42005 628 672 1.071
Pittsburgh

- Beaver Valley Beaver 42007 1,487 1,585 1.066
Pittsburgh

- Beaver Valley Butler 42019 1,762 2,173 1.233
Pittsburgh

- Beaver Valley Greene 42059 464 504 1.086
Pittsburgh

- Beaver Valley Lawrence 42073 812 880 1.084
Pittsburgh

- Beaver Valley Washington 42125 2,245 2,531 1.127
Pittsburgh

- Beaver Valley Westmoreland 42129 3,512 3,898 1.110

Reading Berks 42011 3,341 4,079 1.221
Washington DC/MD/VA DC 11001 3,666 3,861 1.053
Washington DC/MD/VA Charles 24017 1,284 1,825 1.421
Washington DC/MD/VA Frederick 24021 3,009 4,442 1.476
Washington DC/MD/VA Montgomery 24031 7,471 9,711 1.300
Washington DC/MD/VA Prince George's 24033 8,754 11,616 1.327
Washington DC/MD/VA Arlington 51013 1,663 1,917 1.153
Washington DC/MD/VA Fairfax 51059 10,123 13,880 1.371
Washington DC/MD/VA Loudoun 51107 2,403 3,741 1.557
Washington DC/MD/VA Prince William 51153 3,202 4,643 1.450
Washington DC/MD/VA Alexandria 51510 736 866 1.177
Washington DC/MD/VA Fairfax 51600 193 220 1.143
Washington DC/MD/VA Falls Church 51610 64 76 1.186
Washington DC/MD/VA Manassas 51683 273 360 1.317
Washington DC/MD/VA Manassas Park 51685 26 30 1.166Documentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 25



### 2.3.1.5 

### No Growth Assignment for Certain Area Source Categories

For several area source categories, it seems reasonable that emissions would not change

from the 2007 values. No growth was applied to the 2007 emissions for the area source

categories shown in Exhibit 2.13

.

Exhibit 2.1 3 Area Source Categories with No Growth Assignment

SCC SCC Description

2296000000 Unpaved Roads /All Unpaved Roads /Total: Fugitives

2401008000 Surface Coating /Traffic Markings /Total: All Solvent Types

2461020000 Misc Non

- industrial: Commercial /Asphalt Application: All Processes /Total: All

2461021000 Misc Non

- industrial: Commercial /Cutback Asphalt /Total: All Solvent Types

2461022000 Misc Non

- industrial: Commercial /Emulsified Asphalt /Total: All Solvent Types

2461023000 Misc Non

- industrial: Commercial /Asphalt Roofing /Total : All Solvent Types

2601000000 On

- site Incineration /All Categories /Total

2601010000 On

- site Incineration /Industrial /Total

2601010000 On

- site Incineration /Industrial /Total

2601020000 On

- site Incineration /Commercial/Institutional /Total

2601020000 On

- site Incineration /Commercial/Institutional /Total

2601030000 On

- site Incineration /Residential /Total

2610000100 Open Burning /All Categories /Yard Waste

- Leaf Species Unspecified

2610000400 Open Burning /All Categories /Yard Waste

- Brush Species Unspecified

2610000500 Open Burning /All Categories /Land Clearing Debris (use 28

- 10

- 005

- 000 for Logging

2610030000 Open Burning /Residential /Household Waste (use 26

- 10

- 000

- xxx for Yard Wastes)

2610040400 Open Burning /Municipal (from res idences, parks, other for central burn)

2660000000 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks /Leaking Underground Storage Tanks /Total: All

2680001000 Composting /100% Biosolids (e.g., sewage sludge, manure, mixtures of these matls

2680002000 Composting /Mixed Waste (e.g., a 50:50 mixture of biosolids and green wastes)

2806010000 Domestic Animals Waste Emissions /Cats /Total

2806015000 Domestic Animals Waste Emissions /Dogs /Total

2807020001 Wild Animals Waste Emissions /Bears /Black Bears

2807020002 Wild Animals Waste Emissions /Bears /Grizzly Bears

2807025000 Wild Animals Waste Emissions /Elk /Total

2807030000 Wild Animals Waste Emissions /Deer /Total

2807040000 Wild Animals Waste Emissions /Birds /Total

2810001000 Forest Wildfires

- W ildfires

– Unspecified

2810003000 Cigarette Smoke /Total

2810005000 Managed Burning, Slash (Logging Debris) /Unspecified Burn Method

2810010000 Human Perspiration and Respiration /Total

2810014000 Prescribed Burning /Generic

- Unspecified land cover, ownership, class/purposeDocumentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 26

SCC SCC Description

2810015000 Prescribed Forest Burning /Unspecified

2810020000 Prescribed Rangeland Burning /Unspecified

2810030000 Structure Fires /Unspecified

2810035000 Firefighting Training /Total

2810050000 Motor Vehicle Fires /Unspecified

2810060200 Cremation /Animals

2810090000 Open Fire /Not categorized

2820010000 Cooling Towers /Process Cooling Towers /Total

2830000000 Catastrophic/Accidental Releases /All Catastrophic/Accidental Releases /Total

2830010000 Catastrophic/Accidental Releases /Transportation Accidents /Total



### 2.3.1.6 

### USEPA 2020 Projections for Residential Wood

US EPA made available its 2020 emissions projections associated with its 2005-based v4

modeling platform. MARAMA decided to use USEPA emission projection parameters for

re sidential wood combustion. USEPA’s methodology and data sources are summarized

below (USEPA 2010a).

USEP A projected residential wood combustion emissions are based on the expected

incr ease in the number of low-emitting wood stoves and the corresponding decrease in

other types of wood stoves. As newer, cleaner woodstoves replace older, more polluting

stoves, there will be an overall reduction of emissions from this category. The approach

used by USEPA was developed as part of a modeling exercise to estimate the expected

be nefits of the woodstove change-out program. This methodology uses a combination

growth and control factors and is based on activity not pollutant. The growth and control

a re accounted for in a single factor for each residential wood SCC (certain SCCs represent

c ontrolled equipment, while other SCCs represent uncontrolled equipment). Control

factors are indirectly incorporated based on which stove is used. The specific assumptions

USEP A made were:

 Fireplaces, SCC=2104008001: increase 1%/year;

 Old woodstoves, SCC=2104008002, 2104008010, 2104008051: decrease 2%/y ea r;

 New woodstoves, SCC=2104008003, 2104008004, 2104008030, 2104008050, 2104008052 or 2104008053: increase 2%/year.

For the general woodstoves and fireplaces category (SCC 2104008000) USEPA computed

a weighted average distribution based on 19.4% fireplaces, 71.6% old woodstoves, 9.1%

ne w woodstoves using 2002 Platform emissions for PM2.5. These fractions are based on

the f raction of emissions from these processes in the states that did not have the “generalDocumentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 27



### woodstoves and fireplaces” SCC in the 2002 NEI. This approach results in an overall

decrease of 1.056% per year for this source category. Appendix E contains the residential

wood pr ojection data from USEPA.

2.3.1.7 

### S CC, SIC, NAICS and Growth Parameter Crosswalk

Since the employment projections were based on 3-digit NAICS code, it was necessary to

map NAICS codes to SCCs and SIC codes that were used by states. Employment

projections at the more specific 4-digit or 6-digit NAICS codes were not available.

The first step for developing a comprehensive crosswalk between the different source

classification codes (SCC, SIC, and NAICS codes) and emission activity growth indicators

wa s to compile a complete list of the NAICS codes in the 2007 point source inventory.

S ome states use the SIC code while other use the NAICS code. Still other states use both

the SIC and NAICS codes. When the NAICS code was not available SIC codes were

c onverted to NAICS codes. The 6-digit NAICS code was truncated to a 3-digit code,

which represents major industry subsectors of the economy. A U.S. Census Bureau

document was used to perform this conversion (CENSUS 2000).

The next step was to review parameters that could be used as the emission activity growth

indicator for each SCC or NAICS. We initially relied on two USEPA crosswalks (USEPA

2004a, USEPA 2004b) to match area and nonEGU point source SCCs to AEO2010

categories, employment NAICS codes, and population.

2.3.1.8 

### Final Version 2 Growth Factors for Area Sources

The previous sections described the initial growth factors recommended to develop

pr ojected future year emissions inventories for area and non-EGU sources. Draft growth

and control factors, and a draft technical support document, were circulated for review by

MARAMA and state agencies. During the review, it was noted that several emissions

categories show negative growth into the future, particularly categories related to fossil

fuel combustion and manufacturing employment.

Many of the growth factors used to project emissions for area and non-EGU sources were

based on the AEO2010 fuel consumption forecasts and state-level employment projections.

The AEO2010 forecasts show declining trends for many fuel consumption sectors,

especially industrial, residential, and commercial distillate fuel oil use. Similarly, the

employment projections show declines in the predicted number of employees for many

sectors of the economy. This is particularly true for the manufacturing sector, which is of

interest because this sector is often associated with higher emissions than those for other

sectors. By contrast, the employment projections show increasing trends in retail andDocumentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 28



### service-related sectors. However, these sectors are not typically associated with significant

emissions.

Predicted declines in fuel use and employment resulted in growth factors less than unity

(i.e., represent negative growth) for many area and non-EGU point source categories.

Consequently, for some categories, emissions were initially projected to be lower for the

projected future years than for the base year, even before the application of control

assumptions (i.e., the future "growth only" emissions are lower than the base year

emissions). A conference call was held to discuss the negative growth issue, and states

were polled as to whether or not they felt that the current set of proposed growth factors -

including the negative growth factors - were realistic for their state. In reply, some

representatives mentioned that they have observed historic state-specific data that supports

the trends displayed by the proposed growth factors. Other representatives mentioned that

they feel comfortable with the growth factors and don't have a technical basis to change

them or suggest others. Some states will supply their own factors or make their own

assumptions.

As a result of these discussions, each state provided guidance on how to handle projections

whe n negative growth is indicated. Exhibit 2. 1 4 shows the state recommendations for area

sourc es.

2.3.1.9 

### Version 3 Update to New Jersey Growth Factors for Area Sources

New Jersey provided updated growth factors for area source for use in developing the 2025

inventory for PM nonattainment counties. One of the key revisions was to use the more

recent data from AEO2011 for energy consumption instead of the AEO2010 projections.

New Jersey also provided updated employment, paved road, pesticide and agricultural

livestock growth factors.

2.3.1.10 

### Version 3 Update to Growth Factors for the District of Columbia

The District of Columbia provided updated employment growth factors based on DC

Department of Labor forecasts for the period 2008 to 2018.Documentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 29



### Exhibit 2 -1 4 State Recommendations to Address Negative Growt h

and Other Growth Factors for the Area Source Sector

State AEO2010

Growth Factors Employment
Growth Factors Population
Growth Factors

CT Use AEO2010 growth rates Use state DOL employment projections by 3

- digit NAICS Use county

- level population projections

DE Use AEO2010 growth rates ; no growth for suspect AEO2010 projection for commercial /

institutional residual oil For 2013, use state DOL employment projections by 3

- digit NAICS; For 2017 and 2020, use no growth (growth factor=1) when employment growth is negative; otherwise use employment if positive growth Use county

- level population projections

DC Use AEO2010 growth rates ; no growth for suspect AEO2010 projection for commercial /

institutional residual oil Use DOL employment growth for

NAICS 722 for food and kindred product SCC; otherwise use

2008

- 2018 data For dry cleaning, use employment growth for

NAICS 812 instead of population

MD Not using AEO2010 ; used employment for commercial &

institutional fuel; used housing

units for residential fuel Provided updated employment projections; changed cross

- walk
between NAICS code and SCC for selected source categories Provided updated population projections by county

NJ NJ submitted state specific growth f actors. For fuel combustion categories only, used AEO2011 growth rates except for residual oil (use no growth) NJ submitted state specific growth factors. NJ submitted state specific growth factors and provided population projections by county

NY Use AEO2010 growth rates Use state DOL employment projections by 3

- digit NAICS Use county

- level population projections

PA Use AEO2010 growth rates Use state DOL employment projections by 3

- digit NAICS Use county

- level population projections

VA Use AEO2010 growth rates ; no growth for suspect AEO2010 projection for commercial /

institutional residual oil Use state DOL employment projections by 3

- digit NAICS Use county

- level population projectionsDocumentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 30



### 2.3.2 Area Source Control Factors

Control factors were developed to estimate post-2007 emission reductions resulting from

on -the-books regulations and other emission reduction measures. Control factors were

developed for the following national, regional and state measures:

 Federal Rules Affecting Area Sources

 Federal MACT Rules

 OTC 2001 Model Rules

 OTC 2006 Model Rules

 MANE-VU Sulfur in Fuel Oil Limitations

These control programs, including their impact on PM2.5 and PM precursor emissions, are

discusse d in the following subsections.

2.3.2.1 

### Federal Rules Affecting Area Sources

USEPA made available its 2020 emissions projections associated with its 2005-based v4

modeling platform (USEPA 2010a). USEPA accounted for control strategies for four area

sourc e categories, only one of which reduced emissions of PM2.5 or PM2.5 precursors.

USEPA developed projection factors to account for the replacement of retired woodstoves

that were installed before promulgation of the new source performance standard (NSPS).

We used USEPA’s latest methodology which uses a combination growth and control factor

and is based on activity and not pollutant. The growth and control are accounted for in a

si ng le factor for specific SCCs that account for the turnover from pre-NSPS to post-NSPS

woodstove.

2.3.2.2 

### Federal MACT Rules

USEPA developed guidance for estimating VOC and NO

x 

### emission changes from MACT

Rules (USEPA 2007b). We reviewed the guidance to identify area source controls

associated with the federal maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards for

controlling hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). Although designed to reduce HAPs, many of

the MACT standards also provide a reduction in criteria air pollutants. USEPA’s guidance

document provides an estimate of the percent reduction in VOC and NO

x 

### from each

standard, and the compliance date for the standard. The information concerning MACT

compliance periods provided was used to determine whether the MACT standard provided

post -2007 emission reductions. For example, if a compliance period of a MACT standard

was 2007 or earlier, then we assumed that the emission reductions from the MACT

standard should be reflected in the baseline year and not as an additional post-2007 credit.Documentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 31



### Only one area source category was listed in USEPA ’s guidance document - municipal

solid waste landfills. As the compliance date for this standard was January 2004, no post2007 r eductions were applied because the emission reductions from the MACT standard

should be reflected in the 2007 inventory and not as an additional post-2007 credit.

USEPA has or will soon develop MACT standards for about 70 area source categories.

We reviewed USEPA’s 2020 emissions projections described in the previous section and

found that USEPA did not include emission reductions from recent area source MACT

standards. We conducted a review of USEPA’s air toxic website and found that USEPA

determined that many area source MACT standards would result in nationwide reductions

in criteria air pollutants in addition to the reductions in HAP emissions. However, many

States in the MANE-VU+VA region already have emission standards for many categories

that are as stringent as the Federal area source MACT standards. For example, many states

in the MANE-VU+VA region already have requirements as stringent as the Gasoline

Distribution MACT and GACT (generally achievable control technology) standards, and

li ttle additional VOC reductions would be realized in the region. Given the resources

allocated to this project, it was beyond the scope to conduct an analysis of the area source

MACT requirements and state- by -state emission regulations to determine whether there

would be emission reductions resulting from the area source MACT standards.

The only exception to the above discussion of area source MACT standards pertains to the

recently promulgated rules for reciprocating internal combustion engines (RICE). USEPA

made available an estimate of the percent reduction in emissions attributable to the RICE

MACT rule in 2012 and 2014 (USEPA 2010b ). These reductions by SCC are shown in

Exhibit 2-15. The USEPA 2014 estimates were used for the MANE-VU+VA 2017, 2020

a nd 2025 inventories.

2.3.2.3 

### OTC Model Rules for VOC Sources

The Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) developed model rules for its member states in

2002 for several area source VOC categories: consumer products, architectural and

industrial maintenance (AIM) coatings, portable fuel containers (PFCs), mobile equipmen t
repair and refinishing, and solvent cleaning (OTC 2001). In 2006 the OTC introduced

model rules for two additional area source categories (adhesives/sealants and asphalt

paving) and more stringent requirements for consumer products and portable fuel

containers (OTC 2007). These rules resulted in reductions of VOC emissions. Because

VOC emissions are generally not considered to be significant PM precursors, and these

rules did not result in reductions in PM2.5 or precursor emissions, no further discussion of

the O TC model rules for VOC sources is warranted.Documentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 32



### Exhibit 2 -15 USEPA Estimated Percent Reductions for RICE MACT Standard

SCC NOx PM2.5 SCC Description

2101004000 7.57 Electric Utility;Distillate Oil;Total: Boilers and IC Engines

2101004002 11.81 Electric Utility;Distillate Oil;All IC Engine Types

2101006000 7.97 Electric Utility;Natural Gas;Total: Boilers and IC Engines

2101006002 9.87 Electric Utility;Natural Gas;All IC Engine Types

2102004000 7.57 Industrial;Distillate Oil;Total: Boilers and IC Engines

2102006000 7.97 Industrial;Natural Gas;Total: Boilers and IC Engines

2102006002 9.87 Industrial;Natural Gas;All IC Engine Types

2103004000 7.57 Commercial/Institutional;Distillate Oil;Total: Boilers and IC Engines

2103006000 7.97 Commercial/Institutional;Natural Gas;Total: Boilers and IC Engines

2199004000 7.57 Area Source Fuel Combustion;Distillate Oil;Total: Boilers and IC Engines

2199004002 11.81 Area Source Fuel Combustion;Distillate Oil;All IC Engine Types

2199006000 7.97 Area Source Fuel Combustion;Natural Gas;Total: Boilers and IC Engines

2310000000 12.53 Oil and Gas Production: All Processes;Total: All Processes

2310000220 12.53 Oil and Gas Exploration/Production; Drill Rigs

2310000440 12.53 Oil and Gas Exploration/Production; Saltwater Disposal Engines

2310001000 12.53 Oil and Gas Production: SIC 13; On

- shore;Total: All Processes

2310002000 12.53 Oil and Gas Production: SIC 13; Off

- shore;Total: All Processes

2310020000 12.53 Oil and Gas Production: SIC 13;Natural Gas;Total: All Processes

2310020600 12.53 Oil and Gas Exploration and Production;Natural Gas;Compressor Engines

2310023000 12.53 Oil and Gas Exploration and Production;Natural Gas;Cbm Gas

Well

- Dewatering Pump Engines



### 2.3.2.4 

### OTC Model Rule for ICI Boilers

The OTC recommended that member states pursue state-specific rulemakings or other

implementation methods to achieve NO

x 

### emission reduction for industrial, commercial,

and institutional (ICI) boilers based on guidelines that varied by boiler size and fuel type.

S tates were polled to determine whether they have adopted a rule that would achieve

reductions equivalent to the 2006 OTC recommendations and whether the estimated

reduction in NO

x 

### emissions should be applied in 2013, 2017, and 2020.

All but one state, New Jersey, indicated that they have not adopted rules for area sources

equivalent to the 2006 OTC recommendations. New Jersey specified that the state has

post-2007 ICI boiler rules that reduce NO

x 

### emissions and provided the estimates of theDocumentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 33



### reductions in NO

x 

### emissions by SCC resulting from boiler tune-up requirements, as shown

in Exhibit 2.16:

Exhibit 2.16 Area Source Emission Reductions from

New Jersey ICI Boiler NO

x 

### Rules

SCC SOURCE

CATEGORY Percent

Reduction

from Tune

ups 2007

- 2013 Rule

Effectivenes

s Rule

Penetratio

n Overall

Percent

Reduction

2007

- 2013

2102004000 Industrial : Distillate 25% 80% 30% 6%

2102005000 I ndustrial : Residual 25% 80% 30% 6%

2102006000 I ndustrial : Nat Gas 25% 80% 30% 6%

2102007000 Industrial : LPG 25% 80% 30% 6%

2103004000 C omm/Inst : Distillate 25% 80% 30% 6%

2103005000 Comm/Inst : Residual 25% 80% 30% 6%

2103006000 Comm/Inst : Nat Gas 25% 80% 30% 6%

2103007000 C omm/Inst

- LPG 25% 80% 30% 6%



### 2.3.2.5 

### MANE- VU Fuel Oil Sulfur Strategy

MANE-VU developed a low sulfur fuel oil strategy to help states develop Regional Haze

S IPs (MANE_VU 2007). The sulfur in fuel oil recommendations are shown in Exhibit

2. 17 and vary by state, type of fuel oil, and year of implementation.

E xhibit 2.17 MANE-VU Low Sulfur Fuel Oil Strategy

Inner Zone States (DE, NJ, NY, PA)

Fuel Oil Type Sulfur Content

2012 Sulfur Content

2016

Distillate 500 ppm 15 ppm

#4 Residual 0.25 % 0.25 %

#6 Residual 0.3 to 0.5 % 0.3 to 0.5 %

Outer Zone States (CT, DC, MD)

Fuel Oil Type Sulfur Content

2014 Sulfur Content

2018

Distillate 500 ppm 15 ppm

#4 Residual n/a 0.25 to 0.5 %

#6 Residual n/a 0.5 %Documentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 34



### Each state was polled and asked to provide guidance as to when, if at all, the MANE-VU

stra tegy would be incorporated into their state rules. States were also asked to provide the

2007 sulfur contents for each fuel type by county in order to calculate the percent reduction

in emissions for the future years. Three states (MD, NJ, NY) have adopted or are

c ommitted to adopting the strategy into their rules. Four jurisdictions (CT, DC, DE, PA)

indi cated that not enough regulatory development progress has been made to include the

reductions in future years with absolute certainty. One state (VA) has no plans to adopt the

low sulfur fuel oil strategy. The response from each jurisdiction is summarized below:

 Connecticut will not include the reductions from MANE-VU low sulfur fuel oil

strategy at this time for official SIP inventories used for the PM2.5 redesignation

effort. Section 16a-21a of the Connecticut General Statutes (as amended by PA 10-

74) conditions implementation of number two heating oil sulfur limitation (50 ppm beginning 7/1/2011 and 15 ppm beginning 7/1/2014) on similar implementation in

NY , MA and RI. NY has taken action, but the other states have not done so yet.

CTDEP expects that 15ppm residential heating oil will be in place in CT by the

"MANE-VU Ask" 2018 target date. However, until the other states act, SIP

emission inventories will not be approvable with the 15 ppm value. Therefore, at

thi s time CT elects to retain the 2007 sulfur value through 2025. For residual oil,

Section 22a-174 -19a of the Regulations of CT State Agencies (RCSA) limits

sources >=15MW and boilers >=250 mm Btu/hr to 0.5% and further limits any of

those sources that are also Title IV acid rain sources to 0.3%. For affected sources,

these limits are consistent with the "MANE-VU Ask", and should be reflected in

the actual emissions incorporated into the 2007 point source inventory. Other

sources (including most area sources) not otherwise restricted by permit/order are

limited to 1.0% by RCSA 22a-174-19. As both of these regulations have not

changed after 2007, there are no new controls (i.e., post 2007 control factors are

1.0) for residual oil.

 The District of Columbia does not have a low sulfur rule in place yet. They do

have a draft, and anticipate adopting a rule by 2014, but are inclined not to take

credit for reductions at this point in time.

 Delaware’s low -sulfur fuel regulation development is running behind schedule and

will not be promulgated done in time to include in the re

- designation

requests/maintenance plans. Emission reductions from MANE-VU low sulfur fuel

oil strategy are not included in the 2025 inventory at this time.

 Maryland expects to revise COMAR 26.11.09.07 ( S ulfur Content Limitations for

Fuel 

### ) by 2014 to adopt the limits in the MANE-VU low sulfur fuel oil strategy.Documentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 35



###  New Jersey h as revised N.J.A.C. 7:27-9.2 (Sulfur content standards) to adopt the

2016 sul fur content limits and schedule shown in Exhibit 2.19. All of the PM

nona ttainment counties in New Jersey already meet the MANE-VU limits for

residual oil.

 New York adopted a law that limits the sulfur content of No. 2 heating oil to no

more than 15 parts per million starting in July 2012, down from the current range

of 2,000 to 15,000 parts per million. New York expects to revise 6 NYCRR

Subpart 225 -1 (Fuel Composition and Use - Sulfur Limitations) to lower the sulfur

content of distillate fuel oil for all stationary sources (including home heating) and

stationary internal combustion engines. Nearly all of the PM nonattainment

c ounties in New York already meet the MANE-VU limits for residual oil. For the

two counties (Orange and Suffolk), compliance with the MANE-VU limits is

expected by 2017.

 Pennsylvania low-sulfur fuel regulation development is running behind schedule

and will not be promulgated done in time to include in the re

- designation

requests/maintenance plans. Emission reductions from MANE-VU low sulfur fuel

oil strategy are not included in the 2025 inventory at this time.

 Virginia will not include the emission reductions from low sulfur fuel oil, as it is

not part of MANE-VU and has no plans to ad opt the low sulfur fuel oil strategy.

The state responses regarding the currently adopted sulfur contents for home heating oil,

dist illate oil, and residual oil are summarized in Exhibits 2.18, 2. 19 and 2.2 0 , respectively.

For the purposes of developing the 2025 inventory that will be used for re

- designations and

maintenance plans, the sulfur contents and control factors shown in the Exhibits were used

on a county- by -county basis to account for the emission reductions from the MANE- VU

low sulfur fuel oil strategy. There are separate columns in the detailed area source

inventor y spreadsheet that specify SO 2 

### control factors and emissions for each projection

year for a “currently adopted” scenario that includes reductions for states (MD, NJ, NY)

that have or are committed to having rules in place. No emission reductions are applied for

the other states (CT, DC, DE, PA, VA) in the “currently adopted” scenario.

For other air quality planning purposes, we accounted separately for emission reductions

that would occur assuming all states fully adopt the MANE-VU low sulfur fuel limits by

2025. There are separate columns for SO 2 

### control factors and emissions for a “fully

adopted” scenario where all states (except Virginia) have the MANE-VU low sulfur fuel

oil limits in place.Documentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 36



### Exhibit 2. 18 Currently Adopted Sulfur Content and Control Factors for Residential Fuel Oil Combustion

Sulfur Content (ppm) Control Factor

STATE FIPS CNTY_NAME 2007 2013 2017 2020 2025 CF_07_13 CF_07_17 CF_07_20 CF_07_25

CT 09001 Fairfield 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

CT 09009 New Haven 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

DE 10003 New Castle 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

DC 11001 Washington 1 000 1 000 1000 1000 1000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

MD 24003 Anne Arundel 3000 3000 15 15 15 1.000 0.005 0.005 0.005

MD 24005 Baltimore 3000 3000 15 15 15 1.000 0.005 0.005 0.005

MD 24013 Carroll 3000 3000 15 15 15 1.000 0.005 0.005 0.005

MD 24017 Charles 3000 3000 15 15 15 1.000 0.005 0.005 0.005

MD 24021 Frederick 3000 3000 15 15 15 1.000 0.005 0.005 0.005

MD 24025 Harford 3000 3000 15 15 15 1.000 0.005 0.005 0.005

MD 24027 Howard 3000 3000 15 15 15 1.000 0.005 0.005 0.005

MD 24031 Montgomery 3000 3000 15 15 15 1.000 0.005 0.005 0.005

MD 24033 Prince Georges 3000 3000 15 15 15 1.000 0.005 0.005 0.005

MD 24043 Washington 3000 3000 15 15 15 1.000 0.005 0.005 0.005

MD 24510 Baltimore City 3000 3000 15 15 15 1.000 0.005 0.005 0.005

NJ 34003 Bergen 2000 2000 15 15 15 1.000 0.0075 0.0075 0.0075

NJ 34005 Burlington 2000 2000 15 15 15 1.000 0.0075 0.0075 0.0075

NJ 34007 Camden 2000 2000 15 15 15 1.000 0.0075 0.0075 0.0075

NJ 34013 Essex 2000 2000 15 15 15 1.000 0.0075 0.0075 0.0075

NJ 34015 Gloucester 2000 2000 15 15 15 1.000 0.0075 0.0075 0.0075

NJ 34017 Hudson 2000 2000 15 15 15 1.000 0.0075 0.0075 0.0075

NJ 34021 Mercer 2000 2000 15 15 15 1.000 0.0075 0.0075 0.0075

NJ 34023 Middlesex 2000 2000 15 15 15 1.000 0.0075 0.0075 0.0075

NJ 34025 Monmouth 2000 2000 15 15 15 1.000 0.0075 0.0075 0.0075

NJ 34027 Morris 2000 2000 15 15 15 1.000 0.0075 0.0075 0.0075

NJ 34031 Passaic 2000 2000 15 15 15 1.000 0.0075 0.0075 0.0075Documentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 37

Sulfur Content (ppm) Control Factor

STATE FIPS CNTY_NAME 2007 2013 2017 2020 2025 CF_07_13 CF_07_17 CF_07_20 CF_07_25

NJ 34035 Somerset 2000 2000 15 15 15 1.000 0.0075 0.0075 0.0075

NJ 34039 Union 2000 2000 15 15 15 1.000 0.0075 0.0075 0.0075

NY 36005 Bronx 2000 15 15 15 15 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007

NY 36047 Kings 2000 15 15 15 15 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007

NY 36059 Nassau 3700 15 15 15 15 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004

NY 36061 New York 2000 15 15 15 15 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007

NY 36071 Orange 3700 15 15 15 15 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004

NY 36081 Queens 2000 15 15 15 15 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007

NY 36085 Richmond 2000 15 15 15 15 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007

NY 36087 Rockland 3700 15 15 15 15 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004

NY 36103 Suffolk 3700 15 15 15 15 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004

NY 36119 Westchester 3700 15 15 15 15 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004

PA 42003 Allegheny 3 000 3000 3000 3000 3000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

PA 42005 Armstrong 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

PA 42007 Beaver 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

PA 42011 Berks 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

PA 42017 Bucks 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

PA 42019 Butler 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

PA 42021 Cambria 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

PA 42029 Chester 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

PA 42041 Cumberland 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

PA 42043 Dauphin 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

PA 42045 Delaware 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

PA 42059 Greene 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

PA 42063 Indiana 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

PA 42071 Lancaster 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

PA 42073 Lawrence 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

PA 42075 Lebanon 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000Documentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 38

Sulfur Content (ppm) Control Factor

STATE FIPS CNTY_NAME 2007 2013 2017 2020 2025 CF_07_13 CF_07_17 CF_07_20 CF_07_25

PA 42077 Lehigh 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

PA 42091 Montgomery 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

PA 42095 Northampton 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

PA 42101 Philadelphia 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

PA 42125 Washington 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

PA 42129 Westmoreland 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

PA 42133 York 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

VA 51013 Arlington 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

VA 51059 Fairfax 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

VA 51107 Loudoun 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

VA 51153 Prince William 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

VA 51510 Alexandria 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

VA 51600 Fairfax City 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

VA 51610 Falls Church 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

VA 51683 Manassas City 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

VA 516 85 Manassas Park City 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000Documentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 39



### Exhibit 2. 19 Currently Adopted Sulfur Content and Control Factors for Distillate Fuel Oil Combustion

Sulfur Content ( % S ) Control Factor

STATE FIPS CNTY_NAME 2007 2013 2017 2020 2025 CF_07_13 CF_07_17 CF_07_20 CF_07_25

CT 09001 Fairfield 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

CT 09009 New Haven 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

DE 10003 New Castle 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

DC 11001 Washington 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

MD 24003 Anne Arundel 3000 3000 15 15 15 1.000 0.005 0.005 0.005

MD 24005 Baltimore 3000 3000 15 15 15 1.000 0.005 0.005 0.005

MD 24013 Carroll 3000 3000 15 15 15 1.000 0.005 0.005 0.005

MD 24017 Charles 3000 3000 15 15 15 1.000 0.005 0.005 0.005

MD 24021 Frederick 3000 3000 15 15 15 1.000 0.005 0.005 0.005

MD 24025 Harford 3000 3000 15 15 15 1.000 0.005 0.005 0.005

MD 24027 Howard 3000 3000 15 15 15 1.000 0.005 0.005 0.005

MD 24031 Montgomery 3000 3000 15 15 15 1.000 0.005 0.005 0.005

MD 24033 Prince Georges 3000 3000 15 15 15 1.000 0.005 0.005 0.005

MD 24043 Washington 3000 3000 15 15 15 1.000 0.005 0.005 0.005

MD 24510 Baltimore City 3000 3000 15 15 15 1.000 0.005 0.005 0.005

NJ 34003 Bergen 2000 2000 15 15 15 1.000 0.0075 0.0075 0.0075

NJ 34005 Burlington 2000 2000 15 15 15 1.000 0.0075 0.0075 0.0075

NJ 34007 Camden 2000 2000 15 15 15 1.000 0.0075 0.0075 0.0075

NJ 34013 Essex 2000 2000 15 15 15 1.000 0.0075 0.0075 0.0075

NJ 34015 Gloucester 2000 2000 15 15 15 1.000 0.0075 0.0075 0.0075

NJ 34017 Hudson 2000 2000 15 15 15 1.000 0.0075 0.0075 0.0075

NJ 34021 Mercer 2000 2000 15 15 15 1.000 0.0075 0.0075 0.0075

NJ 34023 Middlesex 2000 2000 15 15 15 1.000 0.0075 0.0075 0.0075

NJ 34025 Monmouth 2000 2000 15 15 15 1.000 0.0075 0.0075 0.0075

NJ 34027 Morris 2000 2000 15 15 15 1.000 0.0075 0.0075 0.0075

NJ 34031 Passaic 2000 2000 15 15 15 1.000 0.0075 0.0075 0.0075Documentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 40

Sulfur Content ( % S ) Control Factor

STATE FIPS CNTY_NAME 2007 2013 2017 2020 2025 CF_07_13 CF_07_17 CF_07_20 CF_07_25

NJ 34035 Somerset 2000 2000 15 15 15 1.000 0.0075 0.0075 0.0075

NJ 34039 Union 2000 2000 15 15 15 1.000 0.0075 0.0075 0.0075

NY 36005 Bronx 2000 2000 15 15 15 1.000 0.007 0.007 0.007

NY 36047 Kings 2000 2000 15 15 15 1.000 0.007 0.007 0.007

NY 36059 Nassau 3700 3700 15 15 15 1.000 0.004 0.004 0.004

NY 36061 New York 2000 2000 15 15 15 1.000 0.007 0.007 0.007

NY 36071 Orange 3700 3700 15 15 15 1.000 0.004 0.004 0.004

NY 36081 Queens 2000 2000 15 15 15 1.000 0.007 0.007 0.007

NY 36085 Richmond 2000 2000 15 15 15 1.000 0.007 0.007 0.007

NY 36087 Rockland 3700 3700 15 15 15 1.000 0.004 0.004 0.004

NY 36103 Suffolk 3700 3700 15 15 15 1.000 0.004 0.004 0.004

NY 36119 Westchester 3700 3700 15 15 15 1.000 0.004 0.004 0.004

PA 42003 Allegheny 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

PA 42005 Armstrong 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

PA 42007 Beaver 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

PA 42011 Berks 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

PA 42017 Bucks 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

PA 42019 Butler 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

PA 42021 Cambria 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

PA 42029 Chester 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

PA 42041 Cumberland 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

PA 42043 Dauphin 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

PA 42045 Delaware 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

PA 42059 Greene 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

PA 42063 Indiana 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

PA 42071 Lancaster 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

PA 42073 Lawrence 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

PA 42075 Lebanon 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000Documentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 41

Sulfur Content ( % S ) Control Factor

STATE FIPS CNTY_NAME 2007 2013 2017 2020 2025 CF_07_13 CF_07_17 CF_07_20 CF_07_25

PA 42077 Lehigh 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

PA 42091 Montgomery 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

PA 42095 Northampton 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

PA 42101 Philadelphia 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

PA 42125 Washington 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

PA 42129 Westmoreland 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

PA 42133 York 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

VA 51013 Arlington 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

VA 51059 Fairfax 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

VA 51107 Loudoun 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

VA 51153 Prince William 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

VA 51510 Alexandria 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

VA 51600 Fairfax City 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

VA 51610 Falls Church 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

VA 51683 Manassas City 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

VA 516 85 Manassas Park City 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000Documentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 42



### Exhibit 2. 2 0 Currently Adopted Sulfur Content and Control Factors for Residual Fuel Oil Combustion

Sulfur Content ( % S ) Control Factor

STATE FIPS CNTY_NAME 2007 2013 2017 2020 2025 CF_07_13 CF_07_17 CF_07_20 CF_07_25

CT 09001 Fairfield 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

CT 09009 New Haven 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

DE 10003 New Castle 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

DC 11001 Washington 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1.0 1.0 1.000 1.000 1.00 0 1.0 0 0

MD 24003 Anne Arundel 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.000 0.500 0.500 0.500

MD 24005 Baltimore 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.000 0.500 0.500 0.500

MD 24013 Carroll 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.000 0.500 0.500 0.500

MD 24017 Charles 2.0 2.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.000 0.250 0.250 0.250

MD 24021 Frederick 2.0 2.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.000 0.250 0.250 0.250

MD 24025 Harford 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.000 0.500 0.500 0.500

MD 24027 Howard 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.000 0.500 0.500 0.500

MD 24031 Montgomery 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.000 0.500 0.500 0.500

MD 24033 Prince Georges 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.000 0.500 0.500 0.500

MD 24043 Washington 2.0 2.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.000 0.250 0.250 0.250

MD 24510 Baltimore City 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.000 0.500 0.500 0.500

NJ 34003 Bergen 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

NJ 34005 Burlington 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

NJ 34007 Camden 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

NJ 34013 Essex 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

NJ 34015 Gloucester 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

NJ 34017 Hudson 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

NJ 34021 Mercer 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

NJ 34023 Middlesex 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

NJ 34025 Monmouth 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

NJ 34027 Morris 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

NJ 34031 Passaic 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000Documentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 43

Sulfur Content ( % S ) Control Factor

STATE FIPS CNTY_NAME 2007 2013 2017 2020 2025 CF_07_13 CF_07_17 CF_07_20 CF_07_25

NJ 34035 Somerset 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

NJ 34039 Union 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

NY 36005 Bronx 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

NY 36047 Kings 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

NY 36059 Nassau 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

NY 36061 New York 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

NY 36071 Orange 1.5 1.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.000 0.333 0.333 0.333

NY 36081 Queens 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

NY 36085 Richmond 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

NY 36087 Rockland 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

NY 36103 Suffolk 1 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.000 0.500 0.500 0.500

NY 36119 Westchester 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

PA 42003 Allegheny 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

PA 42005 Armstrong 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

PA 42007 Beaver 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

PA 42011 Berks 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

PA 42017 Bucks 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

PA 42019 Butler 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

PA 42021 Cambria 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

PA 42029 Chester 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

PA 42041 Cumberland 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

PA 42043 Dauphin 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

PA 42045 Delaware 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

PA 42059 Greene 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

PA 42063 Indiana 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

PA 42071 Lancaster 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

PA 42073 Lawrence 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

PA 42075 Lebanon 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000Documentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 44

Sulfur Content ( % S ) Control Factor

STATE FIPS CNTY_NAME 2007 2013 2017 2020 2025 CF_07_13 CF_07_17 CF_07_20 CF_07_25

PA 42077 Lehigh 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

PA 42091 Montgomery 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

PA 42095 Northampton 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

PA 42101 Philadelphia 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

PA 42125 Washington 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

PA 42129 Westmoreland 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

PA 42133 York 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

VA 51013 Arlington 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

VA 51059 Fairfax 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

VA 51107 Loudoun 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

VA 51153 Prince William 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

VA 51510 Alexandria 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

VA 51600 Fairfax City 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

VA 51610 Falls Church 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

VA 51683 Manassas City 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

VA 51685 Manassas Park City 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000Documentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 45



## 3.0 POINT SOURCES

3.1 POINT SOURCE CATEGORIES

States were asked to classify units in the 2007 MANE-VU+VA point source emissions

inventory as either EGU or nonEGU. Most, but not all, units that report hourly emissions

to USEPA’s Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD) are classified as EGUs.

CAMD implements USEPA’s rule found in Volume 40 Part 75 of the Code of Federal

R egulations (CFR), which requires an hourly accounting of emissions from each affected

unit - i.e., sources participating in an emissions cap and trade program under the Acid

Rain Control Program, the NO

x 

### Budget Trading Program, or the Clean Air Interstate Rule.

Most of the CAMD sources are traditional power plants that sell electricity to the electrical

grid. However, there are other types of sources that report to CAMD that are not

c onsidered to be EGUs, such as petroleum refineries and cement kilns.

The following criteria was provided to states to classify a unit as an EGU:

 An EGU sells most of the power generated to the electrical grid;

 An EGU burns mostly commercial fuel. Commercial fuel in this case means

natural gas, oil, and coal. Wood is not considered a commercial fuel because some

states identify wood as renewable. Therefore, to avoid double counting, units that

burn wood and other renewable sources (depending on each state's own definition)

should not be considered as an EGU (unless it is already in the CAMD database).

The following units were not considered EGUs for emission projections: (1) a unit that

generates power for a facility but occasionally sells to the grid; (2) emergency generators;

or (3) distributed generation units.

The emission projection methodology for units classified as nonEGUs is discussed in

S ection 3.3. The emission projection methodology for EGUs is discussed in Section 3.4.

3.2 2007 INVENTORY DEVELOPMENT

The emission projections for the 2025 point source were based on Version 3_3 of the 2007

MANE-VU+VA inventory and are fully documented in the TSD for that effort

(MA RAMA 2012a). The only adjustment to the 2007 Version 3_3 point source source

inventory was to apply “transport factors” to fugitive dust sources, as described in the

following subsection.Documentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 46



### 3.2.1 Adjustments to the 2007 Inventory Used for the 2025 Projections

As described previously in Section 2.2.1.1, PM2.5 emissions for point sources were

adjusted using the USEPA PM transport fractions for fugitive dust sources. Exhibit 3.1

shows the list of nonEGU SCCs for which the transport factor was applied. The major

source categories included various operations in the mineral products and construction

industries. Exhibit 2.2 in the previous Section 2 shows the transport fractions for each PM

nonattainment county.

Exhibit 3.1 NonEGU Point Source SCCs Affected by PM Transport Fraction

SCC SCC Description

30300519 Prim Metal Prod: Primary Copper Smelting: Unpaved Road Traffic: Fug Emiss

30300831 Prim Metal Prod: Iron Production: Unpaved Roads: Light Duty Vehicles

30300832 Prim Metal Prod: Iron Production: Unpaved Roads: Med Duty Vehicles

30300833 Prim Metal Prod: Iron Production: Unpaved Roads: Heavy Duty Vehicles

30300834 Prim Metal Prod: Iron Production: Paved Roads: All Vehicle Types

30302321 Prim Metal Prod: Taconite Iron Ore Processing: Haul Road: Rock

30302322 Prim Metal Prod: Taconite Iron Ore Processing: Haul Road: Taconite

30500290 Industrial Processes;Mineral Products;Asphalt Concrete;Haul Roads: General

30501024 Mineral Products: Coal Mining, Cleaning, & Mat' l Handling: Hauling

30501030 Industrial Processes;Mineral Products;Coal Mining, Cleaning, and Material

Handling (See 305310);Tops

30501031 Mineral Products: Coal Mining, Cleaning, & Mat'l Handling: Scrapers: Travel Mode

30501039 Mineral Products: Coal Mining, Cleaning, & Mat'l Handling: Hauling: Haul Trucks

30501045 Mineral Products: Coal Mining, Cleaning, & Mat'l Handling: Bulldozing: Overburden

30501046 Mineral Products: Coal Mining, Cleaning, & Mat'l Handling: Bulldozing: Coa l

30501047 Mineral Products: Coal Mining, Cleaning, & Mat'l Handling: Grading

30501048 Industrial Processes;Mineral Products;Coal Mining, Cleaning, and Material

Handling (See 305310);Over

30501049 Industrial Processes;Mineral Products;Coal Mining, Cleaning, and Material

Handling (See 305310);Wind

30501050 Mineral Products: Coal Mining, Cleaning, & Mat'l Handling: Vehicle Traffic:

Light/Medium Vehicles

30501090 Mineral Products: Coal Mining, Cleaning, & Mat'l Handling: Haul Roads: General

30501640 Mineral Products: Lime Manufacture: Vehicle Traffic

30502011 Mineral Products: Stone Quarrying

- Processing: Hauling

30502504 Mineral Products: Construction Sand and Gravel: Hauling

30531090 Mineral Products: Coal Mining, Cleaning, & Mat'l Handling: Haul Roads: General

31100101 Building Const: Construction: Building Contractors: Site Preparation: Topsoil

Removal

31100102 Building Const: Construction: Building Contractors: Site Prep: Earth Moving (Cut

and Fill)Documentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 47

SCC SCC Description

31100103 Building Const: Co nstruction: Building Contractors: Site Prep: Aggregate Hauling

(On Dirt)

31100205 Building Const: Demolitions/Special Trade Contracts: On

- site Truck Traffic

31100206 Building Const: Demolitions/Special Trade Contracts: On

- site Truck Traffic

50100401 Waste Disposal;Solid Waste Disposal

- Government;Landfill Dump;Unpaved Road

Traffic



### 3.3 2025 NONEGU INVENTORY DEVELOPMENT

3.3.1 NonEGU Growth Factors

NonEGU point source growth factors were developed using three sets of data:

 Annual Energy Outlook fuel consumption forecasts;

 State-level employment projections by NAICS code; and

 Other state-specific emission projection data.

The priority for applying these growth factors was to first use the state-supplied projection

da ta (if available). If no state-supplied data are available, then we used AEO projection

factors for fuel consumption sources and employment data for other source categories.

The AEO fuel consumption forecasts and employment projections by NAICS code used

for area sources were also used for nonEGU point sources. See Section 2.3.1 of this report

for a description of these data sets.

Section 2 described the growth factors used to develop projected future year emissions

inventories for both area and non-EGU sources. Draft growth and control factors, and a

draft technical support document, were circulated for review by MARAMA and state

agencies. During the review, it was noted that several emissions categories show negative

growth into the future, particularly categories related to fossil fuel combustion and

manufacturing employment. The AEO forecasts show declining trends for many fuel

consumption sectors, especially industrial, residential, and commercial distillate fuel oil

use. Similarly, the employment projections show declines in the predicted number of

employees for many sectors of the economy. This is particularly true for the

manufacturing sector, which is of interest because this sector is often associated with

higher emissions than those for other sectors. By contrast, the employment projections

show increasing trends in retail and service-related sectors.

Predicted declines in fuel use and employment resulted in growth factors less than unity

(i.e., represent negative growth) for many area and non-EGU point source categories.

Consequently, for some categories, emissions are lower for the projected future years thanDocumentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 48



### for the base year, even before the application of control assumptions (i.e., the future

"g rowth only" emissions are lower than the base year emissions). The MARAMA

emissions inventory workgroup met on several occasions via conference calls and email

exchanges to discuss whether the negative growth projections were realistic, and what

additional assumptions should be made. A topic of particular concern is negative growth

for non-EGU point sources versus the treatment of Emissions Reduction Credits (ERCs) in

the f uture year inventories.

A few states cited the importance of the negative growth issue for non-EGUs and how it

relates to their ERC programs which are critical to new businesses being able to locate in

those states. Because businesses could apply for and sell ERCs at the level of the base

year inventory, it would not be realistic to show negative growth for non-EGU point

sources. During an economic downturn, a facility could shut down and sell its ERCs,

making the effective level of future year emissions equal to (i.e., no lower than) the base

y ear. Therefore, a recommended conservative approach for addressing negative growth for

non-EGU point sources is to set a minimum growth rate of 1 (no growth).

During the conference call held on July 23, 2010 to discuss the negative growth issue, state

a gency representatives were polled as to whether or not they felt that the current set of

proposed growth factors - including the negative growth factors - were realistic for their

state or district. In reply, some representatives mentioned that they have observed historic

state-specific data that supports the trends displayed by the proposed growth factors. Other

representatives mentioned that they feel comfortable with the growth factors and don't

have a technical basis to change them or suggest others. Some states will supply their own

factors or make their own assumptions.

As a result of these discussions, each state provided guidance on how to handle projections

when negative growth is indicated. Exhibit 3.2 shows the state recommendations for

nonEG U point sources.

Exhibit 3.2 State Recommendations to Address Negative Growth

for the NonEGU Point Source Sector

State AEO2010 Growth Factors Employment Growth Factors

CT Use no growth (growth factor=1) when AEO growth is negative; otherwise use AEO2010 if positive growth Use state DOL employment projections by 3

- digit NAICS

DE Use AEO2010 growth rates For 2013, use state DOL employment projections by 3

- digit NAICS; For 2017 and 2020, use no growth (growth factor=1) when employment growth isDocumentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 49

State AEO2010 Growth Factors Employment Growth Factors

negative; otherwise use employment if positive growth

DC Use AEO2010 growth rates Use state 2008

- 2018 DOL employment projections by 3

- digit NAICS ; no growth when employment is projected to decrease

MD Not using AEO2010 growth factors (except for the electric power generation SCCs); Use MD DOL employment projections for industrial and commercial fuel use SCCs, unless employment growth rate is negative, in which case use no growth (growth factor=1) Use updated state DOL employment projections by 3

- digit NAICS; For DoD facilities, account for impacts of Base Realignment and Closure; For source that have closed, account for

emissio n reduction credits

NJ New Jersey submitted state specific growth factors. Used either state specific growth factors, no growth (growth factor=1) when

state AEO growth is negative or AEO if positive growth NJ submitted state specific growth factors.

Use d either state specific factors, no growth (growth factor=1) when state DOL employment growth is negative or employment if positive growth

NY Use no growth (growth factor=1) when AEO growth is negative; otherwise use AEO2010 if positive growth Use no growth (growth factor=1) when employment growth is negative; otherwise use employment if positive growth

PA Use no growth (growth factor=1) when AEO growth is negative; otherwise use AEO2010 if positive growth Use no growth (growth factor=1) when employme nt growth is negative; otherwise use employment if positive growth

VA Use no growth (growth factor=1) when AEO growth is negative; otherwise use AEO2010 if positive growth Use no growth (growth factor=1) when employment growth is negative; otherwise use

e mployment if positive growth



### 3.3.2 Emission Reduction Credits

Mulitple states (Connecticut, Maryland, and New Jersey) added county level records

account for account emission reduction credits (ERCs) issued to stationary sources

pursuant to state regulations. States provided ERCs on a county- by

- county basis.

Fictitious facilities with an identifier of “OFFSET99999” were created for each county

using SCC 23-99-000 -000 (miscellaneous industrial processes: not elsewhere classified).

S tack data were developed that assumed that emissions were released at the county

centroid with an assumed release height of 10 feet. For the 2017 and 2020 inventories,

ERC emissions were set to the amount of banked emissions available in 2007.

Delaware included the banked credits at the specific locations that they were generated.

Ne w York and Pennsylvania did not explicitly provide any information on ERCs.

The District of Columbia and Virginia do not have a formal banking and trading program.

The y used growth rates of 1 for those SCCs in the point source emissions inventory that

showe d a negative growth. In addition, for units that have or are projected to have shutDocumentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 50



### down, they preserved the 2007 emissions in the inventory to account for potential use as

of fsets or credits.

3.3.3 NonEGU Control Factors

Control factors were developed for both on-the-books regulations and proposed regulations

and other actions to estimate emission reductions in future years. Control factors were

considered for the following national or regional control measures:

 Federal Rules Affecting NonEGU Point Sources

 OTC 2001 Model Rules

 OTC 2006 Model Rules

 MANE-VU Sulfur in Fuel Oil Strategy

These control programs are discussed in the following subsections.

3.3.3.1 

### Federal Actions Affecting NonEGU Point Sources

USEPA made available its 2020 emissions projections associated with its 2005-based v4

modeling platform (USEPA 2010a). These categories, and how they were accounted for in

the MA NE-VU+VA emission projection inventories, are described below:

 MACT Standards - USEPA developed guidance for estimating VOC and NO

x 

### emission changes from MACT Rules (USEPA 2007b). We reviewed the guidance

to identify nonEGU source controls associated with MACT standards for

c ontrolling HAPs. The information concerning MACT compliance periods was

used to determine whether the MACT standard resulted in post-2007 emission

reductions. Because major source categories had a compliance period of 2007 or

earlier, we assumed that the emission reductions from the MACT standard should

be reflected in the baseline year and not as an additional post- 2007 credit. The

onl y exception to the above discussion of area source MACT standards pertains to

the recently promulgated rules for reciprocating internal combustion engines.

USEP A made available an estimate of the percent reduction in emissions

attributable to the RICE MACT rule in 2012 and 2014 (USEPA 2010b ). These

reductions by SCC are shown in Exhibit 3.3. The USEPA 2014 estimates were

used for the MANE-VU+VA 2017, 2020 and 2025 inventories.

 Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters MACT

Standard

- USEPA’ s 2020 control factor file identified a number of solid fuelburning SCCs for which they estimated an 87% reduction in both PM10 and

PM2.5. These were used for 2025 also for the affected SCCs.Documentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 51



###  Petroleum refinery enforcement settlements - For the facilities identified by

USEPA located in New Jersey and Pennsylvania we applied post-2007 estimated

reductions for NO

x 

### , PM10, PM2.5, and SO 2 

### to affected units.

E xhibit 3.3 USEPA Estimated Percent Reductions for RICE MACT Standard

SCC NOx PM2.5 SCC Description

20100102 15.14 Electric Generation;Distillate Oil (Diesel);Reciprocating

20100105 15.14 Electric Generation;Distillate Oil (Diesel);Reciprocating: Crankcase Blowby

20100107 15.14 Electric Generation;Distillate Oil (Diesel);Reciprocating:

Exhaust

20100202 12.53 Electric Generation;Natural Gas;Reciprocating

20100207 12.53 Electric Generation;Natural Gas;Reciprocating: Exhaust

20200102 15.14 Industrial;Distillate Oil (Diesel);Reciprocating

20200104 15.14 Industrial;Distillate Oil (Diesel);Reciprocating: Cogeneration

20200107 15.14 Industrial;Distillate Oil (Diesel);Reciprocating: Exhaust

20200202 12.53 Industrial;Natural Gas;Reciprocating

20200204 12.53 Industrial;Natural Gas;Reciprocating: Cogeneration

20200207 12.53 Industrial;Natural Gas;Reciprocating: Exhaust

20200253 37.96 Industrial;Natural Gas;4

- cycle Rich Burn

20200301 37.96 Industrial;Gasoline;Reciprocating

20200307 37.96 Industrial;Gasoline;Reciprocating: Exhaust

20201001 12.53 Industrial;Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG);Propane

20201002 12.53 Industrial;Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG);Butane

20201702 37.96 Industrial;Gasoline;Reciprocating Engine

20201707 37.96 Industrial;Gasoline;Reciprocating: Exhaust

20300101 15.14 Commercial/Institutional;Distillate Oil (Diesel);Reciprocating

20300105 15.14 Commercial/Institutional;Distillate Oil (Diesel);Reciprocating: Crankcase Blowby

20300106 15.14 Commercial/Institutional;Distillate Oil (Diesel);Reciprocating: Evaporative Losses

20300107 15.14 Commercial/Institutional;Distillate Oil (Diesel);Reciprocating: Exhaust

20300201 12.53 Commercial/Institutional;Natural Gas;Reciprocating

20300204 12.53 Commercial/Institutional;Natural Gas;Cogeneration

20300207 12.53 Commercial/Institutional;Natural Gas;Reciprocating:

Exhaust

20300301 37.96 Commercial/ Institutional;Gasoline;Reciprocating

20300307 37.96 Commercial/Institutional;Gasoline;Reciprocating: Exhaust

20301001 12.53 Commercial/Institutional;Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG);Propane

20301002 12.53 Commercial/Institutional;Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG);Butane

20400401 37.96 Engine Testing;Reciprocating Engine;GasolineDocumentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 52

SCC NOx PM2.5 SCC Description

20400402 15.14 Engine Testing;Reciprocating Engine;Diesel/Kerosene

20400403 15.14 Engine Testing;Reciprocating Engine;Distillate Oil: CI: CI:

VOC 2005cr = 0

31000203 12.53 Oil and Gas Production;Natural Gas Production;Compressors

50100421 12.53 Solid Waste Disposal;Landfill Dump;Waste Gas Recovery:

Internal Combustion Device



### 3.3.3.2 

### OTC 2001 Model Rules for NonEGUs

The OTC developed NO

x 

### control measures for industrial, commercial, and institutional

(ICI) boilers and distributed generation units in 2001 (OTC 2001). We reviewed the

OTC’s status reports to identify states status in adopting the OTC 2001 model rules (OTC

2009a ). Most states have adopted the OTC model rules with compliance dates in 2007 or

e arlier. As a result, we assumed that the emission reductions from the 2001 OTC model

rules for nonEGUs are already reflected in the 2007 inventory and no post- 2007

reductions were applied.

3.3.3.3 

### OTC 2006 Model Rules for NonEGUs

In 2006, the OTC introduced model rules (OTC 2007) for one nonEGU VOC source

c ategory (adhesives/sealants) and new/more stringent requirements for several NO

x 

### source categories (asphalt production plants, cement kilns, glass/fiberglass furnaces, and

industrial, commercial, and institutional {ICI} boilers). We reviewed the OTC’s status

reports to identify where state status in adopting the OTC 2006 model rules (OTC 2009b).

To obtain further clarification of each sta te ’s status, states were polled to determine

whe ther they have adopted a rule that would achieve reductions equivalent to the OTC

model rule, whether credit for each rule was already accounted for in the 2007 inventory,

and whether the estimated reduction in emissions should be applied in 2013, 2017, 2020

and 2025. The following paragraphs describe the control factors applied for each rule by

state and future year.

3.3.3.3.1 O TC 2006 Model Rule for Asphalt Production Plants



### The OTC recommended that member states pursue state-specific rulemakings or other

implementation methods that would achieve a 35 percent reduction in NO

x 

### emissions.

States were polled to determine whether they have adopted a rule that would achieve

reductions equivalent to the 2006 OTC model rule and whether the estimated reduction in

NO

x 

### emissions should be applied in 2013, 2017, 2020 and 2025 . Only New Jersey

indicated that the reductions should be applied. New York did not provide guidance, and itDocumentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 53



### was assumed that the NO

x 

### reductions should be applied in New York for three future

years. All other states indicated that the NO

x 

### reductions should not be applied in the future

years. For those states that indicated they wanted to include the reductions, a 35 percent

re duction in NO

x 

### emissions was applied for SCC 3-05-002-xx.

3.3.3.3.2 O TC 2006 Model Rule for Cement Manufacturing Plants



### Cement kilns are located in Maryland, New York, and Pennsylvania. Virginia has one

c ement kiln, which is not located in a PM nonattainment county. The OTC recommended

state-specific rulemakings or other implementation methods that would result in about a 60

percent reduction in uncontrolled levels NO

x 

### emissions. This emission reduction for

cement kilns was calculated using the methodology previously developed and documented

in the OTC report (OTC 2007). Cement kilns are already subject to NO

x 

### controls as part

of Phase I of the NO

x 

### SIP call. Emission reductions resulting from the NO

x 

### SIP call are

already accounted for in the 2007 inventory.

The following methods were used to calculate the additional reductions from the OTC

2006 Control Measure in each state:

 Maryland indicated controls will become effective in 2011 for the two facilities in the state. Maryland specified a 25 percent reduction for the Holcim facility and a 40 percent reduction for the Lehigh facility. No reductions were specified for the two kilns at the Essroc facility.

 New York did not provide guidance regarding cement kilns. We used the percent reductions previously developed and documented in the previous round of emission projections developed for MARAMA (MARAMA 2007). An incremental control efficiency of 40 percent was used for New York cement kilns in that inventory.

 Pennsylvania provided kiln-specific projected future year NO

x 

### emissions for 2013, 2017, and 2020. The 2020 controlled emissions were also used for 2025. A kilnspecific control factor was calculated based on the ratio of the future year emissions

to the 2007 emissions.

3.3.3.3.3 OTC 2006 Model Rule for Glass and Fiberglass Furnaces



### The OTC recommended state-specific rulemakings or other implementation methods to

achieve an approximately 85 percent reduction in NO

x 

### emissions from uncontrolled levels.

Emission reductions for glass and fiberglass furnaces were calculated using the

methodology previously developed and documented in the OTC report (OTC 2007). Glass

and fiberglass furnaces are located in Maryland, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania.

The re are no other States with facilities in a PM nonattainment county.Documentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 54



### The following methods were used to calculate the additional reductions from the OTC

2006 Control Measure in each state:

 Maryland indicated that a 48 percent reduction should be applied to the single glass manufacturing facility in Maryland.

 New Jersey indicated that a 50 percent reduction in NO

x 

### emissions should be applied to glass and fiberglass furnaces in 2013, 2017, 2020 and 2025

.

 New York did not provide guidance regarding glass or fiberglass furnaces. We used the percent reductions developed and documented in the previous round of emission projections developed for MARAMA (MARAMA 2007). An incremental control efficiency of 70 percent was used for New York glass and fiberglass furnaces in that inventory.

 Pennsylvania provided furnace-specific projected future year NO

x 

### emissions for

2017 and 2020 for all facilities, including those in Allegheny County. The 2020 controlled emissions were also used for 2025. A furnace-specific control factor was calculated based on the ratio of the future year emissions to the 2007

emissions.

 For the three glass manufacturing facilities in Allegheny County, we used the percent reductions previously developed and documented in the previous round of emission projections developed for MARAMA (MARAMA 2007). An incremental control efficiency of 86 percent was used for Allegheny County glass and fiberglass furnaces in that inventory.

3.3.3.3.4 OTC 2006 Model Rule for ICI Boilers



### The OTC recommended that member states pursue state-specific rulemakings or other

im plementation methods to achieve NO

x 

### emission reduction for industrial, commercial,

and institutional (ICI) boilers based on guidelines that varied by boiler size and fuel type.

S tates were polled to determine whether they have adopted a rule that would achieve

reductions equivalent to the 2006 OTC recommendations and whether the estimated

reduction in NO

x 

### emissions should be applied in 2013, 2017, 2020, and 2025

.

Most states have not adopted rules equivalent to the 2006 OTC recommendations. These

state s indicated that they will likely depend on a U SEPA national rule for possible

inclusion in the BOTW inventory. Specifically, the OTC Resolution 10-01 (June, 2010)

called on USEPA for national regulations for ICI boilers.

Ne w Jersey provided NO

x 

### percent reductions that varied by heat input rate and fuel/boiler

type and included an 80 percent rule effectiveness adjustment, as shown in Exhibit 3.4

.Documentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 55



### Exhibit 3. 4 NonEGU Point Source Emission Reductions from

New Jersey ICI Boiler NO

x 

### Rules

Heat Input Rate (mmBtu/hr) Fuel/Boiler Type Overall %

Reduction

2007

- 20 25

at least 5 but < 10 All 20%

at least 10 but < 20 All 20%

at least 25 but < 50 Natural gas only 40%

No. 2 Fuel oil only 40%

Refinery fuel gas and other gaseous fuels 40%

Other liquid fuels 40%

Duel Fuel using fuel oil and/or natural gas 40%

at least 50 but < 100 Natural gas only 40%

No. 2 Fuel oil only 27%

Other liquid fuels 27%

Duel Fuel using fuel oil and/or natural gas 40%

at least 100 or greater No. 2 Fuel oil only 40%



### The NIF file submitted by New Jersey for this project did not include the boiler design

capacity. This data gap was filled using the boiler design capacities previously developed

for the OTC study in 2006, if available; otherwise the SCC description was used to assign

a default boiler design capacity.

New York specified that a 50 percent reduction should be applied in the existing controls

inventory for all boilers with greater than 25 mmBtu/hour design capacity. The NIF file

subm itted by New York for this project did not include the boiler design capacity. This

data gap was filled using the boiler design capacities previously developed for the OTC

study in 2006, if available; otherwise the SCC description was used to assign a default

boil er design capacity.

3.3.3.4 

### MANE-VU Fuel Oil Sulfur Strategy

MANE-VU developed a low sulfur fuel oil strategy to help states develop Regional Haze

S IPs (MANE- VU 2007). The sulfur in fuel oil recommendations were previously shown

in Section 2.3.2.5 and vary by state, fuel oil type, and implementation year.

3.3.3.5 

### State-specific NonEGU Control Factors

The following state-specific nonEGU control factors were provided:Documentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 56



###  Bellefield Boiler Plant, Allegheny County. Allegheny County indicated that this

facility changed their fuel source from coal to natural gas in July 2009 and future

year emissions were changed to reflect the fuel switch.

 USS Clairton Works

, Allegheny County. The facility will remove Batteries 7-9

and have Battery C operational by 2013, resulting in a change in PM emissions in

2013. Also, USS Clairton Works will remove Batteries 1-3 and have Battery D

operational in 2015, resulting in a change in PM emissions in 2017, 2020 and 2025.

 Chrysler, Delaware. The Chrysler facility (ID 1000300128) shut down in 2009.

Delaware specified that only a 25 percent reduction should be taken for all

pollutants as some emissions will be banked for future use by other sources.

 OSG Ship Management (ID 1000500093), Delaware. Delaware provided sourcespecific growth factors and percent reductions in VOC emissions for 2013, 2017,

and 2020 from the lightering operations at OSG Ship Management (ID

1000500093). The 2025 emissions were expected to be the same as the 2020

emissions.

 Control Technology Guidance (CTG) Documents, Delaware. Delaware

determined that VOC emission reductions from new CTG recommendations would

be very small. Although the new CTGs set up new recommendations for higher

c ontrol efficiencies, the actual VOC reductions would be minimum, if not none,

because most DE’s existing facilities are not affected by the new requirements and

e missions from those facilities are relatively small (based on 2002 inventory).

 Unit Shutdowns, Delaware. Delaware identified several emission units that have

shut down at the following facilities: Dow Reichhold Specialty latex (ID

1000100016), SPI Poly-Ols (ID 1000300426), and Invistas (ID 1000500002).

Emissions for all pollutants were set to zero for these units.

 Premcor Refinery NO

x 

### Plantwide Cap, Delaware. The refinery was sold to the

Delaware City Refining Company and an agreement was reached with DNREC's

S ecretary that allows plant-wide applicability limit (cap) for NO

x 

### . Delaware

decided to devide the NO

x 

### - cap to each stack equally. Delaware estimated a

plantwide reduction of 10.05 percent in 2013 and 41.22 percent in 2017, 2020 and

2025.

 PEPCO Benning Road, District of Columbia. This facility is scheduled for

deactivation in 2012. All emissions were set to zero in the projection inventories.Documentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 57



###  2009 New Jersey Rule for NO

x 

### for Municipal Solid Waste Incinerators. This

rule will achieve a 27 percent reduction from one facility - Camden County Energy

R ecovery Associates, L.P. (ID 3400751614).

 New Jersey Rule for VOC Storage Tanks. New Jersey provided expected VOC

emission reductions resulting from post-2007 rules for VOC storage tanks. For

refinery floating roof storage tanks (SCC 4-03-011-xx), the reductions are 75

pe rcent for 2013, 82 percent for 2017, and 85 percent for 2020. For bulk terminal

tanks ( SCC 4-04 -001-xx), the reductions are 20 percent for 2013, 40 percent for

2017, and 50 percent for 2020. For pipeline breakout stations (SCCs 4-04-002-xx

a nd 4 -06 -005 -xx), the reductions are 26 percent for 2013, 52 percent for 2017, and

65 percent for 2020 and 2025.

3.4 2025 EGU INVENTORY DEVELOPMENT

An emission projection methodology for EGUs is being developed as part of an inter-RPO

coordination effort under the direction of ERTAC. The computer code to implement the

ERTAC methodology will not be available in time for use in state’s re-designation requests

or maintenance plans. An interim approach for projecting EGU emissions is discussed in

the following paragraph.

Annual 2007 EGU point emissions were grown to 2025 based on electricity generation

projections that are delineated by region and fuel. Growth factors are based on AEO2011

Table 96 - Electricity Generation by Electricity Market Module Region and Fuel Source

(se e Appendix F). The 2007 emissions were extracted for those units flagged as EGUs in

the MANE-VU+VA 2007 inventory. The appropriate AEO2011 growth factor was

applied to the 2007 emissions to calculate a “growth only” emission value for 2025. The

following key assumptions were made:

 Growth beyond unit capacity or permit limits w as not considered (e.g., fuel

consumption was allowed to grow beyond a unit’s physical capacity or permit

limit) ;

 Generation from specific new units that are anticipated to operate in 2025 but did

not in 2007 is not explicitly accounted for, but instead is assumed to be accounted

for in the AEO2011 growth forecasts ;

 Similarly, generation from specific units that have or are anticipated to shut down

after 2007 is not explicitly accounted for, but instead are assumed to be accounted

for in the AEO2011 growth forecasts.Documentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 58



###  States indicate d where post-2007 controls or shut downs were to be applied on a

unit by unit basis. The control factors were applied to the grown emissions to

c alculate a “growth and control” emission value for 2025.

Details on the growth and control factors are provided in the following sections.

3.4.1 EGU Growth Factors

Table 96 of the AEO2011 provides electricity generation projections by electricity market

module region and fuel source for the years 2007 to 2035 (EIA 2011b). AEO2011

disagg regates generation to 22 sub-regions for electricity planning and dispatch This is a

new approach started in AEO2011. Disaggregation of the Electricity Market Module

(EMM) is intended to reduce errors that result from aggregation and averaging, to better

represent environmental and regional issues, and thus to improve the projections of

capacity additions and fuels consumed for generation. Exhibit 4.1 identifies the 22 subregions.

Exhibit 3.5 Electricity Market Module RegionsDocumentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 59



### The EIA provided a file that assigns each EGU to an EMM region. Units in the PM

nonattainment counties included in this analysis reside in one of the following seven EMM

regions:

 Northeast Power Coordinating Council / Northeast (NEWE)

 Northeast Power Coordinating Council / NYC Westchester (NYCW)

 Northeast Power Coordinating Council / Long Island (NYLI)

 Northeast Power Coordinating Council / Upstate New York (NYUP)

 Reliability First Corporation / East (RFCE)

 Reliability First Corporation / West (RFCW)

 SERC Reliability Corporation / Virginia Carolina (SRVC)

Exhibit 3.6 shows the growth factors for electricity generation for coal. The AEO2011

shows zero generation from coal in the NYC Westchester and Long Island regions.

Generation from coal is project ed to decline significantly in the Northeast and Upstate

New York regions. Generation from coal is expected to decline slightly in the RFC East,

RFC West, and SERC Virginia-Carolina regions.

Exhibit 3.7 shows the growth factors for electricity generation for petroleum. The

AEO2011 shows that the growth factors vary widely by EMM region. A positive growth

rate (e.g., growth factor > 1) from 2007 to 2025 is projected for the RFC East and SERC

Virginia-Carolina regions. In all other EMM regions in the study area, generation from

petroleum is projected to decline (e.g., growth factor < 1).

Exhibit 3.8 shows the growth factors for electricity generation for natural gas. The

AEO2011 shows that the growth factors vary widely by EMM region. A negative growth

rate (e.g., growth factor < 1) from 2007 to 2025 is projected for the NYC Westchester and

SERC Virginia-Carolina regions. In all other EMM regions in the study area, generation

from natural gas is projected to increase (e.g., growth factor > 1).

Ex hibit 3.9 shows the growth factors for electricity generation for renewables. The

AEO2011 shows that the growth factors vary widely by EMM region. A large increase in

generation from renewables from 2007 to 2025 is projected for the RFC East, RFC West

and SERC Virginia-Carolina regions. A more modest increase in renewable is projected

for the Northeast and Upstate New York regions. A slight decline is projected for the

NY C Westchester and Long Island regions.Documentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 60



### Exhibit 3.6 Electricity Generation Growth Factors for Coal

E xhibit 3.7 Electricity Generation Growth Factors for PetroleumDocumentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 61



### Exhibit 3.8 Electricity Generation Growth Factors for Natural Gas

Exhibit 3.9 Electricity Generation Growth Factors for RenewablesDocumentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 62



### After reviewing the AEO growth factors, New York had doubts about the AEO

projections. To be conservative, New York specified that a growth factor of 1.0 should be

used for any unit where AEO growth was projected to be negative.

3.4.2 EGU Control Factors

States provided information on post-2007 controls or shut downs to be applied on a unit by

unit basis for the 2025 inventory. This control information was provided in a format that is

being used by the ERTAC EGU Projection Methodology (Appendix G UAF NEEDS

Co ntrol F ileMASTER92211.xls).

In addition to the ERTAC control file, the following comments were received:

 Delaware – The Edge Moor facility (ORIS=593) plans to switch from coal to

natural gas/# 6 oil. However, the Title V permit is not yet approved. Delaware

made the decision to assume the facility still is burning coal in 2025 for the

purposes of this PM re -designation inventory. Delaware may change the EGU

estimates at a future date when the SIP submittal is written.

 District of Columbia – The PEPCO Benning Road facility (ORIS=603) is

scheduled to shut down permanently in 2012 and all future year emissions have

been set to zero.

 Maryland – The Healthy Air Act sets unit-specific emission caps (tons/year) for

SO 2 

### and NO

x 

### . Maryland provided unit specific control factors to ensure that the

futur e year emissions were equal to the Healthy Air Act emission caps. Affected

fa cilities include CP Crane, Herbert A Wagner, R. Paul Smith, Chalk Point,

Dickerson, Morgantown, and Brandon Shores.

 New Jersey – Control factors for SO 2 

### and NO

x 

### for each unit were calculated based

on the ratio of the future controlled emission rate (lbs/mmBtu) to the 2007 actual

emission rate (lbs/mmBtu). Large reductions in SO 2 

### emissions are expected from

the installation of control equipment at the Hudson and Mercer generating stations.

NO

x 

### controls were also installed at the Hudson generating station in 2010.

 Pennsylvania – RRI’s Portland Generating Station is under a USEPA Order to

re duce SO 2 

### emissions. SO 2 

### emissions beyond 013 were reduced by 95 percent to

address the ordered emission reductions. SO 2 

### controls were installed at RRI

Keystone, PPL Brunner Island, and Allegheny Energy Hatfields Ferry in 2010.

SO 2 

### controls at the Cheswick Station were installed in 2011. Units 1 and 2 at PPL

Martins Creek, Units 1 and 2 at Exelon Cromby, and Units 1 and 2 at ExelonDocumentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 63



### Eddystone are or will be permanently shut down by 2013 and the emissions for all

pollutants were set to zero for 2017/2020/2025. The future operation of Unit 1 at

Ex elon Schuylkill are projected to be about 250 hours, compared to 1,037 hours in

2007. Future emissions for this unit were reduced by 75 percent to reflect this

lowered operating capacity.

 Virginia –

Dry scrubbers at the Potomac River Generating Station were installed in

2008. In 2008, the facility received a federally enforceable facility-wide permit

that placed limits on the facility’s annual potential to emit of both NO X 

### and SO 2



### .

3.4.3 Consideration of CSAPR Emission Allowances

On July 6, 2011, the USEPS finalized the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) that

re quires 27 states to reduce power plant emissions that contribute to ozone and/or fine

pa rticle pollution in other states. This final rule replaces the 2005 Clean Air Interstate

R ule (CAIR). Under the final rule, USEPA distributes a annual SO2 and NOx emission

allowances to covered units in each state, the sum of which equals the annual SO2 and

NOx budgets for those states (allowing for a two percent set-aside for new units).

USEPA provided allocations for each affected unit. States initially considered whether

these unit-level allocations for SO2 and NOx provided a more realistic estimate of future

year emissions than the growth and control methodology described in Sections 4.3.1 and

4.3.2 of this report. However, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of

Columbia issued an order staying CSAPR on December 31, 2011, pending the resolution

of an appeal of the rule. Because of the uncertainty regarding implementation of CSAPR,

states decided to use the growth and control methodology described in Sections 4.3.1 and

4.3.2 rather than the proposed CSAPR caps for SO2 and NOx.Documentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 64



## 4.0 NONROAD MOBILE SOURCES INCLUDED IN NMIM

4.1 NONROAD MODEL CATEGORIES

USEPA’s NONROAD model estimates emissions from equipment such as recreational

marine vessels, recreational land-based vehicles, farm and construction machinery, lawn

and garden equipment, aircraft ground support equipment (GSE) and rail maintenance

equipment. This equipment is powered by diesel, gasoline, compressed natural gas (CNG)

or liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) engines.

NMIM was developed by USEPA to develop county-level emission estimates for certain

t ypes of nonroad equipment. NMIM uses the current version the NONROAD model to

de velop emission estimates and was used to develop the projection inventories discussed

here. The NMIM national county database contains monthly input data to reflect county

specific fuel parameters and temperatures. Most of the work associated with executing

NMIM involved updating the NMIM county database with state-specific information.

4.2 2007 INVENTORY DEVELOPMENT

MARAMA used the NMIM model to develop county level emission estimates by SCC for

2007 (see {MARAMA 2011a} for complete documentation). For this analysis, the

NMIM2008 software (version NMIM20090504), the NMIM County Database (version

NCD20090531), and NONROAD2008a (July 2009 version) were used as starting points

(U SEPA 2009a). Changes were made to the NCD20090531 based on state revi ew and

comment.

A summ ary of the major adjustments to the default NMIM County Database for the 2007

NMIM model runs includes:

 State review and adjustments to fuel characteristics (Reid Vapor Pressure, sulfur

and oxygenate fractions) to better represent county-specific fuel characteristics in

2007; and

 States identified discrepancies in the housing and population data contained in the

NONROAD model and these data were updated using 2007 housing information

and updated 2007 population estimates.

 The recreational marine vessel populations were revised using population data

provided by the National Marine Manufacturers Association (NMMA). Total state

populations for each of the three major categories contained in the NONROAD

model (o utboard, inboard/sterndrive and personal watercraft) were provided.Documentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 65



### Because the population files used by the NONROAD model (and thus NMIM)

were configured with population values for various horsepower categories, AMEC

determined the fraction of the total for each marine vessel type in each horsepower

category from the NONROAD default population files. These fractions were then

used to allocate the total state population obtained from NMMA to the various

horsepower categories. For Version 2 of this report the pleasure craft emissions

were adjusted for CT for both 2007 and 2025. All state other than CT emissions

c ontinue to use the the NMIM default pleasure craft populations that were

calculated for Version 2 of the MARAMA modeling inventory. This choice was

made by states because they had already rerun NMIM themselves for their states

using the NMMA populations and had no need for that work to be repeated as part

of this work. Exhibit 4.1 shows the source of data for each state.

Exhibit 4.1 State by state data source for NMIMDocumentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 66



### 4.3 2025 INVENTORY DEVELOPMENT

MARAMA re ran the NMIM model for 2025 for VA and CT. One state, New York, did

their own NONROAD modeling and provided 2025 NMIM results for the affected

c ounties. All other NMIM runs reflect those completed by Bill Barnard (AMEC) for the

initial version of this report. Exhibit 4.1 shows the source of data for each state.

4.4 REMOVAL OF AIRPORT GROUND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT

The NMIM/NONROAD model includes emissions from airport ground support

equipment. Emissions from airport ground support equipment is also included in

USEPA’s aircraft inventory that was prepared using the Federal Aviation Administration’s

Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS). Correspondence with USEPA

indi cated that USEPA considers the emissions calculated by EDMS to be better than those

calculated by NONROAD. For this reason, all emissions calculated by NMIM/

NONROAD for airport ground support equipment were removed from both the 2007 and

20 25 inventories to avoid double counting emissions.

4.5 NMIM/NONROAD GROWTH AND CONTROL INFORMATION

In estimating future year emissions, the NMIM/NONROAD model includes growth and

scrappage rates for equipment in addition to a variety of control programs. It is not

possible to separate out the future year emissions due to “growth only” or “control only” in

a single run. That is, the model run provides a single future year estimate that is a “growth

and control” scenario.

The growth data used in the NMIM/NONROAD model is documented in a USEPA report

(USEPA 2004c). The GROWTH packet of the NONROAD model cross-references each

SCC to a growth indicator code. The indicator is an arbitrary code that identifies an actual

predicted value such as human population or employment that is used to estimate the

future year equipment population. The GROWTH packet also defines the scrappage

curves used to estimate the future year model year distribution.

The NMIM/NONROAD model also accounts for all USEPA emission standards for

nonroad equipment. There are multiple standards that vary by equipment type, rated

power, model year, and pollutant. Exhibit 4. 2 is a summary of the emission control

programs accounted for in the NMIM/NONROAD model. A complete summary of the

nonroad equipment emission standards can be found on USEPA ’s nonroad emission

standards reference guide website (USEPA 2011).Documentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 67



### Exhibit 4

. 2 Control Programs Included in the NMIM/NONROAD Model

Regulation Description

Control of Air Pollution; Determination of Significance for

Nonroad Sources and Emission

Standards for New Nonroad Compression Ignition Engines At or

Above 37 Kilowatts

59 FR 31036 June 17, 1994 This rule establishes Tier 1 exhaust emission standards for HC, NO

x , CO, and PM for nonroad compression

- ignition (CI) engines ≥37kW (≥50hp). Marine engines are not included in this rule. The start dates and pollutants

aff ected vary by hp category as follows:

50

- 100 hp: Tier 1,1998; NO

x only

100

- 175 hp: Tier 1, 19 97; NO

x only

175

- 750 hp: Tier 1, 1996; HC, CO, NO

x , PM >750 hp: Tier 1, 2000; HC, CO, NO

x , PM

Emissions for New Nonroad Spark

Ignition Engines At or Below 19 Kilowatts; Final Rule

60 FR 34581 July 3, 1995 This rule establishes Phase 1 exhaust emission st andards for HC, N NO

x Ox, and CO for nonroad spark

- ignition engines ≤19kW (≤25hp). This rule includes both handheld (HH) and non

- hand

- held (NHH) engines. The Phase 1

standards become effective in 1997 for : Class I NHH engines (<225cc), Class II NHH engines (≥225cc), Class III HH engines (<20cc), and Class IV HH engines (≥20cc and <50cc).

The Phase 1 standards become effective in 1998 for:

Class V HH engines (≥50cc)

Final Rule for New Gasoline Spark

Ignition Marine Engines; Exemptions for New Nonroad Compression

Ignition Engines at or Above 37 Kilowatts and New Nonroad Spark

Ignition Engines at or Below 19

Kilowatts

61 FR 52088 October 4, 1996 This rule establishes ex haust emission standards for HC+

NO

x for personal watercraft and outboard (PWC/OB)

marine S I engines. The standards are phased in from

1998

- 2006.

Control of Emissions of Air Pollution From Nonroad Diesel Engines

63 FR 56967 October 23, 1998 This final ru le sets Tier 1 standards for engines under 50 hp, phasing in from 1999 to 2000. It also pha ses in more stringent Tier 2 standards for all engine sizes from 2001 to 2006, and yet more stringent Tier 3 standards for engines rated over 50 hp from 2006 to 2008 . The Tier 2 standards apply to NMHC+ NO

x , CO, and PM, whereas the Tier 3 standards apply to NMHC+ NO

x and CO. The start dates by hp category and tier are as follows:

hp<25: Tier 1,2000; Tier 2, 2005; no Tier 3

25

- 50 hp: Tier 1, 1999; Tier 2, 2004; no Tier 3

50

- 100 hp: Tier 2, 2004; Tier 3, 2008

100

- 175 hp: Tier 2, 2003; Tier 3, 2007

175

- 300 hp: Tier 2, 2003; Tier 3, 2006

300

- 600 hp: Tier 2, 2001, Tier 3, 2006

600

- 750 hp: Tier 2, 2002; Tier 3, 2006 >750 hp: Tier 2, 2006, no Tier 3

This ru le does not apply to marine diesel engines above 50 hp.Documentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 68

Regulation Description

Phase 2: Emission Standards for New Nonroad Nonhandheld Spark Ignition Engines At or Below 19

Kilowatts

64 FR 15207 March 30, 1999 This rule establishes Phase 2 exhaust emission standards

for HC+ NO

x for nonroad nonhandheld (NHH) spark

ignition engines ≤19kW (≤25hp). The Phase 2 standards for Class I NHH engines (<225cc) become effective on August 1, 2007 (or August 1, 2003 for any engine initially produced on or after that date). The Phase 2 standa rds for Class II NHH engines (≥2 25cc) are phased in from 2001

- 2005.

Phase 2: Emission Standards for New Nonroad Spark

- Ignition Handheld Engines At or Below 19

Kilowatts and Minor Amendments to Emission Requirements Applicable to Small Spark

- Ignition Engin es and Marine Spark

- Ignition Engines; Final

Rule

65 FR 24268 April 25, 2000 This rule establishes Phase 2 exhaust emission standards

for HC+ NO

x for nonroad handheld (HH) spark

- ignition engines ≤19kW (≤25hp). The Phase 2 standards are phased in from 2002

- 2005 for Class III and Class IV engines and are phased in from 2004

- 2007 for Class V engines.

Control of Emissions From Nonroad Large Spark

- Ignition Engines and Recreational Engines (Marine and

Land

- Based); Final Rule

67 FR 68241 November 8, 2002 This rul e establishes exhaust and evaporative standards for several nonroad categorie s: 1) Two tiers of emission standards are established for large

s park

- ignition engines over 19 kW. Tier 1 includes exhaust

standards for HC+ NO

x and CO and is phased in from

20 04

- 2006. Tier 2 becomes effective in 2007 and includes

exhaust standards for HC+ NO

x and CO

, as along with evaporative controls affecting fuel line permeation, diurnal emissions and running loss emissions.

2) Exhaust and evaporative emission standards ar e established for recreational vehicles, which include snowmobiles, off

- highway motorcycles, and all

- terrain vehicles (ATVs). For snowmobiles , HC and CO exhaust standards are phased

- in from 2006

- 2012. For off

- highway motorcycles, HC+ NO

x and CO exhaust e mission standards are phased in from 2006

- 2007. For ATVs,

HC+ NO

x and CO exhaust emission standards are phased

in from 2006

- 2007. Evaporative emission standards for fuel tank and hose permeation apply to all recreational vehicles beginning in 2008.

3) Exhaust emission standards for HC+ NO

x , CO, and PM for recreational marine diesel engine s over 50 hp begin in

2006

- 2009, depending on t he engine displacement. These are “Tier 2” equivalent standards.

Control of Emissions of Air Pollution

From Nonroad Die sel Engines and Fuel; Final Rule (Clean Air Nonroad

Diesel Rule

– Tier 4)

69 FR 38958 June 29, 2004 This final rule sets Tier 4 exhaust standards for CI engines covering all hp categories (except marine and locomotives), and also regulates nonroad diesel fuel sulfur

content.
1) The Tier 4 start dates and pollutants affected vary by hp

and tier as follows: hp<25: 2008, PM only

25

- 50 h p: Tier 4 transitional, 2008, PM only;

Tier 4 final, 2013, NMHC+ NO

x and PMDocumentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 69

Regulation Description

50

- 75 hp: Tier 4 trans itional, 2008; PM only;

Tier 4 final, 2013, NMHC+ NO

x and PM

75

- 175 hp: Tier 4 transitional, 2012, HC, NO

x , and PM;

Tier 4 final, 2014, HC, NO

x ,PM

175

- 750 hp:Tier 4 transitional, 2011, HC, NO

x , and PM;

Tier 4 final, 2014, HC, NO

x ,PM >750 hp: Tier 4 transitional, 2011, HC, NO

x , and PM;

Tier 4 final, 2015, HC, NO

x ,PM

2) This rule will reduce nonroad diesel fuel sulfur levels in two steps. First, starting in 2007, fuel sulfur levels in

nonroad diesel fuel will be limited to a maximum of 500 ppm, the same as for curren t highway diesel fuel. Second, starting in 2010, fuel sulfur levels in most nonroad diesel fuel will be reduced to 15 ppm.

Control of Emissions From Nonroad Spark

- Ignition Engines and Equipment; Final Rule (Bond Rule)

73 FR 59034 October 8, 2008 This rule establishes exhaust and evaporative standards for small SI engines and marine SI en gines:

1) Phase 3 HC+ NO

x exhaust emission standards are established for Class I NHH engines starting in 2012 and for Class II NHH engines starting in 2011. There are no

new exhaus t emission standards for handheld engines. New evaporative standards are adopted for both handheld and nonhandheld equipment. The new evaporative standards control fuel tank permeation, fuel hose permeation, and diffusion losses. The evaporative

standar ds begin in 2012 for Class I NHH engines and 2011 for Class II NHH engines . For handheld engines, the evaporative standards are phased

- in from 2012

- 2016.

2) More stringent HC+ NO

x and CO standards are established for marine SI PWC/OB engines beginning in 2010. In addition, new exhaust HC+ NO

x and CO

standards are established for sterndrive and inboard (SD/I) marine SI engines also beginning in 2010. High performance SD/I engines are subject to separate HC+

NO

x and CO exhaust standards that are phased

- in from

2010

- 2011. New evaporative standards were also adopted

for all mari ne SI engines that control fuel hose permeation, diurnal emissions, and fuel tank permeation emissions. The hose permeation, diurnal, and tank permeation

standards take eff ect in 2009, 2010, and 2011, respectively.

Source: USEPA 2010cDocumentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 70



## 5.0 MARINE VESSELS, AIRPORTS, AND RAILROADS

5.1 MAR INVENTORY CATEGORIES

This category of sources is collectively referred to as the MAR (marine, airports, railroads)

sector. It includes nonroad engines associated with the following activities:

 Marine Vessels - The Commercial Marine Vehicle (CMV) sector includes all boats

and ships used either directly or indirectly in the conduct of commerce or military

activity. The majority of these vessels are powered by diesel engines that are either

fueled with distillate or residual fuel oil blends. For the purpose of this inventory it

is assumed that Category 3 vessels primarily use residual blends, while Category 1

and 2 vessels typically used distillate fuels.

 Airports

- The aircraft sector includes all aircraft types used for public, private,

and military purposes. This includes four types of aircraft 1) Commercial; 2) Air

Ta xis; 3) General Aviation; and 4) Military. Ground support equipment (GSE) and

a uxiliary power units (APU) are also included.

 Railroads

- The railroad sector includes railroad locomotives powered by dieselelectric engines. Locomotives are divided into Class I line haul, Class II/III line

haul, commuter/passenger and Class I yard.

5.2 2007 INVENTORY DEVELOPMENT

The emission projections for the 2025 point source were based on Version 3_3 of the 2007

MANE-VU+VA inventory and are fully documented in the TSD for that effort

(MARAMA 2012a). The re were no adjustment to the 2007 Version 3_3 MAR inventory

for this analysis.

5.3 2025 INVENTORY DEVELOPMENT

Appendix H contains the data that were used to develop growth and control factors for the

c ommercial marine vessel, airport, and railroad sectors.

5.3.1 Commercial Marine Vessels

For the purpose of emission calculations, marine vessel engines are divided into three

categories based on displacement (swept volume) per cylinder. Category 1 and Category 2

marine diesel engines typically range in size from about 500 to 8,000 kW (700 to 11,000

hp). These engines are used to provide propulsion power on many kinds of vessels

including tugboats, pushboats, supply vessels, fishing vessels, and other commercialDocumentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 71



### vessels in and around ports. They are also used as stand-alone generators for auxiliary

electrical power on vessels. Category 3 marine diesel engines typically range in size from

2,500 to 70,000 kW (3,000 to 100,000 hp). These are very large marine diesel engines used

for propulsion power on ocean-going vessels such as container ships, oil tankers, bulk

carriers, and cruise ships.

The majority of marine vessels are powered by diesel engines that are either fueled with

distillate or residual fuel oil blends. For the purpose of emission inventories, USEPA has

assumed that Category 3 vessels primarily use residual blends, while Category 1 and 2

ve ssels typically use distillate fuels.

USEPA developed national emission inventories for Category 1 and 2 vessels and

C ategory 3 vessels for calendar years 2002 through 2040 as part of its effort to develop

emission standards for these vessels. The methodologies used to develop the emission

projections (for both a baseline and controlled scenario) are documented in three regulatory

impact assessments (USEPA 2008b, USEPA 2009c, USEPA 2009d). The USEPA data

a nd methodologies from these RIAs were used to develop separate growth and control

factors for Category 1 and 2 vessels (diesel) and Category 3 vessels (residual).

5.3.1.1 

### CMV Diesel Growth Factors

For Category 1 and 2 diesel vessels, USEPA used projection data for domestic shipping

from the AEO2006 (EIA 2006). The annual growth rate reported in the RIA is 0.9%.

More recent growth data for domestic shipping is available in the AEO2010 (EIA 2010).

Because Category 1 and 2 vessels primarily account for activity data for ships that carry

domestic cargo, we decided to use the recent growth data for domestic shipping available

in t he AEO2010. We used Table A-7 of the AEO2010 for domestic shipping to calculate

the g rowth factor for 2007-2025 to be 1.064. Th is growth factor w as used for CMV diesel

port emissions (SCC 22-80-002-100) and CMV diesel underway emissions (SCC 22-80-

002- 200).

5.3.1.2 

### CMV Diesel Control Factors

In developing their emission projections, USEPA developed two scenarios that accounted

for both the 2004 nonroad diesel rule and the 2008 diesel marine vessel rule:

 USEPA’s baseline (pre-control) inventory accounted for:

1. the 0.9 percent annual growth in fuel use based on AEO2006,

2. the impact of existing engine regulations that took effect in 2008,

3. the 2004 Clean Air Nonroad Diesel Rule that will decrease the allowable

leve ls of sulfur in fuel beginning in 2012, and

4. fleet turnover.Documentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 72



###  USEPA’s controlled inventory accounted for:

1. the 0.9 percent annual growth in fuel use based on AEO2006;

2. the reductions included in the baseline inventory, and the reductions from
USEPA’s 2008 rule Final Locomotive-Marine rule for Tier 3 and 4 engines;

3. The 2008 final rule that includes the first-ever national emission standards

for existing marine diesel engines, applying to engines larger than 600kW
when they are remanufactured. The rule also sets Tier 3 emissions

standa rds for newly-built engines that are phasing in from 2009. Finally,

the r ule establishes Tier 4 standards for newly-built commercial marine
diesel engines above 600kW, phasing in beginning in 2014.

To c alculate a control factor that accounts for reductions included in the USEPA controlled

inventory, it was necessary to first calculate a “growth only” scenario applying USEPA’s

0.9 percent annual growth rate to the 2007 base emissions. Once the growth rate was

applied, then a control factor for each pollutant was calculated by dividing the future year

controlled emissions by the future year “growth only” emissions. Exhibit 5.1 shows the

c ontrol factors for 2013, 2017, 2020, and 2025 for diesel commercial marine vessels.

Exhibit 5 .1 CMV Diesel Control Factors by Year and Pollutant

Year NOx PM2.5 SO2

2013 0.787 0.747 0.464

2017 0.642 0.550 0.076

2020 0.537 0.460 0.032

2025 0.401 0.353 0.031



### 5.3.1.3 

### CMV Residual Oil Growth Factors

For Category 3 residual oil vessels, data from a USEPA-sponsored study was used to

develop an annualized growth factor of 4.5 percent for the region. A few states considered

the growth rate to be extremely high and not reflective of recent economic conditions.

Because USEPA’s Category 3 vessel inventory is primarily based on activity data for ships

that carry foreign cargo, we decided to use the recent growth data for international

shipping available in the AEO2010. We used data from Table A-7 of the AEO2010 for

international shipping to calculate the growth factor for 2007-2025 to be 0.956. These

g rowth factors were used for CMV residual oil port emissions (SCC 22-80-003 -100) and

CMV residual oil underway emissions (SCC 22-80-003-200).Documentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 73



### 5.3.1.4 

### CMV Residual Oil Control Factors

On December 22, 2009, USEPA announced final emission standards under the Clean Air

Act for new marine diesel engines with per-cylinder displacement at or above 30 liters

(called Category 3 marine diesel engines) installed on U.S.-flagged vessels. The final

engine standards are equivalent to those adopted in the amendments to Annex VI to the

International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (a treaty called

"MARPOL"). The emission standards apply in two stages: near-term standards for newlybuilt engines will apply beginning in 2011, and long-term standards requiring an 80

percent reduction in NO

x 

### will begin in 2016. USEPA also adopted changes to the diesel

fuel program to allow for the production and sale of diesel fuel with no more than 1,000

ppm sulfur for use in Category 3 marine vessels. The regulations generally forbid

production and sale of fuels with more than 1,000 ppm sulfur for use in most U.S. waters,

unless operators achieve equivalent emission reductions in other ways.

On March 26, 2010, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) officially designated

waters off North American coasts as an emissions control area (ECA) in which stringent

international emission standards will apply to ships. In practice, implementation of the

ECA means that ships entering the designated area would need to use compliant fuel for

the duration of their voyage that is within that area, including time in port and voyages

whose routes pass through the area without calling on a port. The North American ECA

include s waters adjacent the Atlantic extending up to 200 nautical miles from east coast of

the US

. The quality of fuel that complies with the ECA standard will change over time.

From the effective date in 2012 until 2015, fuel used by vessels operating in designated

areas cannot exceed 1.0 percent sulfur (10,000 ppm). Beginning in 2015, fuel used by

v essels operating in these areas cannot exceed 0.1 percent sulfur (1000 ppm). Beginning

in 2016, NO

x 

### after treatment requirements become applicable.

To c alculate a control factor that accounted for reductions included in the USEPA

controlled inventory, it was necessary to first calculate a “growth only” scenario applying

USEPA’s 4.5 percent annual growth rate to the 2007 base emissions. Once the growth rate

was applied, then a control factor for each pollutant was calculated by dividing the future

year controlled emissions by the future year “growth only” emissions.

Exhibit 5.2 shows the control factors for 2013, 2017, and 2020 for residual oil commercial

mar ine vessels.Documentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 74



### Exhibit 5 .2 CMV Residual Oil Control Factors by Year and Pollutant

Year NOx PM2.5 SO2

2013 0.736 0.353 0.270

2017 0.654 0.216 0.120

2020 0.597 0.137 0.036

2025 0.480 0.137 0.036



### 5.3.1.5 

### Military Vessels Growth and Control Factors

Virginia reported emissions for military vessels, but did not distinguish between diesel or

residual fuels. An assumption of “no growth” for military vessel activity and emissions in

Virg inia was made so that emissions remain at 2007 levels in 2025. Virginia was the only

state to report emission from military vessels.

5.3.1.6 

### S tate-specific CMV Updates for 2025

New Jersey provided updated CMV emission estimates for 2007, 2013, 2017, 2020, and

2025, a nd growth and control factors for 2013, 2017, 2020, and 2025. These data were

used to replace the emission estimates previously used for the 2007 MANE-VU+VA base

year inventory and the MANE-VU+VA future year inventories.

5.3.2 Airports

Aircraft emissions in the 2007 MANE-VU+VA inventory are available on either a countyby -county or airport- by -airport basis for six types of aircraft operations:

 Air carrier operations represent landings and take-offs (LTOs) of commercial

aircraft with seating capacity of more than 60 seats;

 Commuter/air taxi operations are one category. Commuter operations include

LTOs by aircraft with 60 or fewer seats that transport regional passengers on

scheduled commercial flights. Air taxi operations include LTOs by aircraft with 60

or fewer seats conducted on non-scheduled or for-hire flights;

 General aviation represents all civil aviation LTOs not classified as commercial;

 Military operations represent LTOs by military aircraft;

 Ground Support Equipment (GSE) typically includes aircraft refueling and baggage

handling vehicles and equipment, aircraft towing vehicles, and passenger buses ;

 Auxiliary power units (APUs) provide power to start the main engines and run the

heating, cooling, and ventilation systems prior to starting the main engines.Documentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 75



### 5.3.2.1 

### Airport Growth Factors

Aircraft operations were projected to future years by applying activity growth using data

on itinerant (ITN) operations at airports as reported in the Federal Aviation

Administration’s (FAA) Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) System for 2009-2030 (FAA

2010). The ITN operations are defined as aircraft take-offs or landings. This information is

available for approximately 3300 individual airports. Actual LTOs are reported for 2007

and projected LTOs are provided for all years up to 2030.

The data was aggregated and applied at the county level for the four operation types:

commercial, general, air taxi, military. A growth factor was computed for each operation

type by dividing future-year ITN by 2007-year ITN. Inventory SCCs were assigned

factors based on the operation type, as shown in Exhibit 5.3.

E xhibit 5 .3 Crosswalk between SCC and FAA Operations Type

SCC SCC Description FAA Operation Type Used for

Growth Factor

2265008005 Airport Ground Support Equipment, 4

- Stroke Gas Total Itinerant Operations

2267008005 Airport Ground Support Equipment, LPG Total Itinerant Operations

2268008005 Airport Ground Support Equipment, CNG Total Itinerant Operations

2270008000 Airport Ground Support Equipment, Diesel Total Itinerant Operations

2270008005 Airport Ground Support Equipment, Diesel Tota l Itinerant Operations

2275001000 Aircraft /Military Aircraft /Total Itinerant Military Operations

2275020000 Aircraft /Commercial Aircraft /Total: All Types Itinerant Air Carrier Operations

2275050000 Aircraft /General Aviation /Total Itinerant General Aviation Operations

2275050011 Aircraft /General Aviation /Piston Itinerant General Aviation Operations

2275050012 Aircraft /General Aviation /Turbine Itinerant General Aviation Operations

2275060000 Aircraft /Air Taxi /Total Itinerant Air Taxi Operations

2275060011 Aircraft /Air Taxi /Piston Itinerant Air Taxi Operations

2275060012 Aircraft /Air Taxi /Turbine Itinerant Air Taxi Operations

2275070000 Aircraft /Aircraft Auxiliary Power Units /Total Total Itinerant Operations



### Exhibit 5.4 summarizes the region-wide growth factors by FAA operation type. The

growth factor for individual airports/counties may deviate substantially from these regionwide growth factors.Documentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 76



### Exhibit 5 .4 Region-wide Growth Factors from 2007 by FAA Operations Type

5.3.2.2 

### Air craft Control Factors

The NO

x 

### aircraft engine emissions standards adopted by USEPA in November 2005

(USEPA 2005) were reviewed. The standards are equivalent to the NO

x 

### emission

standards (adopted in 1999 for implementation beginning in 2004) of the United Nations

International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), and will bring the US aircraft standards

into alignment with the international standards. The standards apply to new aircraft

engines used on commercial aircraft including small regional jets, single-aisle and twina isle aircraft, and 747s and larger aircraft. The standards also apply to general aviation and

military aircraft, which sometimes use commercial engines. For example, small regional jet

engines are used in executive general aviation aircraft, and larger commercial aircraft

engines may be used in military transport aircraft.

N early all previously certified or in-production engine models currently meet or perform

be tter than the standards USEPA adopt ed in the November 2005 rule. In addition,

manuf acturers have already been developing improved technology in response to the

ICAO standards. According to USEPA’s recent analysis for the proposed transport rule

(U SEPA 2010b), this rule is expected to reduce NO

x 

### emissions by approximately 2 percent

in 2015 and 3 percent in 2020. Because of the relatively small amount of NO

x 

### reductions,

our aircraft emission projections do not account for this control program.

USEPA has also issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) on lead

emissions from piston-engine aircraft using leaded aviation gasoline (U S EPA 2010c).

How ever, this rule has not yet been adopted and co-benefits for criteria air pollutants are

likely to be small. Therefore, the effects of this rule were not included in the future-year

emissions projections.Documentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 77



### 5.3.2.3 

### State-specific Airport Updates for 2025

After reviewing the growth factors described in the previous section, Connecticut provided

state-specific growth factors for 2025 by SCC and county. These state-specific factors

were used instead of the factors described in the previous section.

New Jersey provided updated aircraft growth factors and emission estimates for 2007,

2013, 2017, 2020, a nd 2025. These data were used to replace the emission estimates

previously used for the 2007 MANE-VU+VA base year inventory and the MANEVU+VA future year inventories.

5.3.3 Railroad Locomotives

Railroad locomotive engine emissions in the 2007 MARAMA inventory are classified into

the following categories:

 Class I line haul locomotives are operated by large freight railroad companies and

are used to power freight train operations over long distances (SCC 22-85-002-

006);

 Class II/III line haul locomotives are operated by smaller freight railroad

companies and are used to power freight train operations over long distances (SCC

22 -85 -002 -007);

 Inter-city passenger train locomotives are operated primarily by Amtrak to provide

inter-city passenger transport (SCC 22-85-002-008);

 Independent commuter rail systems operate locomotives that provide passenger

tra nsport within a metropolitan area (SCC 22-85-002-009); and

 Yard/switch locomotives are used in freight yards to assemble and disassemble

trains, or for short hauls of trains that are made up of only a few cars (SCC 22-85-

002 -010 ).

5.3.3.1 

### Railroad Growth Factors

In March 2008, USEPA finalized a three part program that will dramatically reduce

e missions from diesel locomotives of all types

-- line-haul, switch, and passenger rail. As

pa rt of this work USEPA developed a national emission inventory for calendar years 2002

through 2040. Emission projections methodologies for a baseline and controlled scenario

were developed and documented (USEPA 2008b). USEPA used projection data from the

AEO 2006 (EIA 2006). Table A-7 of AEO2006 showed that freight rail energy use will

g row 1.6 percent annually.Documentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 78



### More recent growth data is available in the AEO2010 which was published in May 2010.

There are separate projections for passenger rail and freight rail energy use. For the

MANE VU+VA inventory the more recent AEO2010 growth projections were used.

Passenger rail data from AEO2010 Table A-7 was used to calculate the growth factor for

2007-2025 to be 1.241 . These growth factors were applied to inter-city passenger train

locomotives (SCC 22-85-002-008) and independent commuter rail systems (SCC 22-85-

002- 009).

For freight rail, the data from AEO2010 Table A-7 was used to calculate the growth facto r

for 2007-2025 to be 1.0 98

. The freight rail annual growth factors for Class I line haul

(SCC 22-85-002 -006), Class II/III line haul (SCC 22-85-002-007), and yard switch (SCC

22 -85-002 -010) locomotives were used.

5.3.3.2 

### Railroad Control Factors

USEPA developed two scenarios that accounted for both the 2004 nonroad diesel rule and

the 2008 diesel locomotive rule:

 USEPA ’s baseline (pre-control) inventory accounted for

1. AEO2006 annual growth in fuel use,

2. The impact of existing regulations for Tier 0, 1, and 2 locomotive engines

that take effect in 2008,

3. The 2004 Clean Air Nonroad Diesel Rule that will decrease allowable

leve ls of sulfur in locomotives fuel beginning in 2012, and

4. Fleet turnover.

 USEPA ’s controlled inventory accounted for

1. AEO2006 annual growth in fuel use,

2. Reductions included in the baseline inventory, and

3. Reductions from USEPA’s 2008 rule Final Locomotive-Marine rule for
Tier 3 and 4 engines. This rule lowered diesel sulfur content and tightened
emission standards for existing and new locomotives.

4. Voluntary retrofits under the National Clean Diesel Campaign are not
included in our projections.

To calculate a factor that accounted for reductions included in the USEPA controlled

inventory, it was necessary to first calculate a “growth only” scenario applying USEPA’s

1.6% annual growth rate to the 2006 base emissions. Once the growth rate was applied,

then a control factor for each pollutant was calculated by dividing the future year

controlled emissions by the future year “growth only” emissions.Documentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 79



### Exhibit 5.5 shows the control factors for 2013, 2017, 2020, and 2025 for the five

locomotive classifications and pollutants.

5.3.3.3 

### State-specific Railroad Updates for 2025

New Jersey provided updated railroad growth factors, control factors, and emission

estimates for 2007, 2013, 2017, 2020, and 2025. These data were used to replace the

e mission estimates previously used for the 2007 MANE-VU+VA base year inventory and

the MANE-VU+VA future year inventories.

Exhibit 5 .5 Rail Control Factors by Year, Pollutant, and SCC

Year NOx PM2.5 SO2

SCC 22

- 85

- 002

- 006 Line Haul Class I Operations

2013 0.771 0.595 0.003

2017 0.633 0.449 0.003

2020 0.547 0.364 0.003

2025 0.412 0.252 0.003

SCC 22

- 85

- 002

- 00 7 Line Haul Class I I / III Operations

2013 1.000 0.829 0.003

2017 0.960 0.791 0.003

2020 0.920 0.752 0.003

2025 0.852 0.688 0.003

SCC 22

- 85

- 002

- 00 8 Inter

- City Passenger

2013 0.571 0.566 0.003

2017 0.421 0.402 0.003

2020 0.340 0.294 0.003

2025 0.241 0.180 0.003

SCC 22

- 85

- 002

- 00 9 Commuter Rail

2013 0.571 0.566 0.003

2017 0.421 0.402 0.003

2020 0.340 0.294 0.003

2025 0.241 0.180 0.003

SCC 22

- 85

- 002

- 0 10 Yard / Switch

2013 0.912 0.777 0.003

2017 0.843 0.712 0.003

2020 0.771 0.650 0.003

2025 0.634 0.534 0.003Documentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 80



## 6.0 ONROAD MOBILE SOURCES INCLUDED IN MOVES

6.1 MOVES MODEL CATEGORIES

USEPA’s MOVES model estimates emissions from vehicles travel such as cars, trucks,

buses and motorcycles. These vehicles are powered by diesel, gasoline, and alternative

fuel formulations. MO VES2010 includes the capability to estimate both vehicle exhaust

and evaporative emissions (including vehicle refueling emissions) and brake wear and tire

wear emissions for criteria pollutants and precursors. However, MOVES2010 does not

include the capability to estimate emissions of re-entrained road dust. Estimates of

e missions from re-entrained road dust are included in the area source inventory.

6.2 2007 MOVES MODEL INVENTORY

MARAMA provided county-level MOVES results for 2007 for CT, DE, DC, and MD.

Other states (NJ, NY, PA, VA) provided results for affected counties in their states.

6.3 2025 MOVES MODEL INVENTORY

MARAMA provided county-level MOVES results for 2025 for CT, DE, DC, and MD.

Other states (NJ, NY, PA, VA) provided results for affected counties in their states.Documentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 81



## 7.0 EMISSION SUMMARIES

Exhibits 7.1 to 7 .12 summarize PM2.5 and PM precursor emissions by PM nonattainment

area and source sector for 2007 and 2025. Some general observations by pollutant include:

 PM2.5 emissions are projection to decrease between 2007and 2025 in all PM

nonattainment areas. The reductions are due to the turnover to cleaner onroad

vehicles, nonroad engines, and residential wood combustion equipment. The

PM2.5 emissions shown account for the application of the PM transport factor (see

discussion in Section 2.2.1.1 of this TSD).

 NO

x 

### emissions decline in all PM nonattainment areas between 2007 and 2025 and

b y more than 50 percent in a few areas. Most of the decline results from the

turnover of the onroad vehicle fleet to vehicles with improved emission controls

and fuel efficiency. Reductions in nonroad sources are also substantial. Three

a reas (Baltimore, NY/NJ/CT, and Washington DC/MD/VA) also show substantial

reductions due to controls on EGUs.

 SO 2 

### emissions decrease in all PM nonattainment areas. All areas are showing

reductions due to the lower sulfur contents of fuels used by onroad vehicles and

nonroad equipment. Additional reductions in areas located in Maryland, New

J ersey, and New York are due to the lower sulfur content regulations in those state

for home heating, distillate oil, and residual oil. Connecticut, Delaware, the

District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, and Virginia did not take credit for any

reductions for low sulfur fuel oils since they have not adopted the MANE- VU

recommendations into their regulations (see discussion in Section 2.3.2.5 of the

TSD). Especially large reductions are found in areas where controls are projected

to be in place on EGUs (Allentown, Baltimore, Harrisburg, Metro New York,

Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Washington DC/MD/VA, and York, PA).

County- by -county emissions for 2007 and 2025 are available on the MARAMA ftp site.Documentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 82



### Exhibit 7.1 Comparison of 2007 and 2025 PM2.5 and PM Precursor Emissions

Nonattainment Area: Allentown, PA

Annual Annual Change (t py ) Change (%)
(tons) (tons) from from

SECTOR 2007 2025 2007 to 2025 2007 to 2025

Oxides of Nitrogen (N Ox )

A rea 1,987 1,936

- 51

- 2.6%

N onroad MAR 516 277

- 239

- 46.3%

N onroad NM IM 2,661 1,007

- 1,654

- 62.1%

O nroad MOVES 15,652 4,190

- 11,462

- 73.2%

P oint EGU 7,763 5,837

- 1,927

- 24.8%

Point non EGU 5,900 2,114

- 3,786

- 64.2%
34,480 15,362

- 19,117

- 55.4%

Direct PM2.5

A rea 2,150 1,958

- 192

- 8.9%

N onroad MAR 26 15

- 11

- 42.3%

N onroad NM IM 229 113

- 117

- 51.0%

O nroad MOVES 528 190

- 338

- 64.0%

P oint EGU 2,264 2,138

- 125

- 5.5%

Point non EGU 1,301 1,227

- 75

- 5.7%
6,498 5,640

- 858

- 13.2% Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)

A rea 2,552 1,118

- 1,434

- 56.2%

N onroad MAR 12 4

- 8

- 70.4%

N onroad NM IM 147 4

- 143

- 97.3%

O nroad MOVES 118 43

- 75

- 63.2%

P oint EGU 48,203 3,962

- 44,241

- 91.8%

Point non EGU 5,868 5,875 7 0.1%
56,900 11,005

- 45,895

- 80.7%

Nonroad MAR – includes commercial marine vessels, airports, and railroad locomotives

Nonroad NMIM – includes equipment included in USEPA’s NMIM/NONROAD model
Onroad MOVES – includes emissions calculated by USEPA’s MOVES modelDocumentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 83



### Exhibit 7.2 Comparison of 2007 and 2025 PM2.5 and PM Precursor Emissions

Nonatt ainment Area: Baltimore, MD

Annual Annual Change (t py ) Change (%)
(tons) (tons) from F rom

SECTOR 2007 2025 2007 to 2025 2007 to 2025

Oxides of Nitrogen (N Ox )

A rea 4,732 5,167 435 9.2%

N onroad MAR 16,703 8,521

- 8,182

- 49.0%

N onroad NM IM 10,466 4,265

- 6,201

- 59.2%

O nroad MOVES 43,939 15,900

- 28,038

- 63.8%

P oint EGU 23,572 8,939

- 14,634

- 62.1%

Point non EGU 11,981 13,362 1,380 11.5%

111,394 56,154

- 55,240

- 49.6%

Direct PM2.5

A rea 5,004 5,197 193 3.9%

N onroad MAR 572 201

- 371

- 64.8%

N onroad NM IM 969 519

- 450

- 46.4%

O nroad MOVES 1,503 749

- 755

- 50.2%

P oint EGU 6,677 7,134 456 6.8%

Point non EGU 2,296 2,366 71 3.1%

17,022 16,166

- 855

- 5.0%

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)

A rea 2,316 315

- 2,001

- 86.4%

N onroad MAR 1,803 268

- 1,535

- 85.1%

N onroad NM IM 581 15

- 566

- 97.4%

O nroad MOVES 375 380 5 1.3%

P oint EGU 93,665 18,922

- 74,744

- 79.8%

Point non EGU 4,759 4,867 108 2.3%

103,499 24,766

- 78,733

- 76.1%

Nonroad MAR – includes commercial marine vessels, airports, and railroad locomotives

Nonroad NMIM – includes equipment included in USEPA’s NMIM/NONROAD model
Onroad MOVES – includes emissions calculated by USEPA’s MOVES modelDocumentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 84



### Exhibit 7.3 Comparison of 2007 and 2025 PM2.5 and PM Precursor Emissions

Nonattainment Area: Hagerstown Martinsburg, MD-WV

Annual Annual Change (t py ) Change (%)
(tons) (tons) from from

SECTOR 2007 2025 2007 to 2025 2007 to 2025

Oxides of Nitrogen (N Ox )

A rea 296 339 43 14.5%

N onroad MAR 289 144

- 145

- 50.2%

N onroad NM IM 793 301

- 492

- 62.0%

O nroad MOVES 5,124 1,966

- 3,158

- 61.6%

P oint EGU 1,398 1,390

- 8

- 0.6%

Point non EGU 1,982 1,518

- 465

- 23.4%

9,883 5,657

- 4,225

- 42.8%

Direct PM2.5

A rea 501 538 37 7.3%

N onroad MAR 10 3

- 7

- 68.6%

N onroad NM IM 74 33

- 41

- 55.6%

O nroad MOVES 185 69

- 117

- 62.8%

P oint EGU 310 299

- 11

- 3.5%

Point non EGU 188 188 0 0.1%
1,269 1,131

- 138

- 10.9% Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)

A rea 274 83

- 191

- 69.7%

N onroad MAR 5 2

- 4

- 69.4%

N onroad NM IM 45 1

- 44

- 97.6%

O nroad MOVES 44 47 3 6.4%

P oint EGU 5,536 4,590

- 946

- 17.1%

Point non EGU 1,277 1,271

- 6

- 0.5%

7,182 5,993

- 1,189

- 16.5%

Nonroad MAR – includes commercial marine vessels, airports, and railroad locomotives

Nonroad NMIM – includes equipment included in USEPA’s NMIM/NONROAD model

Onroad MOVES – includes emissions calculated by USEPA’s MOVES model

Note: only includes emissions for Washington County, MD; emissions for West Virginia portion of

the nonattainment area will be provided by Maryland in their SIP submittal.Documentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 85



### Exhibit 7.4 Comparison of 2007 and 2025 PM2.5 and PM Precursor Emissions

Nonattainment Area: Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle-York, PA

Annual Annual Change (t py ) Change (%) (tons) (tons) from F rom
SECTOR 2007 2025 2007 to 2025 2007 to 2025 Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx)

Area 3,874 3,705

- 169

- 4.4%

Nonroad MAR 1,775 981

- 793

- 44.7%

Nonroad NMIM 5,329 2,055

- 3,274

- 61.4%

Onroad MOVES 36,440 9,338

- 27,102

- 74.4%

Point EGU 15,985 15,531

- 454

- 2.8%

Point nonEGU 10,965 9,646

- 1,319

- 12.0%

74,368 41,255

- 33,113

- 44.5%

Direct PM2.5

Area 5,452 5,201

- 251

- 4.6%

Nonroad MAR 74 35

- 39

- 52.3%

Nonroad NMIM 474 211

- 263

- 55.4%

Onroad MOVES 1,225 346

- 879

- 71.8%

Point EGU 2,123 2,060

- 63

- 3.0%

Point nonEGU 923 915

- 8

- 0.9%

10,272 8,769

- 1,503

- 14.6%
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)

Area 4,900 2,763

- 2,136

- 43.6%

Nonroad MAR 30 15

- 15

- 50.2%

Nonroad NMIM 293 8

- 285

- 97.3%

Onroad MOVES 255 89

- 165

- 64.9%

Point EGU 106,189 5,179

- 101,010

- 95.1%

Point nonEGU 11,520 11,539 19 0.2%

123,186 19,593

- 103,593

- 84.1%

Nonroad MAR – includes commercial marine vessels, airports, and railroad locomotives
Nonroad NMIM – includes equipment included in USEPA’s NMIM/NONROAD model

Onroad MOVES – includes emissions calculated by USEPA’s MOVES modelDocumentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 86



### Exhibit 7.5 Comparison of 2007 and 2025 PM2.5 and PM Precursor Emissions

Nonatt ainment Area: Johnstown, PA

Annual Annual Change (t py ) Change (%) (tons) (tons) from F rom
SECTOR 2007 2025 2007 to 2025 2007 to 2025 Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx)

Area 861 822

- 39

- 4.5%

Nonroad MAR 1,132 568

- 564

- 49.8%

Nonroad NMIM 909 366

- 543

- 59.7%

Onroad MOVES 6,017 1,217

- 4,800

- 79.8%

Point EGU 41,440 40,004

- 1,435

- 3.5%

Point nonEGU 932 1,097 165 17.7%

51,291 44,074

- 7,216

- 14.1%

Direct PM2.5

Area 1,198 1,114

- 84

- 7.0%

Nonroad MAR 45 18

- 27

- 60.6%

Nonroad NMIM 84 36

- 48

- 56.9%

Onroad MOVES 195 43

- 152

- 78.2%

Point EGU 2,867 2,768

- 99

- 3.4%

Point nonEGU 231 234 3 1.4%

4,619 4,212

- 407

- 8.8%

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)

Area 1,179 593

- 586

- 49.7%

Nonroad MAR 13 1

- 12

- 95.9%

Nonroad NMIM 51 1

- 50

- 97.4%

Onroad MOVES 45 12

- 32

- 72.3%

Point EGU 143,303 141,481

- 1,821

- 1.3%

Point nonEGU 30 35 4 14.7%

144,621 142,123

- 2,498

- 1.7%

Nonroad MAR – includes commercial marine vessels, airports, and railroad locomotives

Nonroad NMIM – includes equipment included in USEPA’s NMIM/NONROAD model

Onroad MOVES – includes emissions calculated by USEPA’s MOVES model

Note: summary includes emissions for all of Indiana County; however, only part of the county is in

the nonattainment area.Documentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 87



### Exhibit 7.6 Comparison of 2007 and 2025 PM2.5 and PM Precursor Emissions

Nonattainment Area: Lancaster, PA

Annual Annual Change (t py ) Change (%) (tons) (tons) from F rom
SECTOR 2007 2025 2007 to 2025 2007 to 2025 Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx)

Area 1,827 1,704

- 122

- 6.7%

Nonroad MAR 293 140

- 153

- 52.1%

Nonroad NMIM 2,880 1,170

- 1,710

- 59.4%

Onroad MOVES 14,163 3,779

- 10,384

- 73.3%

Point EGU 0 0 0 0.0%

Point nonEGU 1,147 1,383 236 20.5%

20,310 8,177

- 12,133

- 59.7%

Direct PM2.5

Area 1,827 1,704

- 122

- 6.7%

Nonroad MAR 293 140

- 153

- 52.1%

Nonroad NMIM 2,880 1,170

- 1,710

- 59.4%

Onroad MOVES 14,163 3,779

- 10,384

- 73.3%

Point EGU 0 0 0 0.0%

Point nonEGU 1,147 1,383 236 20.5%

20,310 8,177

- 12,133

- 59.7%
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)

Area 3,030 1,766

- 1,264

- 41.7%

Nonroad MAR 4 0

- 3

- 87.6%

Nonroad NMIM 144 5

- 139

- 96.8%

Onroad MOVES 104 38

- 66

- 63.4%

Point EGU 0 0 0 0.0%

Point nonEGU 102 120 18 17.5%

3,384 1,929

- 1,454

- 43.0%

Nonroad MAR – includes commercial marine vessels, airports, and railroad locomotives
Nonroad NMIM – includes equipment included in USEPA’s NMIM/NONROAD model

Onroad MOVES – includes emissions calculated by USEPA’s MOVES modelDocumentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 88



### Exhibit 7.7 Comparison of 2007 and 2025 PM2.5 and PM Precursor Emissions

Nonattainment Area: Metro New York/Northern New Jersey/Long Island NY/NJ/CT

Annual Annual Change (t py ) Change (%) (tons) (tons) from F rom
SECTOR 2007 2025 2007 to 2025 2007 to 2025
Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx)

Area 64,044 56,873

- 7,170

- 11.2%

Nonroad MAR 46,842 31,820

- 15,023

- 32.1%

Nonroad NMIM 70,841 13,603

- 57,238

- 80.8 %

Onroad MOVES 252,723 74,474

- 178,249

- 70.5%

Point EGU 36,928 3 3.841

- 3,087

- 8.4 %

Point nonEGU 20,117 20,881 765 3.8%
491,675 231

, 660

- 2 60,014

- 5 2.9 %

Direct PM2.5

Area 18,512 19,318 805 4.4%

Nonroad MAR 1,705 755

- 950

- 55.7%

Nonroad NMIM 5,873 1,534

- 4,339

- 73.9 %

Onroad MOVES 10,189 4,878

- 5,311

- 52.1%

Point EGU 6,267 4, 274

- 1, 994

- 31.8 %

Point nonEGU 1,530 1,704 174 11.4%
44,131 32, 457

- 11, 674

- 26.5 %

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)

Area 42,122 10,353

- 31,768

- 75.4%

Nonroad MAR 11,823 1,957

- 9,865

- 83.4%

Nonroad NMIM 3,720 56

- 3664

- 98.5 %

Onroad MOVES 1,750 1,564

- 186

- 10.6%

Point EGU 63,236 44, 139

- 19

, 097

- 30.2 %

Point nonEGU 5,293 5,351 59 1.1%
126,427 6 3,420

- 6 3,005

- 43.7 %

Nonroad MAR – includes commercial marine vessels, airports, and railroad locomotives
Nonroad NMIM – includes equipment included in USEPA’s NMIM/NONROAD model

Onroad MOVES – includes emissions calculated by USEPA’s MOVES model

Note: 2025 NMIM emissions for New York counties are missing from the above summaries.

Note 2: New Jersey made changes to Point EGU values in this table after AMEC finalized the

project. The changes were made by MARAMA.

Note 3: GSE Emissions were removed from 2025 total for consistency.

Note 4: 2007 and 2025 Connecticut NMIM was updated with runs that use Version 3 inputs,

including revisions to the Pleasurecraft population file.Documentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 89



### Exhibit 7. 8 Comparison of 2007 and 2025 PM2.5 and PM Precursor Emissions

Nonattainment Area: Philadelphia-Wilmington, PA/DE/NJ

Annual Annual Change (t py ) Change (%) (tons) (tons) from F rom
SECTOR 2007 2025 2007 to 2025 2007 to 2025 Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx)

Area 18,043 17,741

- 302

- 1.7%

Nonroad MAR 12,271 9,357

- 2,913

- 23.7%

Nonroad NMIM 19,579 8,305

- 11,274

- 57.6%

Onroad MOVES 106,315 26,648

- 79,668

- 74.9%

Point EGU 12,616 4,873

- 7,743

- 61.4%

Point nonEGU 19,143 14,944

- 4,199

- 21.9%

187,967 81,869

- 106,099

- 56.4%

Direct PM2.5

Area 13,811 12,983

- 829

- 6.0%

Nonroad MAR 658 299

- 360

- 54.7%

Nonroad NMIM 1,808 1,059

- 749

- 41.4%

Onroad MOVES 3,795 1,443

- 2,352

- 62.0%

Point EGU 1,048 813

- 236

- 22.5%

Point nonEGU 3,524 3,062

- 462

- 13.1%

24,644 19,657

- 4,987

- 20.2%

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)

Area 16,763 9,756

- 7,007

- 41.8%

Nonroad MAR 5,136 677

- 4,459

- 86.8%

Nonroad NMIM 998 32

- 966

- 96.7%

Onroad MOVES 773 422

- 351

- 45.4%

Point EGU 20,665 4,563

- 16,102

- 77.9%

Point nonEGU 14,370 8,990

- 5,380

- 37.4%

58,705 24,440

- 34,265

- 58.4%

Nonroad MAR – includes commercial marine vessels, airports, and railroad locomotives

Nonroad NMIM – includes equipment included in USEPA’s NMIM/NONROAD model

Onroad MOVES – includes emissions calculated by USEPA’s MOVES modelDocumentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 90



### Exhibit 7.9 Comparison of 2007 and 2025 PM2.5 and PM Precursor Emissions

No nattainment Area: Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, PA

Annual Annual Change (t py ) Change (%) (tons) (tons) from F rom
SECTOR 2007 2025 2007 to 2025 2007 to 2025 Oxides of Nitrogen (N Ox )

A rea 8,608 8,613 5 0.1%

N onroad MAR 14,258 7,116

- 7,142

- 50.1%

N onroad NM IM 9,827 4,223

- 5,605

- 57.0%

O nroad MOVES 56,652 12,725

- 43,927

- 77.5%

P oint EGU 82,657 84,453 1,795 2.2%

Point non EGU 20,217 18,760

- 1,456

- 7.2%

192,219 135,890

- 56,330

- 29.3%

Direct PM2.5

A rea 7,562 6,835

- 728

- 9.6%

N onroad MAR 467 196

- 271

- 58.1%

N onroad NM IM 880 432

- 448

- 50.9%

O nroad MOVES 1,905 531

- 1,374

- 72.1%

P oint EGU 6,293 6,348 55 0.9%

Point non EGU 5,108 5,109 1 0.0%

22,216 19,450

- 2,766

- 12.4%

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)

A rea 13,589 10,791

- 2,798

- 20.6%

N onroad MAR 260 95

- 165

- 63.4%

N onroad NM IM 529 15

- 514

- 97.2%

O nroad MOVES 419 141

- 278

- 66.4%

P oint EGU 429,186 93,130

- 336,056

- 78.3%

Point non EGU 13,247 13,699 451 3.4%

457,230 117,871

- 339,359

- 74.2%

Nonroad MAR – includes commercial marine vessels, airports, and railroad locomotives

Nonroad NMIM – includes equipment included in USEPA’s NMIM/NONROAD model

Onroad MOVES – includes emissions calculated by USEPA’s MOVES model

Note: summary includes emissions for all of Allegheny, Armstrong, Greene and Lawrence counties ; however, only parts of those counties are in the nonattainment area.Documentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 91



### Exhibit 7.10 Comparison of 2007 and 2025 PM2.5 and PM Precursor Emissions

Nonattainment Area: Reading, PA

Annual Annual Change (t py ) Change (%) (tons) (tons) from F rom
SECTOR 2007 2025 2007 to 2025 2007 to 2025 Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx)

Area 1,289 1,114

- 175

- 13.6%

Nonroad MAR 621 307

- 314

- 50.5%

Nonroad NMIM 1,911 696

- 1,215

- 63.6%

Onroad MOVES 11,370 2,831

- 8,538

- 75.1%

Point EGU 2,506 2,432

- 74

- 2.9%

Point nonEGU 3,288 1,919

- 1,369

- 41.6%

20,983 9,298

- 11,685

- 55.7%

Direct PM2.5

Area 1,859 1,727

- 132

- 7.1%

Nonroad MAR 30 15

- 15

- 51.5%

Nonroad NMIM 161 72

- 88

- 54.9%

Onroad MOVES 379 96

- 284

- 74.7%

Point EGU 947 921

- 26

- 2.7%

Point nonEGU 325 331 6 1.8%

3,701 3,161

- 540

- 14.6%
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)

Area 2,389 1,223

- 1,166

- 48.8%

Nonroad MAR 7 1

- 7

- 92.6%

Nonroad NMIM 99 3

- 96

- 97.1%

Onroad MOVES 81 27

- 53

- 66.3%

Point EGU 14,491 13,990

- 501

- 3.5%

Point nonEGU 649 660 11 1.7%

17,716 15,903

- 1,812

- 10.2%

Nonroad MAR – includes commercial marine vessels, airports, and railroad locomotives
Nonroad NMIM – includes equipment included in USEPA’s NMIM/NONROAD model

Onroad MOVES – includes emissions calculated by USEPA’s MOVES modelDocumentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 92



### Exhibit 7.11 Comparison of 2007 and 2025 PM2.5 and PM Precursor Emissions

Nonattainment Area: Washington DC/MD/VA

Annual Annual Change (t py ) Change (%) (tons) (tons) from F rom
SECTOR 2007 2025 2007 to 2025 2007 to 2025
Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx)

Area 8,936 9,342 406 4.5%

Nonroad MAR 6,700 6,711 11 0.2%

1. Nonroad

NMIM 2. 20,097 3. 8,000 4.

- 12,097 5.

- 60.2%

Onroad MOVES 42,971 14,067

- 28,904

- 67.3%

Point EGU 29,029 13,919

- 15,109

- 52.0%

Point nonEGU 8,826 11,253 2,427 27.5%
116,643 63,295

- 53,348

- 45.7%

Direct PM2.5

Area 9,528 9,725 198 2.1%

Nonroad MAR 201 160

- 40

- 20.2%

6. Nonroad

NMIM 7. 2,005 8. 1,110 9.

- 895 10.

- 44.7%

Onroad MOVES 1,467 728

- 739

- 50.4%

Point EGU 4,984 4,996 12 0.2%

Point nonEGU 563 594 32 5.6%
18,746 17,316

- 1,430

- 7.6%
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)

Area 5,733 3,862

- 1,871

- 32.6%

Nonroad MAR 416 488 72 17.3%

11. Nonroad

NMIM 12. 1,233 13. 28 14.

- 1,205 15.

- 97.8%

Onroad MOVES 387 347

- 40

- 10.4%

Point EGU 179,243 24,694

- 154,549

- 86.2%

Point nonEGU 4,206 3,570

- 636

- 15.1%
191,215 32,990

- 158,225

- 82.7%

Nonroad MAR – includes commercial marine vessels, airports, and railroad locomotives

Nonroad NMIM – includes equipment included in USEPA’s NMIM/NONROAD model
Onroad MOVES – includes emissions calculated by USEPA’s MOVES model

Note: 2007 and 2025 MOVES onroad emissions for Virginia counties are missing from the above

summaries.

Note2: GSE Emissions were removed from 2025 total for consistency.Documentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 93



### Exhibit 7.12 Comparison of 2007 and 2025 PM2.5 and PM Precursor Emissions

Nonattainment Area: York, PA

Annual Annual Change (t py ) Change (%) (tons) (tons) from F rom
SECTOR 2007 2025 2007 to 2025 2007 to 2025
Oxides of Nitrogen (N Ox )

A rea 1,680 1,678

- 2

- 0.1%

N onroad MAR 198 104

- 93

- 47.2%

N onroad NM IM 2,463 836

- 1,627

- 66.1%

O nroad MOVES 10,519 2,740

- 7,779

- 74.0%

P oint EGU 15,760 15,226

- 534

- 3.4%

Point non EGU 6,404 6,431 28 0.4%
37,024 27,015

- 10,008

- 27.0%

Direct PM2.5

A rea 2,394 2,325

- 69

- 2.9%

N onroad MAR 13 7

- 6

- 48.7%

N onroad NM IM 189 77

- 112

- 59.4%

O nroad MOVES 348 121

- 227

- 65.2%

P oint EGU 2,098 2,026

- 72

- 3.4%

Point non EGU 364 365 1 0.3%
5,407 4,921

- 486

- 9.0%
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)

A rea 1,684 1,059

- 625

- 37.1%

N onroad MAR 2 0

- 2

- 88.4%

N onroad NM IM 132 3

- 129

- 97.5%

O nroad MOVES 79 28

- 50

- 63.8%

P oint EGU 106,158 5,136

- 101,021

- 95.2%

Point non EGU 9,743 9,749 6 0.1%
117,798 15,977

- 101,821

- 86.4%

Nonroad MAR – includes commercial marine vessels, airports, and railroad locomotives
Nonroad NMIM – includes equipment included in USEPA’s NMIM/NONROAD model

Onroad MOVES – includes emissions calculated by USEPA’s MOVES modelDocumentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 94



## 8.0 DELIVERABLES

Files are stored on MARAMA ftp site:

Address: ftp.marama.org

Login ID: regionalei

Password: marama2007

Folder: /2025/Final 2025 (Version 3_3)

Exhibit 8.1 lists the file names for all final deliverables.

E xhibit 8 .1 Final Deliverables

File Name Description

TSD V 3

_ 3 MANE

- VU 2025 Inventory PM

Nonattainment Counties.docx Technical Support Document for 2025 emission

inventory for PM nonattainment counties

Appendix A1 AEO2010 New England.xls AEO2010 Energy Consumption by Sector and

Source for New England Region (CT, MA, ME,

NH, RI, VT) and calculated growth factors

Appendix A2 AEO2010 Mid Atlantic

. xls AEO2010 Energy Consumption by Sector and

Source for Mid

- Atlantic Region (NJ, NY, PA)

and calculated growth factors

Appendix A3 AEO2010 South Atlantic.xls AEO201 0 Energy Consumption by Sector and

Source for South Atlantic Region (DC, DE, MD,

VA) and calculated growth factors

Appendix A 4 AEO2011 New England.xls AEO2011 Energy Consumption by Sector and

Source for New England Region (CT, MA, ME,

NH, RI, VT) and calculated growth factors

Appendix A 5 AEO2011 Mid Atlantic

. xls AEO2011 Energy Consumption by Sector and

Source for Mid

- Atlantic Region (NJ, NY, PA)

and calculated growth factors

Appendix A 6 AEO2011 South Atlantic.xls AEO2011 Energy Consumption by Sector and

Source for South Atlantic Region (DC, DE, MD,

VA) and calculated growth factors

Appendix A7 AEO2010 vs AEO 2011

Comparison.docx Technical Memorandum comparing AEO2010
and AEO2011 energy consumption projections

Appendix B Population_Factors.xls County

- level population growth factors as

provided by statesDocumentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 95

File Name Description

Appendix C Employment_Factors.xls State

- level employment growth factors provided

by states

Appendix D VMT GF Nonattainment

Counties.xls County

- level VMT for 2007 and 2025

Appendix E EPA2020 Res Wood.xls USEPA growth factor formulas by SCC for

residential wood combustion

Appendix F AEO2011

- Electricity Generation by

EMM.xlsx AEO 2011 Electricity Generation by Electricity

Market Module Region and Source, Reference

case , and associated growth factors

Appendix G UAF NEEDS Control

FileMASTER92211.xls State information on future EGU controls and

emission ra tes

Appendix H MAR Growth and Control.xls USEPA and FAA data used to develop growth

and control factors for commercial marine

vessels, airports, and railroads

V3_3 Area_07_25 PM Nonattainment.xlsx County and SCC

- level emissions and
growth/control factors for area sources

V3_3 EGU _07_25 PM Nonattainment.xlsx Unit level emissions and growth/control factors

for EGUs

V3_3 MAR _07_25 PM Nonattainment.xlsx County and SCC

- level emissions and
growth/control factors for commercial marine

vessels, airports, and railroad locomotives

V3_3 MOVES _07_25 PM Nonattainment.xlsx County level emissions for onroad vehicles

included in USEPA’s MOVES model

V3_3 NMIM _07_25 PM Nonattainment.xlsx County and SCC

- level emissions for nonroad

equipment included in USEPA’s

NMIM/NONROAD model

V3_3 NonEGU _07_25 PM Nonattainment.xlsx Unit level emissions and growth/control factors

for nonEGUs

V3_3 Summaries_ 07_25 PM

Nonattainment.xlsx Emission summaries by county and

nonattainment areaDocumentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 96



## 9.0 REFERENCES

EIA 2006 . U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. Annual

Energy Outlook with Projections to 2030 (AEO2006). DOE/EIA-0383(2006). February

2006. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/archive/aeo06/pdf/0383(2006).pdf

EIA 2010 . U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. Annual

Energy Outlook with Projections to 2035 (AEO2010) ; DOE/EIA-0383(2010). April 2010.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/assumption/pdf/0554(2010).pdf

EIA 2011a . U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. Annual

Energy Outlook with Projections to 2035 (AEO2011) ; DOE/EIA-0383(2011). April 2011.

htt p://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383(2011).pdf

EIA 2011b . U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. Annual

Energy Outlook with Projections to 2035 (AEO2011) – Table 96 Electricity Generation by

Electricity Market Module Region and Source, Reference case ; DOE/EIA-0383(2011).

April 2011. http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383(2011).pdf

FAA 2010. Federal Aviation Administration. Terminal Area Forecast 2009-2030

. Database file (APO100_TAF_Final_2010.zip) downloaded July 2010.

http://aspm.faa.gov/main/taf.asp

MANE- VU 2007. Mid-Atlantic / Northeast Visibility. Statement of the MidAtlantic/Northeast Visibility Union Concerning a Course of Action within MANE-VU

Toward Assuring Reasonable Progress . June 20, 2007.

http://www.otcair.org/manevu/document.asp?fview=Formal%20Actions

MARAMA 2007. Prepared by MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. for the Mid-Atlantic

Regional Air Management Association. Development of Emissions Projections for 2009,

2012, and 2018 for NonEGU Point, Area, and Nonroad Sources in the MANE-VU Region.

February 2007. http://www.marama.org/technical-center/emissions-inventory/2002-

inventory-and-projections/mane-vu-future-year-emissions-inventory

MARAMA 2011a. Prepared by MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. for the MidAtlantic Regional Air Management Association. Technical Support Document for the

Development of the 2007 Emission Inventory for Regional Air Quality Modeling in the

Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region . February 27, 2011.

MARAMA 2011b. Prepared by MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. for the MidAtlantic Regional Air Management Association. Technical Support Document for theDocumentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 97



### Development of the 2013/2017/2020 Emission Inventories for Regional Air Quality

Modeling in the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region . February 27, 2011.

MARAMA 2012a. Prepared by AMEC Environment and Infrastructure and SRA

International for the Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association. Technical

Support Document for the Development of the 2007 Emission Inventory for Regional Air

Quality Modeling in the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region Version 3_3

. January 23, 2012.

MARAMA 2012b. Prepared by AMEC Environment and Infrastructure and SRA

International for the Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association. Technical

Support Document for the Development of the 2013/2017/2020 Emission Inventories for

Regional Air Quality Modeling in the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region Version 3_3

. J anuary 23, 2012

OTC 2001. Prepared by E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc. for the Ozone Transport

Commission. Control Measure Development Support Analysis of Ozone Transport

Commission Model Rules . March 31, 2001.

http://www.otcair.org/Document.asp?fview=Report#

OTC 2007. Prepared by MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. for the Ozone Transport

Commission. Identification and Evaluation of Candidate Control Measures – Final

Technical Support Document. February 28, 2007.

http://www.otcair.org/Document.asp?fview=Report#

OTC 2009a. Ozone Transport Commission. Status Report on OTC States’ Efforts to

Promulgate Regulations Based on OTC 2001 Model Rules . October 19, 2009.

http://www.otcair.org/interest.asp?Fview=stationary

OTC 2009b. Ozone Transport Commission. Status Report on OTC States’ Efforts to

Promulgate Regulations Based on OTC 2006 Model Rules . October 19, 2009.

http://www.otcair.org/interest.asp?Fview=stationary

USEPA 2004a. E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc. for the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency Crosswalk Between Source Classification Code (SCC)and Emission Activity

Growth Factors – Final Technical Memorandum. September 9, 2004.

htt p://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/SCCcrosswalk.pdf

USEPA 2004b. E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc. for the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency Crosswalk Between Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Codes and Emission

Activity Growth Factors – Final Technical Memorandum. S eptember 9, 2004.

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/SICcrosswalk.pdfDocumentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 98



### USEPA 2004c. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Nonroad Engine Gr o wth

Estimates . EPA-420/P-04-08. April 2004.

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/nonrdmdl/nonrdmdl2004/420p04008.pdf

USEPA 2005a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Control of Air Pollution From

Aircraft and Aircraft Engines; Emission Standards and Test Procedures: Final Rule.

November 17, 2005. http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/2005/November/Day17/a22704.pdf

USEPA 2007a. U.S. Environmental Protections Agency. Emissions Modeling

Clearinghouse - Fugitive Dust Fractions . F ebruary 2007.

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/dustfractions )

USEPA 2007b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Guidance for Estimating VOC

and NOx Emission Changes from MACT Rules . EPA-457/B-07-001. May 2007.

htt p://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/o3imp8hr/documents/guidance/200705_epa457_b-07-

001_emission_changes_mact_rules.pdf

USEPA 2008 a

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Control Techniques Guidelines

. http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1ctg.html

USEPA 2008b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Regulatory Impact Analysis:

Control or Emissions of Air Pollution from Locomotive Engines and Marine Compression

Engines Less than 30 Liters Per Cylinder. EPA420-R-08-001a. May 2008.

htt p://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroad/420r08001a.pdf

US EP A 200 9a

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Mobile Inventory

M odel. http://www.epa.gov/otaq/nmim.htm

USEPA 2009c. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Regulatory Impact Analysis:

Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from Category 3 Marine Diesel Engines. EPA420-R09 -019. December 2009. http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroad/marine/ci/420r09019.pdf

USEPA 2009d. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Proposal to Designate an

Emissions Control Area for Nitrogen Oxides, Sulfur Oxides, and Particulate Matter. EPA420-R-09-007. April 2009. http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/nonroad/marine/ci/420r09007-

chap2.pdf

USEPA 2010a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2020 Emissions Data from

EPA’s 2005-based V4 Modeling Platform; Projection and Control Factors . Provided by

Rich Mason on April 15, 2010.

ftp://ftp.epa.gov/EmisInventory/2005v4/projection_control_packetsDocumentation for the 2025 Emission Inventory for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region January 23, 2012 Page 99



### USEPA 2010b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Transport Rule Emission

Inventories Notice of Data Availability (NODA). Docket ID No. EPA- HQ

- OAR -2009-

0491. October 27, 2010. TR_EI_NODA_relevant_CoSTpackets_and_inventories.xls

ftp://ftp.epa.gov/EmisInventory/2005v4/tr_ei_noda

USEPA 2010c. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Advance Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking on Lead Emissions from Piston-Engine Aircraft Using Leaded Aviation

Gasoline . April 2010. http://www.epa.gov/oms/regs/nonroad/aviation/420f10013.pdf

USEPA 2011. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emission Standards Reference

Guide. http://www.epa.gov/otaq/standards/index.htm

# APPENDIX C4

Technical Memo

Emission Factors for Condensable PM

Bureau of Air Quality Department of Environmental Protection

### [This page intentionally left blank.]MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc.

P.O. Box 12077, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709- 2077 • Phone: 919

- 941

- 0333 • Fax: 919- 941

- 0234 

### DATE: August 20 , 2008

TO: Julie R. McDill

Senior Engineer Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association, Inc.

8600 LaSalle Road Suite 636 Baltimore, MD 21286

F ROM: Arthur Werner, MACTEC

William Hodan, MACTEC Scott Justice, MACTEC MACTEC Project 82700 8 G233

SUBJECT: Emissions Factors for Condensable Particulate Matter Emissions from Electric

Generating Units

Introduction Accurate emissions factors are needed to model the effect of condensable emissions on regional haze in the MANE VU region. Pa rticulate matter smaller than 2.5 micrometers in diameter (PM 2.5 

### ) emitted from stationary sources has two components, particles that are solid regardless of stack temperature (filterable) and gases that condense shortly after exiting the stack (condensable ). For electric generating units (EGUs) burning oil or natural gas, condensable

pa rticulate matter (CPM) emissions can be greater than filterable emissions. However, there is a

g reat deal of uncertainty about the best way to measure condensable emissions. Essentially all CPM emissions factors in EPA’s WebFIRE (the database containing AP-42 emissions factors) and CPM emissions data collected recently were measured using EPA Reference Method 202. In Method 202, an effluent gas stream, after passing through a filter to remove solid particulate, is bubbled through a series of impingers to collect CPM. In measuring CPM from combustion of fuels containing sulfur, it ha s been shown by EPA that SO 2 

### collected in the impingers can be oxidized to sulfate and produ ce a variable sulfate artifact that results in overestimation of condensable emissions. In this example, if impingers are not purged with nitrogen, errors associated with the sulfate artifact may be inflated. The emissions factors in WebFIRE were

de veloped from source test data that are more than 10 years old and may not represen t newer refinements to Method 202. See the following link for more information on Method 202 and the nitrogen purge: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/methods/method202.html

.

Because of these and other uncertainties, condensable emissions were not calculated uniformly

a cross all states in the MANE-VU region in the 2002 emissions inventory. For the future year MANE VU (2009, 2012, and 2018) emissions inventories, MARAMA has requested that

MACTEC evaluate available data on condensable emissions from EGUs and recommend emissions factors to be used for the future year inventories.Technical Memorandum: Emissions Factors for Condensable Particulate Matter Emissions from EGUs

August 20 , 2008 Page 2



### Summary of Existing AP-42 CPM Emissions Factors

To establish a baseline for the condensable emissions factors used in the 2002 MANE VU emissions inventory and to compare the existing AP-42 emissions factors with emissions factors developed from recent source tests, we first review ed EPA’s FIRE (version 6.25) to identify all

EGU source/fuel/control device combinations for which AP-42 emissions factors and other factors are provided for CPM and PM 2.5 

### . These emissions factors are attached in an ACCESS

da tabase (Attachment 1)

. The attached database contains all 121 CPM and 51 PM 2 .5 

### emissions factors that are in the most recent version of FIRE (version 6.25). FIRE 6.25 contains all emissions factors published in AP-42 prior to October 2004. This includes the most recent updates to AP-42 Chapters 1 and 3, which contain all the external and internal combustion emissions factors associated with EGUs and other large combustion sources. The 121 CPM and

51 P M 2.5 

### EGU emissions factors in FIRE 6.25 are based on only 16 unique emissions factors (14

from AP-42 and 2 others). The 172 emissions factors were assigned by assuming that each unique f actor can be applied to a large number of source classification codes (SCCs) similar to the one for which the factor was actually developed.

The 121 CPM EGU emissions factors represent 14 unique emissions factors from the following

AP -42 sections (number of unique emission factors in parentheses):

 

### AP -42 Section 1.1: Bituminous and Subbituminous Coal Combustion (3)

 

### AP -42 Section 1.2: Anthracite Coal Combustion (1)

 

### AP

- 4 2 Section 1.3: Fuel Oil Combustion (2)

 

### AP -42 Section 1.4: Natural Gas Combustion (1)

 

### AP -42 Section 1.6: Wood Residue Combustion in Boilers (1)

 

### AP -42 Section 1.7: Lignite Combustion (3)

 

### AP -42 Section 3.1: Stationary Gas Turbines (2)

 

### AP -42 Section 3.2: Natural Gas-fired Reciprocating Engines (1)

F or those factors for which information was provided, each FIRE 6.25 emissions factor was calculated from data reported in from 2 to 36 test reports. In some cases, no information was provided on the number of tests forming the basis for the CPM factor. In addition to the 14 unique e missions factors from AP-42, there are 2 CPM emissions factors in FIRE 6.25 from sing le independent test reports (not included in AP-42). The assigned quality ratings of the factors vary from grade “A” to “E”, with some quality ratings designated as “U” for “Unknown”. The A ratings are likely due to the large number of tests conducted for some factors. It appears that the data were graded on the number of tests that were conducted to measure PM or PM 10 

### , and then the corresponding grade was associated with the CPM emissions factors as well. The 14 unique emission factors were then assigned to many related SCCs, resulting in the 121 CPM emissions factors in FIRE 6.25. This information is reflected in the attached database, which

c ontains identical emissions factors associated with many SCCs.Technical Memorandum: Emissions Factors for Condensable Particulate Matter Emissions from EGUs

August 20 , 2008 Page 3



### In addition, for each CPM emissions factor, Attachment 1 also contains the following

infor mation:

 

### S CC

 

### SCC Description

 

### Control description (if applicable)

 

### F uel heat content (assumed value, based on type of fuel and used to convert factors from a mass basis to an energy basis)

 

### Notes, reference information, formulae, factor identification number, date and description of any assumptions associated with the emissions factor.

The data in Exhibits 1 and 2 summarize the FIRE 6.25 information in Attachment 1. The

exhibit s list the emissions factors for coal, natural gas, and oil as they have been assigned in

F IRE 6.25, by fuel type. Because unique emissions factors were assigned multiple times to

man y SCCs associated with the same fuel, we have only represented each unique emission factor one time per fuel. In this way, we have prevented the average emissions factors from becoming biased due to the number of assignments. We have indicated the emissions factors that have

be en calculated from FIRE 6.25 formulae with fuel sulfur content as the variable. Investigation of typical sulfur values for the different grades of coal showed that the sulfur content is best represented as a range for all the coal types except for lignite coal. We calculated the emissions

fa ctors based on established ranges of sulfur content for anthracite, bituminous, and

subbituminous coal. We then averaged the high and low range value to calculate the emissions

fa ctor. Please refer to Attachment 1 for additional details on these emissions factors.

Ex hibit 1: FIRE 6.25 Unique CPM Emissions Factors by Coal Type Coal Type Anthracite Bituminous Subbituminous Lignite (units) (l b/MMBtu) (lb/MMBtu) (lb/MMBtu) (lb/MMBtu)

0.0385 (1) 

### 0.225 (1) 

### 0.125 (1) 

### 0.01 ( 2 )



### 0.049 (1) 

### 0.02 (3) 

### 0.02 (3) 

### 0.02 (3)



### 0.04 (3) 

### 0.04 (3) 

### 0.04 (3)



### 0.026

AVERAGE 0.044 0.095 0.053 0.023

(1) Emissions factor value was calculated by averaging the low and high range CPM emission estimate that resulted from the assignment of a high and low sulfur value in the emissions factor formula. (2) Emissions factor value was calculated by assigning a single value (no range) to the sulfur variable in the

emissions factor formula. (3) Emissions factors applicable to bituminous, subbituminous, and lignite.



### Exhibit 2: FIRE 6.25 CPM Emissions Factors for Natural Gas and Fuel Oil Fuel Type Natural Gas Fuel Oil (units) (lb/MMBtu) (lb/MMBtu)

0.0059 0.01

0.0047 0.0093

0.00991 0.0072

AVERAGE 0.0068 0.0088Technical Memorandum: Emissions Factors for Condensable Particulate Matter Emissions from EGUs

August 20 , 2008 Page 4



### Updated CPM Emissions Factors from Recent Emissions Test Reports

To develop CPM emissions factors from recent compliance tests, MACTEC evaluated source test reports beginning in 2002 for PM and CPM emissions from utility boilers and turbines firing

c oal, oil, or natural gas from six states: Delaware, Minnesota, New Jersey, North Carolina,

P ennsylvania, and Wisconsin. We reviewed 162 tests from 83 test reports to obtain CPM test data. Additional test reports were reviewed, but did not contain CPM data. [Note that each FIRE 6.25 emissions factor consists of data from 2 to 36 test reports.]. All tests for CPM were conducted using EPA Method 202 which, as described above, uses water-filled impingers to

c ollect condensable gases and aerosols after the filter. A key discriminator of artifact formation in Method 202 is the use of a nitrogen gas purge after sample collection to drive out excess SO 2 

### before oxidation to sulfate. Thus, in addition to extracting condensabl e e missions data and process information from each test report, we collected whatever details were provided on the

a pplication of Method 202. MACTEC extracted data from the 162 tests and entered the data in the WebFIRE data template (with emphasis on the use of the nitrogen purge). For each test we calculated the emissions factor from the emissions data and the process information. The

condensable emissions fa ctors were sorted by SCC and compared to the condensable emissions

factors in WebFIRE.

Exhibit 3 is a breakdown of the number of test reports by state and fuel. Exhibit 4 further breaks down the coal test reports by type of coal. As noted above, a key difference in CPM measured by EPA Method 202 is whether or not the impingers were purged with nitrogen, Exhibit 5

pr ovides a summary of the number of tests where impingers were purged, not purged, or not

spec ified.

Exhibit 3 : Tests by State and Fuel Type

State/Fuel Coal Oil Gas

Delaware 3 0 0

Minnesota 16 0 1 New Jersey 10 0 0

North Carolina 2 7 1 1 Pennsylvania 2 3 18 1 9

Wisconsin 32 8 3

Total 11 1 27 2 4Technical Memorandum: Emissions Factors for Condensable Particulate Matter Emissions from EGUs

August 20 , 2008 Page 5



### Exhibit 4: Test s b y State and Type of Coal

State/Fuel Coal* Bituminous Subbituminous

Delaware 3 0 0

Minnesota 7 0 9 New Jersey 7 3 0

North Carolina 26 1 0 Pennsylvania 14 9 0

Wisconsin 32 0 0

Total 89 13 9

(*) Type of coal unspecified.



### Exhibit 5: Tests by State and Nitrogen Purge

State/Purge Purged Not purged Not specified

Delaware 3 0 0

Minnesota 15 2 0 New Jersey 0 0 1 0

North Carolina 29 0 0 Pennsylvania 1 25 3 4

Wisconsin 28 6 9

Total 76 33 53

Exhibits 6 through 9 summarize the results of the CPM and FPM data collected from the 162 tests. The data extracted from the reports and the analyses used to generate the graphs in

Ex hibits 6 through 9 are available in Attachment 2 to this memorandum. Exhibit 6 shows the

a verage emissions factors for each fuel from all test reports. The average coal CPM emissions

factor is 0.023 ± 0.006 lb/MMBtu (95% confidence interval for 111 data points). Most of the test reports did not specify the type of coal fired, but based on DOE monthly coal-use data for

the U nited States, the majority of coal burned in the United States is either bituminous or

subbituminous. The average fuel oil CPM emissions factor is 0.013 ± 0.006 lb/MMBtu (95%

c onfidence interval for 27 data points), and the average natural gas CPM emissions factor is

0.00 5 ± 0.001 lb/MMBtu (95% confidence interval for 24 data points).

The effect of the nitrogen purge can be seen from comparison of the CPM emissions factor results in Exhibits 7 through 9. CPM results from tests for which no nitrogen purge was done are

not iceably higher than the results from the tests for which the purge was done. A comparison of

Ex hibits 7 and 8 demonstrates the magnitude of the sulfate artifact. Th e average of the CPM emissions resulting from the non-purged tests are 3 times high er than the results of the purged tests for coal based on the comparison of 11 non-purged and 66 purged data points. The average

of the CPM emissions resulting from the non-purged tests are twice the results of the purged tests

for fuel oil based on the comparison of 12 non -purged and 6 purged data points. For natural gas, average CPM emissions resulting from non-purged tests are 3 times higher than the purged tests

ba sed on comparison of 12 non-purged and 6 purged data points.Technical Memorandum: Emissions Factors for Condensable Particulate Matter Emissions from EGUs

August 20 , 2008 Page 6



### Exhibit 6: Average Emission Factors By Fuel – All Tests

Exhibit 7: Emission Factor Comparisons, PurgedTechnical Memorandum: Emissions Factors for Condensable Particulate Matter Emissions from EGUs

August 20 , 2008 Page 7



### Exhibit 8: Emission Factor Comparisons, Non-Purged

Exhibit 9: Emission Factor Comparisons, Unknown PurgeTechnical Memorandum: Emissions Factors for Condensable Particulate Matter Emissions from EGUs

August 20 , 2008 Page 8



### In addition to categorization by fuel type, we reviewed the available information for each of the

162 tests, and made assignments of the data points to SCCs for direct comparison to existing

AP -42 emissions factors. Using the available information and considering the limited number of

da ta points (162 total), we decided that the most effective analysis would result from assignment

of the data points to the 6-digit SCC level. Assignment at the SCC 8-digit level was not possible

for most test data because the information supplied in most test reports did not indicate the specific boiler/turbine type. After the assignments were made, additional calculations wer e completed to calculate the emissions factors by 6-digit SCC. Exhibit 10 contains a summary of

these data, and the assignments. Complete calculations are provided in Attachment 3 to this

memorandum.

Exhibit 10: Summary of CPM Emissions Factors by SCC (6-digit)

SCC (6

- digit) SCC (6

- digit) Description Number of

Tests Average CPM

Emissions Factor ( lb/MMBtu ) 95% Confidence

Interval ( lb/MMBtu )

1

- 01

- 001 Boiler / EGU / Anthracite Coal 1 0.0084 N/A

1

- 01

- 002

– all tests Boiler / EGU /

Bituminous/Subbituminous Coal 10 2 0.02 2 ± 0.006

1

- 01

- 002 (

purged only ) Boiler / EGU /

Bituminous/ Subbituminous Coal 63 0.01 3 ± 0.002

1

- 01

- 003

– all tests Boiler / EGU / Lignite 6 0.039 ± 0.029

1

- 01

- 005

– all tests Boiler / EGU / Fuel Oil 10 0.014 ± 0.007

1

- 01

- 006

– all tests Boiler / EGU / Natural Gas 1 0.00249 N/A

1

- 01

- 008

– all tests Boiler / EG U / Petroleum Coke 2 0.05 ± 0.03

2

- 01

- 001

– all tests Internal Combustion Engine / EGU/

Fuel Oil 17 0.01 3 ± 0.00 5

2

- 01

- 001 (purged only) Internal Combustion Engine / EGU/

Fuel Oil 3 0.010 ± 0.004

2

- 01

- 002

– all tests Internal Combustion Engine / EGU/

Nat ural Gas 23 0.005 ± 0.001

2

- 01

- 002 (

purged only ) Internal Combustion Engine / EGU/

Natural Gas 3 0.0015 ± 0.0002



### Summary of Results from Emissions Factors Data Analysis In accordance with EPA guidance that CPM emissions determined from Method 202 tests that

a pply nitrogen purging are more reliable than results from tests where purging was not used, we will only consider categories where purging was used. Based on the high level of agreement among the 63 test data points for the nitrogen purged tests for SCC “1-01 -002”in Exhibit 10 (third row), the CPM emissions factor of 0.013 ± 0.002 lb/MMBtu for bituminous and/or subbituminous coal is considered to be a high quality estimate of the CPM emissions factor in

EGU boilers and we recommend its use. One should be careful in comparing the emissions

factors in Exhibit 10 with those in Exhibit 1 because the emissions factors in Exhibit 1 for coal combustion are averaged over a range of fuel sulfur content and the factors in Exhibit 10 are averaged over tests without regard to fuel sulfur. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the nitrogen purged CPM emissions factor in Exhibit 10 for combustion of bituminous and subbituminous coal are lower than the older emissions factors in FIRE 6.25 by a factor of about 7

a nd 4 for bituminous and subbituminous coal, respectively Additionally, because nearly all coal fired in the United States is bituminous or subbituminous coal, application of this emissions factor for all combustion of bituminous and/or subbituminous coal should greatly improve

emissions estimates from EGUs.Technical Memorandum: Emissions Factors for Condensable Particulate Matter Emissions from EGUs

August 20 , 2008 Page 9



### Based on the small sample size of nitrogen purged tests for anthracite and lignite coals, natural

g as and fuel oil as shown in Exhibit 10, we do not recommend any revisions to FIRE 6.25 emissions factors. It should be noted that while these data have been shared with EPA, EPA has

not yet added the data to WebFIRE.

Comments from state agency review of this technical memorandum This technical memorandum was circulated to state agency staff for their review. A number of technical changes were made as a result of those comments. In addition, Pennsylvania provided the following comments:

 

### Pennsylvania DEP is requiring EGU owners/operators in Pennsylvania to conduct source testing by June 30, 2009 to determine actual condensable PM emission.

 

### The measurement method for CPM has now been updated. EPA's recently developed dry impinger method (OTM-028) was not used in the tests used in this study, rather the

method that wa s used (Method 202) produces results that are biased high.

 

### A f ollow-up study would be desirable to determine if testing methods affect the

CPM/TPM ratio.Technical Memorandum: Emissions Factors for Condensable Particulate Matter Emissions from EGUs

August 20 , 2008 Page 10



### APPENDIX ATechnical Memorandum: Emissions Factors for Condensable Particulate Matter Emissions from EGUs

August 20 , 2008 Page 11



### Delaware

NRG Indian River Generating Station, Unit 4, October 31, 2002

NRG Indian River Generating Station, Unit 2, October 16, 2002

NRG Indian River Generating Station, Unit 1, October 16, 2002

Minnesota

Otter Tail Power Company’s Hoot Lake Facility, No. 1 Boiler, Fergus Falls, MN, December 19,

2006

Minnesota Power’s Boswell Energy Center, Unit 4, Cohasset, MN, August 26-28, 2002

Xcel Energy’s Riverside Generating Plant, Units 6, 7 and 8, Minneapolis, MN, October 3-4,

2006

Xcel Energy Sherburne County Generating Plant, Unit 1/2 Common Stack, Becker, MN, June

15 -16, 2004

Xcel Energy Sherburne County Generating Plant, Boilers 1 and 2 Common Stack/EP #001, Becker, MN, August 28, 2001

Xcel Energy Sherburne County Generating Station, Unit #3 Exhaust Stack, Becker, MN, September 28, 2005

Xcel Energy Sherburne County Generating Plant, EU001 & EU002/SV001, Becker, MN, April 27, 2007

Minnesota Power Laskin Energy Center, Boilers 1 and 2, Hoyt Lakes, MN, February 27, 2007 and July 24, 2007

Otter Tail Power Company’s Hoot Lake Facility, Unit 3 Boiler, Fergus Falls, MN, December 20,

2006

Otter Tail Power Hoot Lake Facility, Unit 3 Boiler, Fergus Falls, MN, August 24, 2006

Xcel Energy Black Dog Unit #5 Repowering Project, Combustion Turbine #5, Burnsville MN, June 26-July 2, 2002Technical Memorandum: Emissions Factors for Condensable Particulate Matter Emissions from EGUs

August 20 , 2008 Page 12



### North Carolina

Carolina Power & Light Lee Plant, Unit 1, Goldsboro, NC, May 2, 2002

Carolina Power & Light Lee Plant, Unit 3, Goldsboro, NC, May 1, 2002

Carolina Power & Light Mayo Plant, Unit 1, Roxboro, NC, May 9, 2002

Carolina Power & Light L.V. Sutton Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 1, Wilmington, NC, June 15,

2002

Carolina Power & Light L.V. Sutton Steam Electric Plant, Unit No.2, Wilmington, NC, June 16,

2002

Carolina Power & Light L.V. Sutton Steam Electric Plant, Unit No.3, Wilmington, NC, June 13,

2002

Carolina Power & Light Roxboro Plant, Unit 1, Roxboro, NC, July 23, 20 02

Carolina Power & Light Roxboro Plant, Unit 2, Roxboro, NC, May 22, 2002

Carolina Power & Light Roxboro Plant, Unit 3, Roxboro, NC, July 24, 2002

Carolina Power & Light WH Weatherspoon Plant, Units 1 & 2, Lumberton, NC, February 13-14,

2002

Carolina Power & Light WH Weatherspoon Plant, Unit3, Lumberton, NC, March 6, 2002

Carolina Power & Light WH Weatherspoon Plant, Unit3, Lumberton, NC, September 24, 2002

Duke Energy Allen Steam Station, Unit 1, Gaston County, NC, August 13, 2002

Duke Energy Allen Steam Station, Unit 3, Gaston County, NC, August 14, 2002

Duke Energy Allen Steam Station, Unit 4, Gaston County, NC, August 15, 2002

Duke Energy Riverbend Steam Station, Unit 4 Boiler 7, Gaston County, NC, October 8, 2002

Duke Energy Riverbend Steam Station, Unit 5 Stacks A & B, Gaston County, NC, October 9,

2002

Duke Power Company, Buck Steam Station, Unit No. 3, Spencer, NC, September 11, 2003 Duke Power Company, Buck Steam Station, Unit No. 5, Spencer, NC, September 10, 2003

Duke Power Company, Cliffside Steam Station, Unit No. 5, Rutherford County, NC, August 1,

2002Technical Memorandum: Emissions Factors for Condensable Particulate Matter Emissions from EGUs

August 20 , 2008 Page 13



### Duke Power Company Dan River Steam Station, Unit 2, Eden, NC, May 1, 2002

Duke Power Company Dan River Steam Station, Unit 1, Eden, NC, April 30, 2002

Progress Energy Carolina’s Mayo Plant, Unit 1, Roxboro, NC, June 16, 2004

Progress Energy Asheville Generating Station, Unit T4, Asheville, NC, May 6-9, 2008

Carolina Power and Electric Roxboro Electric Generating Plant, Unit 1, Roxboro, NC, October 16, 2001 Pennsylvania

Allegheny Energy Supply Company Hatfield’s Ferry Power Station, Stacks 1 & 2, Masontown, PA, March 23 and 26, 2007

Allegheny Energy Supply Company Hatfield’s Ferry Power Station, Stacks 1 & 2, Monongahela Township, PA, June 12, 2007

Reliant Energy Newcastle Plant, Boilers 3 & 5, Taylor Township, PA, March 22, 2005

R eliant Energy Newcastle Plant, Boiler 4, Taylor Township, PA, May 18, 2005

Reliant Energy Newcastle Plant, Boilers 3, 4 & 5, Taylor Township, PA, February 27, 2007

Northampton Generating Company, Northampton, PA, August 23-24, 2005

PPL Brunner Island, Unit 3 ESP, East Manchester Twp., PA, January 10, 2007

PPL Brunner Island S.E.S., Unit 1 Exhaust Stack, York Haven, PA, May 15, 2007

Reliant Energy Elrama Power Plant, Boilers 1-4, Elrama, PA, August 3, 2005

Reliant Energy Elrama Power Plant, Baghouse Stack, Elrama, PA, November 18, 2005

Reliant Energy Elrama Power Plant, Elrama, PA, April 12 & 16, 2007 Reliant Energy Elrama Power Plant, Boilers 1-4, Union Township, PA, December 17, 2007

PPL Martins Creek Station, Northampton County, 2007

PPL Generation Montour Steam Electric Station, Boiler 1, Washingtonville, PA, May 16, 2006

PPL Generation Montour Steam Electric Station, Boiler 2, Washingtonville, PA, April 4, 2007

Reliant Energy Mid-Atlantic Power Seward Station, Boilers 1 & 2, East Wheatfield Twp., PA, December 5, 2004Technical Memorandum: Emissions Factors for Condensable Particulate Matter Emissions from EGUs

August 20 , 2008 Page 14



### Conectiv Bethlehem, Combined Cycle Electric Generation Facility, Combustion Turbines 1-3, Bethlehem and Lower Saucon Twp., PA, January 29-March 26, 2003

Conectiv Bethlehem, Combined Cycle Electric Generation Facility, Combustion Turbines 1-3, Bethlehem and Lower Saucon Twp., PA, May20-June 2, 2003

Conectiv Energy Bethlehem Power Plant, Units 2 & 3, Bethlehem, PA, February 3,4 7,8 & 10,

2003

Conectiv Energy Bethlehem Power Plant, Unit 2, Bethlehem, PA, May 27-29, 2003

C onectiv Energy Bethlehem Power Plant, Unit 3, Bethlehem, PA, May 30,31 & June 2, 2003

Conectiv Energy Bethlehem Power Plant, Unit 1, Bethlehem, PA, January 28-30, 2003

Conectiv Energy Bethlehem Power Plant, CT 2, Bethlehem & Lower Saucon Twp., PA, December 30, 2003

Conectiv Energy Bethlehem Power Plant, Unit 5, Bethlehem & Lower Saucon Twp., PA, March 22, 24 2003

Conectiv Energy Bethlehem Power Plant, CT 3, Bethlehem & Lower Saucon Twp., PA, February 8, 10, 2003

Conectiv Energy Bethlehem Power Plant, CT 7, Bethlehem & Lower Saucon Twp., PA, September 25-26, 2003

Conectiv Energy Bethlehem Power Plant, Unit 5, Bethlehem & Lower Saucon Twp., PA, September 15-17, 2003

Reliant Energy Did Atlantic Power Holding Portland Station, Combustion Turbine #5, Upper Mt. Bethel Township, PA, September 24, 2002

Conectiv Energy Bethlehem Power Plant, CT 6, Bethlehem & Lower Saucon Twp., PA, September 22-23, 2003

New Jersey

Carney’s Point Generating Plant, Boilers 1 & 2 Carney’s Point, NJ, January 19-29, 2004

PSEG Hudson Generating Station, Unit No. 2, Hudson, NJ, June 20 & 23, 2003

Logan Generating Station, Swedesboro, NJ, October 27-28, 2004

Wisconsin

Dairyland Power Cooperative Genoa 3 Station, No. 1 Boiler, Genoa, WI, August 3, 2004Technical Memorandum: Emissions Factors for Condensable Particulate Matter Emissions from EGUs

August 20 , 2008 Page 15



### Dairyland Power Cooperative J.P. Madgett Station, No. 1 Boiler, Alma, WI, April 9, 2002

Dairyland Power Cooperative J.P. Madgett Station, No. 1 Boiler, Alma, WI, May 18, 2006

Dairyland Power Cooperative J.P. Madgett Station, Baghouse Stack (Main Boiler B25, S11), Alma, WI, December 18-19, 2007

Wisconsin Public Service Corporation J.P. Pulliam Power Plant, Units 3/4 Common Stack, Green Bay, WI, July7, 2004

Madison Gas and Electric Company Blount Generating Station, Unit 7 Outlet Duct, Madison, WI, November 6, 2003

Madison Gas and Electric Company Blount Generating Station, Unit 8 Precipitator Outlet, Madison, WI, April 15, 2004

Manitowoc Public Utilities MPU Power Plant, Boilers B25 and B28, Manitowoc, WI, June 10 and July 9, 2003

Manitowoc Public Utilities MPU Power Plant, Boilers B25 and B28, Manitowoc, WI, March 6- 9, 2006

Wisconsin Electric Power Company Valley Power Plant, Boilers 1 and 2 Inlet and Outlet Ducts, October 24 and 26, 2001

Wisconsin Public Service Corporation Weston Power Plant, Unit 1 Stack, Rothschild, WI, December 21, 2005

We Energies Oak Creek Station, Unit 8 Precipitator Outlet, East and West Inlets, Oak Creek, WI, September 4, 2003

We Energies Valley Power Plant, Boilers 3 and 4 Inlet and Outlet Ducts, Milwaukee, WI, July 28 and 29, 2003

Alliant Energy Columbia Station, Unit 1 Stack, Pardeeville, WI, September 4, 2003

Dairyland Power Alma Station, No. 105 Boiler Stack, Alma, WI June 1, 2006

Dairyland Power Cooperative Genoa 3 Station, No. 1 Boiler Baghouse Stack, Genoa, WI, July

24 -25, 2007

We Energies Pleasant Prairie Power Plant, Unit 1 FGD Scrubber Stack, Pleasant Prairie, WI, January 24 and 25, 2007

We Energies Pleasant Prairie Power Plant, Unit 2 FGD Scrubber Stack, Pleasant Prairie, WI, May 23 and 24, 2007Technical Memorandum: Emissions Factors for Condensable Particulate Matter Emissions from EGUs

August 20 , 2008 Page 16



### Northern Wisconsin Center, #3 Boiler Exhaust Stack, Chippewa Falls, WI, March 15, 2005

Wisconsin Public Service Corporation Weston Power Plant, Unit 4 Auxiliary Boiler Stack, November 27, 2007

Alliant Energy Edgewater Generating Station, Unit 4 Outlet Duct, Sheboygan, WI, March 19,

2002

Mendota mental Health heating Plant, #2 Boiler Exhaust, Madison, WI, March 21, 2003

Wisconsin Power and Light Nelson Dewey Generation Station Cassville, Units 1 and 2, Cassville, WI, February 22 and 24, 2005

Manitowoc Public Utilities Custer Plant, Combustion Turbine Stack, Manitowoc, WI, October 2- 5, 2001

We Energies Port Washington Power Plant, Combustion Turbine 21, Port Washington, WI, October 10-11, 2005

Wisconsin Public Service Corporation Weston Power Plant, Combustion Turbine 32 South Stack, Rothschild, WI, December 29-30, 2005

Madison Gas and Electric Company West Campus Cogeneration Facility, Unit 2, Madison, WI, April 11, 12, 15,16, 2005

Madison Gas and Electric Company West Campus Cogeneration Facility, Unit 1 and the Diesel Engine Backup Generator, Madison, WI, February 21 and 22, 2006

Wisconsin Public Service Corporation Petenwell Dam Hydro Site, Simple Cycle Combustion Turbine, Necedah, WI, September 2-5, 2003

Arcadia Municipal Electric Utility, No. 7 Diesel Engine Outlet, Arcadia, WI, July 31, 2002

Wisconsin Public Service Corporation Weston Power Plant, Unit 4 Main Diesel Fire Pump, Rothschild, WI, January 23, 2007

Wisconsin Public Service Corporation Weston Power Plant, Unit 4 Diesel Booster Fire Pump, February 26, 2008