1

Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU) Regional Planning 

Organization

FINAL INTERIM PRINCIPLES FOR REGIONAL PLANNING

The purpose of this document is to outline the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast region’s

approach to air quality planning for regional haze, including an agreement to form a new 

regional planning organization. The name of the organization will be the MidAtlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU) Regional Planning Organization. The

MANE-VU Regional Planning Organization’s principles for regional planning to address 

regional haze are as follows.

Background

In 1999, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) promulgated

regional haze regulations that, among other things, require all states to develop regional 

haze rules to establish goals and emission reduction strategies for improving visibility

due to regional haze in the 156 national park and wilderness areas throughout the

United States designated as mandatory Federal Class I areas. USEPA’s regional haze 

regulations allow for, and encourage through deferment of deadlines, a coordinated

approach to addressing regional haze issues. As part of the implementation of the

regional haze regulations, USEPA has provided grant funds for five regional planning

organizations (RPOs) to facilitate their efforts to address visibility impairment in the

region. MANE-VU’s members include two Federally recognized Tribes (the Penobscot 

Indian Nation, and the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe), eleven States (Connecticut, Delaware, 

Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,

Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont), the District of Columbia, the National Park 

Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Forest Service, and the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency.

Purpose

MANE-VU will coordinate regional haze planning activities for its region. It will provide 

technical assessments for and assistance to its members regarding regional haze and 

related issues, provide a forum for its members to discuss such issues, and recommend 

actions to reduce regional haze. MANE-VU will also evaluate linkage between regional 

haze and other regional pollutants, such as fine particulate matter and ozone. In

addition, MANE-VU will coordinate its activities with other Regional Planning

Organizations. MANE-VU may also take other actions to help facilitate these efforts,

including adopting resolutions and other such instruments as deemed appropriate by

the Board, adopting bylaws, and assisting its members in meeting the requirements of 

the Federal regional haze rule.
2

Roles and Responsibilities

Under the Federal regional haze rule, the States have the primary regulatory

responsibility for addressing visibility impairment through the development of State

Implementation Plans (SIPs). Specifically, pursuant to 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart P,

Section 51.300, States are required to “...develop programs to assure reasonable

progress toward meeting the national goal of preventing any future, and remedying any 

existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas which impairment

results from manmade air pollution...”. As noted in the preamble to the Federal regional 

haze rule, States are required to “...develop SIP revisions to address regional haze, to 

update the SIP every 10 years, and to continue to evaluate progress toward the national 

visibility goal.” The Federal regional haze rule also notes the important role of Indian 

Tribes, and under the Tribal Authority Rule (40 CFR 49), Tribes are eligible to be

“treated in the same manner as a state” with respect to implementing certain provisions 

of the Clean Air Act. As a result, Tribes may request, and EPA may certify, Tribes

becoming responsible for Tribal Implementation Plans (TIPs) for regional haze.

The Federal government, including Federal Land Managers (FLMs) and USEPA must

also be involved in the regional planning process. USEPA has oversight responsibility 

on State and Tribal Implementation Plans, and the FLMs have significant air quality

responsibilities on public lands, particularly parks and wilderness areas designated as 

Class I areas in the Federal regional haze rule. In addition, the Federal regional haze 

rule requires States to consult with FLMs before adopting and submitting their regional 

haze SIPs. Thus, FLMs and USEPA must participate in MANE-VU activities, at least at 

the technical level (see organizational structure below.)

There will therefore be Federal, State, and Tribal participants in MANE-VU. Member

States and Tribes will be responsible for decision-making, and shall be the voting

members of MANE-VU. MANE-VU will attempt to operate on a consensus approach on 

technical and policy matters.

Stakeholder involvement and input is important to MANE-VU’s work. Stakeholder

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

MANE-VU also recognizes the need for interregional coordination among RPOs on a

wide range of regional haze and visibility issues. Toward that end, MANE-VU will work 

cooperatively with other RPOs to the greatest extent possible.

MANE-VU will be supported by three multi-State organizations within the region: the

Ozone Transport Commission (OTC), the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use

Management (NESCAUM), and the Mid-Atlantic Air Management Association 

(MARAMA). OTC will coordinate the activities of MANE-VU as a whole, while

NESCAUM and MARAMA will be the lead organizations for technical support.
3

Organizational Structure

MANE-VU will be organized as follows:

MANE-VU Board- Initially the Board will consist of the State Environmental

Commissioners/Secretaries (or their designees) and air pollution control agency

directors of the member States, Authorized Tribal Environmental Directors (or their

designees) and a Tribal air pollution control representative (designated by the Tribal

Environmental Director), the Regional Administrators of USEPA, Regions I, II, and III (or 

their designees), and the USEPA Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation (or

his/her designee), and one representative each from the three Federal Land Managers. 

States and Tribes shall be considered voting members and the Federal representatives 

shall be considered non-voting members. State and Tribal Governors shall have the

authority to designate individuals for each of the two positions on the Board.

Meeting, Consensus Decision-Making, and Voting- The Board shall meet at least once 

per year. The Board shall provide the overall policy direction for the identification and 

evaluation of regional planning efforts, and shall serve as the forum for the resolution of 

disputes. All members shall use their best efforts to develop a consensus set of

regional planning efforts and, eventually, any necessary control strategies. The Board 

may adopt operating procedures, by-laws, and other conventions necessary for its

operation. The Board shall meet at least annually, or more frequently as necessary to 

oversee the progress of the effort. All Board meetings shall be public.

Upon a vote of the majority of the voting members present, the Board or any of its

committees may decide to enter into Executive Session (from which the public may be 

excluded) for the purpose of discussing and considering matters related to personnel,

litigation, real estate, and other specific matters, the discussion of which in open session 

would be detrimental to the interests of MANE-VU.

The Board will use its best efforts to reach consensus on its decisions, and shall use

Robert’s Rules of Order for its proceedings. Under these circumstances, each State 

and the District of Columbia will individually have one vote, and each of the individual 

signatory Tribes below will have one vote.

Voting without Meeting- Any action required or permitted to be taken by the

membership may be taken without a meeting, if all members are notified and by written 

consent of a majority of the full Board membership eligible to vote.

New Members- Additional States and Federally recognized Tribes may submit a

request to join MANE-VU. Upon review and approval of the Board, such States and

Tribes may become voting participants of the organization, according to the principles in 

this document. Should new members join MANE-VU, the Board may consider and

adopt alternatives to the voting provisions in this document.
4

Alternate Members and Proxies- A State or Tribal Governor may designate an alternate 

member to vote in a member’s absence, provided that he/she notifies the Chair of such 

designation prior to any vote in which the alternate member would be voting on behalf of 

the member. Any member may designate another member as a proxy for the purpose 

of voting on behalf of the member in his/her absence, provided that he/she notifies the 

Chair of such designation prior to any vote in which the proxy is to be exercised.

Quorum for Action- Two thirds of the total voting members will constitute a quorum. 

Actions will be deemed to be approved with a majority of the votes cast, provided that a 

quorum is present.

Chair and Vice Chair of the Board- Initially, the Chair of the Board shall be the

Governor’s representative (i.e., the lead representative) of the State of Vermont. A Vice 

Chair and the terms of the Chair and the Vice Chair will be determined by the Board,

though terms shall be no more than two years, as well as procedures for electing future 

Chairs and Vice Chairs. Chairs and Vice Chairs shall be environmental

Commissioners, Secretaries, or Directors from the States and Tribes. The Vice Chair

shall immediately succeed to the position of Chair upon completion of the original

Chair’s term.

Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) Executive Staff Office Support- Subject to the

availability of funding, the OTC Executive Staff Office, including the OTC Executive

Director and staff, shall be utilized to administer the operations of MANE-VU, including 

both the Board and the Committees. In addition, the OTC Executive Staff Office is

authorized to receive Federal funds on behalf of MANE-VU, and to enter into

contractual arrangements on behalf of the MANE-VU Board, as well as other

cooperative arrangements with NESCAUM and MARAMA. In this capacity, the OTC

Executive Staff Office shall comply with all appropriate grant requirements.

Involvement of Regional Organizations- Existing regional organizations, specifically

MARAMA and NESCAUM, shall be employed in the conduct of MANE-VU’s efforts to

the greatest extent possible to advance the scientific understanding of regional haze in 

the Eastern United States. These efforts shall include the assessment of modeling,

meteorology, emissions inventories, monitoring, and visibility improvement strategies

and other activities. The OTC Executive Staff Office shall coordinate MANE-VU’s 

efforts to reduce duplication of effort, secure economies of scale, and coordinate

organization, administrative, logistical and management issues.

MANE-VU Committees- There shall initially be two committees formed, a Technical

Support Committee and a Communications Committee. The Technical Support

Committee will be responsible for assessing the nature and magnitude of the regional 

haze problem in the region, interpreting the results of technical work done by or for

MANE-VU, and reporting on this work to the MANE-VU Board. The Communications 

Committee will be responsible for developing approaches to informing the public about 
5

the regional haze problem in the region, and making any recommendations to the Board 

that would facilitate this goal. Members of the committees will be designated staff

members of member organizations, plus representatives of OTC, NESCAUM, and

MARAMA.

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

MANE-VU. Ad hoc committees will remain in effect throughout the period of time

associated with their creation, after which they shall automatically dissolve without the 

requirement of action of any sort by the membership.

Stakeholder Involvement- MANE-VU will involve stakeholder organizations and

individuals in assisting its members in carrying out the requirements of the Federal

regional haze rule. MANE-VU will allow time for stakeholder presentations and

comments in all MANE-VU committee meetings. MANE-VU committees will hold

periodic informal meetings involving stakeholders on MANE-VU technical work to

facilitate an interchange of ideas and data that may help the overall quality and

comprehensiveness of MANE-VU’s efforts to analyze and ultimately reduce regional

haze.

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

State Implementation Plan (SIP) November, 2011 

The Forest Service is pleased to see that Maryland has committed to reviewing and revising this SIP by

July 31, 2018 and every ten years thereafter, reporting on reasonable progress for each Class I area 

affected by emissions from the State and adequacy of its Regional Haze SIP every 5 years and 

periodically updating the emissions inventory (p. 10). 

4.2.3 Consultation with the State of West Virginia (p. 19) – there are several facilities listed as not a 

BART facility or not BART eligible but it should be noted that these facilities could be addressed under 

reasonable progress as has been done by some states such as Wyoming and North Dakota. Concerns 

about Mettiki Coal’s BART eligibility are addressed below in the comment section on BART. 

4.3 State/Tribe and Federal Land Manager Consultation 

It is stated, or implied, that this SIP was originally submitted to FLMs in September 2008 for 60-day 

comment period and that the State of Maryland has received comments from FLMs. The content of the 

current SIP is vastly changed from the 2008 SIP with many improved sections and full BART analysis’ in

the Appendix. Also the 2008 SIP was pulled back prior to the end of the 60-day comment period so the 

Forest Service never submitted comments on the 2008 version. 

The State of Maryland and FLMs have agreed to an expedited review of the current SIP to address the 

State’s concerns about achieving a timely finalization of the Regional Haze SIP from the US EPA. We 

appreciate the State of Maryland’s commitment to continuing consultation with the FLMs in the 

Regional Haze process. 

RESPONSE: Maryland thanks you for this comment

9.0 Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)

9.5.2 - De Minimus Impacts on Visibility 

Independent/St. Lawrence Cement and Mettiki Coal LLC are both listed as having such small 

improvements under BART controls as to result in a visibility improvement that is so small as to not be 

sufficient to justify installation of those controls. Both sources are considered BART eligible and as such 

need to have control technologies analyzed in a BART analysis as laid out in the BART guidelines. The

proximity to Class I areas (e.g. Dolly Sods and Otter Creek Wilderness areas) are such that even a small 

reduction in the emissions of visibility impairing pollutants can result in visibility improvement. As such, 

it is not appropriate to exempt these two facilities from BART analysis and controls. It does not appear 

that these sources were exempted from BART analyses for this reason in the SIP. 

RESPONSE: Although Independent/St. Lawrence Cement and Mettiki Coal LLC are listed in the SIP as 

having such small improvements under BART controls as to result in a visibility improvement that is so

small as to not be sufficient to justify installation of those controls; these facilities did do BART analysis, 

which are included in Appendix G. Further responses to comments on the Independent/St. Lawrence 

Cement and Mettiki Coal LLC facilities are discussed in the source by source BART comments below.
Source by Source BART (comments include information from each source’s BART analysis from the 

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

Non-EGU

Independent/St. Lawrence Cement 

For PM it is agreed that the current electrostatic precipitator is equivalent to BART. It is also agreed 

that there are limited options for further SO2 control beyond what is considered inherent dry 

scrubbing as part of the production of cement. However, the analysis for additional NOx controls 

only include Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCR) (omitting consideration of Selective Catalytic 

Reduction (SCR)) and does not include a discussion of why additional NOx controls are not 

considered BART. 

Independent SLC claims that SNCR is not an appropriate BART control when Holcim, also a long dry 

kiln cement facility, is planning to utilize SNCR for ozone transport and BART for NOx. Independent 

needs to analyze utilizing SNCR as BART. There are other cement facilities, besides Holcim in 

Maryland, utilizing SNCR as BART so this assertion that it is not technically feasible is not appropriate. 

All of the cost analyses for Independent SLC are limited to rough assumptions with no references to 

back up the number, such as $/ton of emissions removed. The actual analyses as laid out in the EPA 

control cost manual need to be completed and shown in the company’s BART analysis to justify their 

assumptions about control technologies, especially when cost effectiveness is used as a reason for 

not considering the technology. 

Holcim/St. Lawrence Cement (SLC) 

This facility needs to be considered as its own source in the SIP. It is currently listed under 

Independence SLC in the RH SIP. While there are points within the BART analysis that the Forest 

Service does not agree with, we do agree with the chosen technologies of SNCR for NOx

, inherent dry 

scrubbing for SO2 and ESP for PM as BART. 

RESPONSE: Independent/St. Lawrence Cement and Holcim/St. Lawrence Cement are the same facility. 

The facility has changed ownership several times. Note that the Independent/St. Lawrence Cement 

BART analysis was submitted in 2007, while the Holcim/St. Lawrence Cement was a more recent 

analysis, submitted in 2010. 

MDE agrees with Holcim/St. Lawrence and the FLM’s that Holcim’s currently installed controls including 

SNCR for NOx, ESP for PM and the inherent dry scrubbing operations for SO2 are BART. 
Mettiki Coal, LLC 

The Forest Service questions the existence vs. operation date as meeting/not-meeting BART 

eligibility. The Clean Air Act Section 169A (b)(2)(A) states – “a requirement that each major 

stationary source which is in existence on August 7, 1977, but which has not been in operation for 

more than fifteen years as of such date”. We have reviewed the BART guidelines and the associated 

discussions on what "in existence" means and if a source is BART eligible or not. The discussion 

starting on page 39110 of the BART guidelines implies that Mettiki Coal, LLC should be BART eligible 

and should be analyzed. 

There is nothing in the BART guidelines (40 CFR Part 51 - Regional Haze Regulations and Guidelines 

for Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Determinations; Final Rule - July 6, 2005) that suggests

that if a facility went through new source review that it would no longer be BART eligible. It is 

important to note that the control technologies available and practical in 1977 (none per the PSD 

application Final Approval Determination) differ from those available and practical today, so a BART 

analysis would be beneficial (Venturi Scrubber and Tray Scrubbers). Additionally, our review of the 

documentation from Mettiki Coal’s PSD Application and approval documentation indicated that no 

Class I area analysis was conducted at the time and the US EPA states that all impacts from the 

facility are to Class II areas. 

Overall, it does not appear that Mettiki Coal’s PSD permit adequately addressed impacts to visibility 

at Class I areas which is the intent of the Regional Haze Rule and BART guidelines. That fact plus the 

date the facility was “in existence” indicate that this facility should indeed be BART eligible. Please 

address this by conducting a BART analysis for the Mettiki Coal, LLC coal cleaning facility. 

RESPONSE: In the Federal Register document 40 CFR Part 51 Regional Haze Regulations and Guidelines 

for Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Determinations; Final Rule1 dated July 6, 2005, EPA 

describes the steps for identifying BART-eligible sources. Under “Step 2: Identify the Start-Up Dates of 

the Emission Units,” on page 39159, EPA states “Emissions units listed under Step 1 are BART-eligible 

only if they were “in existence” on August 7, 1977.....” 

In the Federal Register document 40 CFR 51.3012, “In existence” is defined as: 

In existence means that the owner or operator has obtained all necessary preconstruction 

approvals or permits required by Federal, State, or local air pollution emissions and air quality 

laws or regulations and either has (1) begun, or caused to begin, a continuous program of 

physical on-site construction of the facility or (2) entered into binding agreements or 

contractual obligations, which cannot be cancelled or modified without substantial loss to the 

owner or operator, to undertake a program of construction of the facility to be completed in a 

reasonable time. 

 

1

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2010/julqtr/pdf/40cfr51AppY.pdf 

2

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/julqtr/pdf/40cfr51.301.pdf 
The final review of the Mettiki Coal application was not completed until June 19, 1978, postdating the BART “in existence” date of August 7, 1977. MDE and Mettiki agree that the unit in 

question is therefore not subject to BART requirements. 
New Page/Westvaco Luke Paper 

The analyses did not consider alternative control technologies. It appears that the technologies the 

company did not wish to utilize were not considered technically feasible or cost effective with little

or no justification provided or actual analysis shown. It appears that the top-down process laid out in 

the BART guidelines was not followed. SCR was not considered for boiler 25 (and 26 for that 

matter)? There was no analysis done. We understand that boiler 25 already has SNCR, but the 

improvement in NOx reductions are significant and should be considered as part of the BART 

analysis. 

Control technologies for natural gas-fired boiler (like Power Boiler 26) include Low NOx Burners and 

flue gas recirculation (FGR). If these two technologies are combined they could reduce NOx 

emissions by 60 to 90 percent (almost 200 to 300 tons per year) (US EPA 1995). In their BART 

analysis, NewPage listed no additional controls for NOx as BART. We would like to see the above 

technologies analyzed in their BART analysis. 

Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) should also be considered and analyzed for Power Boiler 25. The level 

of control would be greater than the 90% proposed for spray dryer absorber or a circulating dry 

scrubber. It is a typical control for a boiler and should be adequately analyzed in the BART analysis. 

RESPONSE: Boiler #26 is natural gas-fired. This boiler was installed in 1970 and converted from oil to 

natural gas in 1982. While the boiler may have the potential to emit 330 tons per year of NOx, as is 

cited, in reality Boiler #26 has emitted an average of 17.88 tons per year of NOx since 2002 with the 

highest NOx emissions reported of 37.5 tons per year. In recent years NOx emissions from the boiler 

were substantially lower: 4.2 tpy in 2008; 12.6 tpy in 2009 and 5.3 tpy in 2010. MDE agrees with New

Page/Westvaco/Luke Paper that converting from oil (the BART unit’s original fuel) to natural gas, which 

has low nitrogen, sulfur and ash content constitutes BART for such a small boiler. 

The power boiler #25 is primarily coal-fired. The unit is already equipped with SNCR, low NOx burners, 

and over fired air as NOx controls. A baghouse was installed in 2005 for PM controls. The NOx controls, 

including year-round operation of the SNCR, are expected to reduce NOx emissions from 0.99 

lbs/MMBtu to 0.40 lbs/MMbtu. New Page/Westvaco/Luke Paper has also agreed to install a spray dry 

absorber to reduce SO2 emissions from the boiler by 90%. MDE agrees with New Page/Westvaco/Luke 

Paper that the existing controls for NOx and PM as well as the planned new installation of a spray dry

absorber fulfill their BART requirements. 

As far as FGD, New Page/Westvaco/Luke Paper states in their 2010 BART analysis discussion of SO2

controls; specifically FGD, “Retrofit considerations include space restraints in many facilities.” In fact, 

New Page is located in a valley next to a river with related geographic limitations. 
EGUs

We would like to commend the State of Maryland for asking their BART eligible EGUs to provide full 

BART analysis for all pollutants including SO2 and NOx which are considered under the now vacated 

CAIR and its successor. The Forest Service reviewed the BART analyses without consideration that SO2 

and NOx were similarly considered under CAIR’s successor (i.e. as if the BART analysis was the only 

method for emission reductions to address visibility improvement at these facilities). 

Mirant Chalk Point 

Overall, the control technology for Mirant Chalk Point in their BART analysis will help to improve 

visibility in Forest Service Class I Wilderness Areas. 

- We would ask that Maryland addresses the limitations on operations in permit condition to 

meet BART without emission controls also should require NG year round (when operating) for 

visibility. Unit 3 needs to be analyzed for the available SO2 control technologies (low Sulfur fuel, 

dry sorbent injection, spray dryer absorption and/or FGD). We understand that it is a cycling 

unit, but it still needs to address the possible control technologies in a BART analysis. 

- We would ask that SCR be analyzed as a potential control technology for Unit 2. The current 

analysis only compares SCR to Selective Auto Catalytic Reduction (SACR) emission levels rather 

than to baseline emission rates. The use of SACR and SCR should both be compared to the 

baseline to avoid confusion and misinterpretation of emission reduction and cost effectiveness. 

If SCR is not determined to be feasible or cost effective then the SACR should be operated all of 

the time. SACR operation should be included in an enforceable permit. 

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

comment. 

Mirant Morgantown 

We have no concerns with this facility as it has the best available control technology. We would ask that 

to meet BART the facility operate its emission reduction equipment whenever the facility is operating. 

The State of Maryland should include this in an enforceable permit. 

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

It appears that Crane did not analyze all of the feasible emission control technologies and only analyzed 

the current control against uncontrolled emissions.

- There was no consideration of applicable control technologies that could further limit NOx (SCR) 

or SO2 (FGD, circulating dry scrubber, spray dryer absorber). It appears that the facility could 

improve their SO2 controls beyond the 88 percent stated as achieved through the use of low 

sulfur coal from the Powder River Basin through the use of any of the above post-consumption 

technologies with higher sulfur eastern bituminous coal. The fuel switch emission reduction of 

88 percent does not meet presumptive BART limits of 95 percent reduction in SO2 or 0.15 lb 

SO2/MMBtu. 

- The discussion of NOx control technologies states a control efficiency of 80 percent for SNCR 

when compared to baseline levels, but the description of SNCR states a typical control ranging 

from 30 to 50 percent. This discrepancy should be explained since it is the basis for the facility 

determining that SNCR is BART. Similarly the emission rate stated (0.30 lb/MMBtu) is typical for 

most SNCR systems whereas SCR has been shown to have emission rates of 0.10 lb/MMBtu. In 

general, SCR provides a much higher level of emission control for NOx and should be considered 

in a cost effectiveness analysis in Crane’s BART analysis. The final BART guidelines list 

presumptive NOx emission limits for BART eligible dry bottom wall-fired coal-fired units burning 

sub-bituminous (e.g. Powder River Basin) coal to be 0.23 lb/MMBtu. An emission rate of 0.30 lb 

NOx/MMBtu does not meet presumptive BART levels. 

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

comment. 

CPSG – Wagner 

We are concerned that all of the BART analyses and metrics for considering the control technologies 

were not consistent. Some facilities used dollars per ton reduced as the metric to consider what is cost 

effective, while others (Wagner) used dollars per deciview for the same function. This is important since 

different metrics tell a different story. We suggest that both metric be calculated and used as part of 

the BART analysis and determination 

The analysis for Wagner states that visibility improvements at Shenandoah NP from SO2 emission 

reductions at Wagner equate to $47,000,000 per deciview and that that cost is not reasonable for those

controls. However, considering 1) cumulative visibility improvements and 2) the cost of the emission 

reductions in dollar per deciview paint a different picture. Also, the analysis used compared the 

additional emission reductions from control scenario 1 to control scenario 2 rather than using emission 

reductions for each control scenario as compared to the baseline emissions. See the table below which

makes those comparisons and indicates that FGD is a cost effective emission control technology for 

Wagner. The cost per ton SO2 removed is within the range stated in the final BART guidelines. The 
analysis in Table 1 also highlights that control option 1 is more expensive when measured with both 

dollar per deciview and dollar per ton than control option 2. Furthermore, the emission reduction for

control option 1 does not meet the presumptive BART limits of 95 percent reduction in SO2 or a limit of 

0.15 lb SO2/MMBtu. We recommend that the State of Maryland determine that control option 2 be 

determined as BART for Wagner. 

Table 1 – Comparison of cost-effectiveness analyses for emission control case 1 and 2 for the Wagner Generating Station Unit 

3. 

Cost effectiveness based on dollars per deciview

Class 1 Area Baseline Control1 Control2 Base-C1 Base-C2 C1-C2 $/dV C1 $/dV C2 $/dV C1VC2

Shenandoah 1.24 0.87 0.21 0.37 1.03 0.66 $84,891,892 $30,495,146 $47,590,909

Brigantine 0.77 0.57 0.14 0.2 0.63 0.43 $157,050,000 $49,857,143 $73,046,512

Otter Creek 0.39 0.29 0.05 0.1 0.34 0.24 $314,100,000 $92,382,353 $130,875,000

Dolly Sods 0.45 0.32 0.06 0.13 0.39 0.26 $241,615,385 $80,538,462 $120,807,692

James River Face 0.51 0.37 0.06 0.14 0.45 0.31 $224,357,143 $69,800,000 $101,322,581

Cumulative 0.94 2.84 1.9 $33,414,894 $11,059,859 $16,531,579

Cost effectiveness based on dollars per ton of emission reduced

Baseline Control1 Control2 Base-C1 Base -C2 C1-C2 $/ton $/ton $/ton

Tons SO2 

emissions

21,436 17,283 1,730 4,152 19,706 15,553 $7,565 $1,594 $2,019

3-yr Avg. 8th highest dV change dV

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

comment. 

9.8 EGU Alternative to BART for SO2 and NOx – 

The statement “...there are some facilities (Wagner and Crane) that are not able to install FGD 

technology due to space constraints and company decisions related to control costs.” is not supported 

by their BART analyses. Also, “company decisions” are not one the factors considered in BART analyses 

for emission control technology. If these are indeed reasons for the determinations of BART technology 

they should be included in the BART analysis and discussed as such. 

The Forest Service would like to commend the State of Maryland for the emission reductions in the 

Maryland Healthy Air Act that exceed presumptive BART reductions. These additional emission 

reductions should help improve visibility at nearby Class 1 areas faster than expected. 

RESPONSE: Above, you quote the BART analysis as saying, “...there are some facilities (Wagner and 

Crane) that are not able to install FGD technology due to space constraints and company decisions 

related to control costs,” and you express that this statement “is not supported by their BART analyses.” 

The “space constraints” issue was not addressed as it is common knowledge within MDE that the Crane 

facility is limited in what control devices can be installed as it is surrounded by water on three sides. The 

issue was raised years ago during Maryland’s pursuit of the Healthy Air Act. 
The Maryland Healthy Air Act requires significant SO2 reductions from both BART and non-BART units at 

Constellation. The total amount of reductions to which Constellation has committed under the Healthy 

Air Act dwarf the reductions expected from a 95% SO2 control of the two BART units. As shown in Table

9-8 in the BART analysis, a 95% control of the two BART units would equate to an approximate SO2 

reduction of 26,660 tons from a 2002 baseline; whereas the Maryland Healthy Air Act commits 

Constellation Energy Group to a SO2 reduction of almost 71,000 tons from the same baseline. In 

addition, Constellation spent close to $1 billion on Healthy Air Act controls at its BART and non-BART

units. 

Constellation Energy Group has met these SO2 reductions. 

The Maryland Healthy Air Act requires significant SO2 reductions from both BART and non-BART units at 

Mirant. The total amount of reductions to which Constellation has committed under the Healthy Air Act

dwarf the reductions expected from a 95% SO2 control of the two BART units. As shown in Table 9-8 in 

the BART analysis, a 95% control of the two BART units would equate to an approximate SO2 reduction 

of 113,121 tons from a 2002 baseline; whereas the Maryland Healthy Air Act commits Mirant 

Corporation to a SO2 reduction of almost 153,000 tons from the same baseline. In addition, Mirant 

Corporation spent close to $1 billion on Healthy Air Act controls at its BART and non-BART units. 

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

10.0 and 11.0 Reasonable Progress

We appreciate Maryland’s commitment to the MANE-VU Reasonable Progress Goals (pp. 104 -105). The 

discussion on Maryland’s contribution to emission reductions focuses on sulfur but does not discuss NOx 

reductions. 

The calculations in section 11.5 to demonstrate fair share appear to support Maryland’s assertion that it 

has met its fair share of emission reductions in MANE-VU. . 

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

12.0 Long Term Strategy

The Forest Service agrees that fire from land management activities, such as controlled burning, was not 

a major contributor to regional haze in MANE-VU Class I Areas. We do support interagency 

development of a Smoke Management Program to address smoke from land management activities 

even though there are no National Forests System lands in Maryland. 

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

We appreciate that the State of Maryland provided language in your SIP linking the Regional Haze and 

New Source Review programs: “Maryland commits to ensuring NSR and PSD permitting activity and will 

ensure that such activity supports Maryland’s regional haze SIP commitments.” This will help to ensure 

that the emissions from new stationary sources or major modifications of existing sources will make 

reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal (40 CFR 51.307). This could be especially 

important for emissions from new sources that were not anticipated in 2018 emission inventories. 

RESPONSE: Maryland thanks you for this comment.

13.0 Comprehensive Periodic Implementation Plan Revisions

Similarly, the Forest Service is pleased to see that Maryland is committed to regular SIP revisions and 

reasonable progress reports as outlined in the federal rule for regional haze. 

RESPONSE: Maryland thanks you for this comment. 

References:

U.S. EPA. 1995. AP 42, Fifth Edition, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume 1: Stationary 

Point and Area Sources. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Office of Air and Radiation, 

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park. 

40 CFR Part 51, Regional Haze Regulations and Guidelines for Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)

Determinations; Final Rule. Environmental Protection Agency. July 6, 2005. Federal Register Vol. 

70, No. 128. pp. 39104-39172. 
USDA United States Forest Eastern Region 626 E. Wisconsin 

7?:775 Department of Service Suite 800 

Agriculture Milwaukee, WI 53202 

File Code: 2580 

Mr. Roger Thunell 

Date: 

JAN 2 5 2012 

Chief, Planning and Policy Division 

Air & Radiation Management Administration 

Maryland Department of the Environment 

, 1800~ Washington Blvd. 

Baltimore, MD 21230 

Dear Mr. Thunell: 

Thank you for the opportunity to review the State of Maryland Regional Haze State Implementation 

Plan (SIP). This document focuses on Maryland's implementation of the Regional Haze Rule 

including the application of best available retrofit technology (BART) to the eligible facilities in 

Maryland. 

Forest Service comments on the SIP are primarily focused on the emission limits set for each BART 

eligible facility. In some cases, we ask that you reconsider the BART emission limits. Our 

technical analysis and comments are enclosed. 

We have taken a very active role in the implementation of the Regional Haze SIP in Maryland 

beginning with our initial consultation letter dated October 13, 2006. We believe it is our shared 

goal that the Regional Haze SIP make reasonable progress toward the national goal of preventing 

any future and remedying any existing impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I areas, such as 

the DoJly Sods and Lye Brook Wilderness areas. 

If you have questions about the technical analysis and comments in the enclosure, please contact 

Edward Huffman elhuffman@fs.fed.us, Air Resources Specialist, at (304) 636-1800 ext. 192. 

Sincerely, 

C~~E~ir'
 Regional Forester 

Enclosure (1) 

cc: Brian Hug - Deputy Program Manager MDE, Cristina Fernandez - Associate Director EPA 

Region3, Carol McCoy - Chief Air Resources Division NPS 

""­

Caring for the Land and Serving People Printed on Recycled Paper ", 
1

Technical Comments from the US Forest Service on the State of Maryland Regional Haze 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) November 2011 

The Forest Service is pleased to see that Maryland has committed to reviewing and revising this 

SIP by July 31, 2018, and every ten years thereafter, reporting on reasonable progress for each 

Class I area affected by emissions from the State and adequacy of its Regional Haze SIP every 

five years and periodically updating the emissions inventory (page 10). 

4.2.3 Consultation with the State of West Virginia (page 19) – There are several facilities 

listed as not BART eligible, but it should be noted that these facilities could be addressed under 

reasonable progress, as has been done by States such as Wyoming and North Dakota. Concerns 

about Mettiki Coal’s BART eligibility are addressed below in the comment section on BART. 

4.3 State/Tribe and Federal Land Manager Consultation 

It is stated or implied, this SIP was originally submitted to Forest Land Managers (FLMs) in 

September 2008 for a 60-day comment period and that the State of Maryland has received 

comments from FLMs. However, the 2008 SIP was pulled back prior to the end of the 60-day 

comment period. Therefore, the Forest Service never submitted comments on the 2008 version. 

The content of the current SIP is vastly changed from the 2008 SIP as well, but with many 

improved sections and full BART analyses in the Appendix. The State of Maryland and FLMs 

have agreed to an expedited review of the current SIP to address the State’s concerns about 

achieving a timely finalization of the Regional Haze SIP from the US Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). We appreciate the State of Maryland’s commitment to continuing consultation 

with the FLMs in the Regional Haze process. 

9.0 Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)

9.5.2 - De Minimus Impacts on Visibility 

Independent/St. Lawrence Cement and Mettiki Coal, LLC are both listed as having visibility 

improvements with BART controls that are so small as to not justify installation of those 

controls. Both sources are considered BART eligible and, as such, need to have control 

technologies analyzed in a BART analysis as laid out in the BART guidelines. The proximity to 

Class I areas (e.g., Dolly Sods and Otter Creek Wilderness areas) are such that even a small 

reduction in the emissions of visibility impairing pollutants can result in visibility improvement. 

As such, it is not appropriate to exempt these two facilities from BART analysis and controls. It 

does not appear these sources were exempted from BART analyses for this reason in the SIP. 

Source by Source BART (comments include information from each source’s BART analysis 

from the appendices and information from Mettiki Coal emailed to FLMs by Roger Thunell) 
2

Non-EGU

Independent/St. Lawrence Cement 

For PM it is agreed that the current electrostatic precipitator is equivalent to BART. It is also 

agreed there are limited options for further SO2 control beyond what is considered inherent 

dry scrubbing as part of the production of cement. However, the analysis for additional NOx 

controls only include Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCR) (omitting consideration of 

Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR)) and does not include a discussion of why additional 

NOx controls are not considered BART. 

Independent SLC claims that SNCR is not an appropriate BART control when Holcim, also a 

long dry kiln cement facility, is planning to utilize SNCR for ozone transport and BART for 

NOx. Independent needs to analyze utilizing SNCR as BART. There are other cement 

facilities across the nation in addition to Holcim in Maryland utilizing SNCR as BART so this 

assertion that it is not technically feasible is not appropriate. 

All of the cost analyses for Independent SLC are limited to rough assumptions with no 

references to back up the number, such as $/ton of emissions removed. The actual analyses as 

laid out in the EPA control cost manual need to be completed and shown in the company’s 

BART analysis to justify their assumptions about control technologies, especially when cost 

effectiveness is used as a reason for not considering the technology. 

Holcim/St. Lawrence Cement (SLC) 

This facility needs to be considered as its own source in the SIP. It is currently listed under 

Independence SLC in the RH SIP. While there are points within the BART analysis that the 

Forest Service does not agree with, we do agree with the chosen technologies of SNCR for 

NOx, inherent dry scrubbing for SO2, and ESP for PM as BART. 

Mettiki Coal, LLC 

The Forest Service questions the existence vs. operation date as meeting/not-meeting BART 

eligibility. The Clean Air Act Section 169A (b)(2)(A) states, “a requirement that each major 

stationary source which is in existence on August 7, 1977, but which has not been in 

operation for more than fifteen years as of such date.” We reviewed the BART guidelines and 

the associated discussions on what "in existence" means and if a source is BART eligible or 

not. The discussion starting on page 39110 of the BART guidelines implies that Mettiki Coal, 

LLC should be BART eligible and should be analyzed. 

There is nothing in the BART guidelines (40 CFR Part 51 - Regional Haze Regulations and 

Guidelines for Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Determinations; Final Rule - July 

6, 2005) that suggests if a facility went through new source review that it would no longer be 

BART eligible. It is important to note that the control technologies available and practical in 
3

1977 (none per the PSD application Final Approval Determination) differ from those 

available and practical today, so a BART analysis would be beneficial (Venturi Scrubber and 

Tray Scrubbers). Additionally, our review of the documentation from Mettiki Coal’s PSD 

Application and approval documentation indicated that no Class I area analysis was 

conducted at the time and the US EPA states that all impacts from the facility are to Class II 

areas. 

Overall, it does not appear that Mettiki Coal’s PSD permit adequately addressed impacts to 

visibility at Class I areas which is the intent of the Regional Haze Rule and BART guidelines. 

That fact plus the date the facility was “in existence” indicate that this facility should indeed 

be BART eligible. Please address this by conducting a BART analysis for the Mettiki Coal, 

LLC coal cleaning facility. 

New Page/Westvaco Luke Paper 

The analyses did not consider alternative control technologies. It appears the technologies the 

company did not wish to utilize were not considered technically feasible or cost effective with 

little or no justification provided or actual analysis shown. It appears the top-down process 

laid out in the BART guidelines was not followed. SCR was not considered for boiler 25 (and 

26 for that matter)? There was no analysis done. We understand boiler 25 already has SNCR, 

but the improvement in NOx reductions are significant and should be considered as part of the 

BART analysis. 

Control technologies for natural gas-fired boiler (like Power Boiler 26) include Low NOx 

Burners and flue gas recirculation (FGR). If these two technologies are combined they could 

reduce NOx emissions by 60 to 90 percent (almost 200 to 300 tons per year) (US EPA 1995). 

In their BART analysis, New Page listed no additional controls for NOx as BART. We would 

like to see the above technologies analyzed in their BART analysis. 

Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) should also be considered and analyzed for Power Boiler 25. 

The level of control would be greater than the 90 percent proposed for spray dryer absorber or 

a circulating dry scrubber. It is a typical control for a boiler and should be adequately 

analyzed in the BART analysis. 

EGUs

We would like to commend the State of Maryland for asking their BART eligible EGUs to 

provide full BART analysis for all pollutants including SO2 and NOx which are considered 

under the now vacated CAIR and its successor. The Forest Service reviewed the BART analyses 

without consideration that SO2 and NOx were similarly considered under CAIR’s successor (i.e., 

as if the BART analysis was the only method for emission reductions to address visibility 

improvement at these facilities). 
4

Mirant Chalk Point 

Overall, the control technology for Mirant Chalk Point in their BART analysis will help to 

improve visibility in Forest Service Class I Wilderness Areas. 

‐ We would ask that Maryland address limitations on operations in permit conditions to 

meet BART without emission controls and should also require natural gas year round 

(when operating) to address visibility. Unit 3 needs to be analyzed for the available SO2 

control technologies (low Sulfur fuel, dry sorbent injection, spray dryer absorption, 

and/or FGD). We understand it is a cycling unit, but Maryland should address other 

possible control technologies in its BART analysis. 

‐ We would ask that SCR be analyzed as a potential control technology for Unit 2. The 

current analysis only compares SCR to Selective Auto Catalytic Reduction (SACR) 

emission levels rather than to baseline emission rates. The use of SACR and SCR should 

both be compared to the baseline to avoid confusion and misinterpretation of emission 

reduction and cost effectiveness. If SCR is not determined to be feasible or cost effective 

then the SACR should be operated continuously. SACR operation should be included in 

an enforceable permit. 

Mirant Morgantown 

We have no concerns with this facility as it has the best available control technology. We would 

ask that to meet BART, the facility operate its emission reduction equipment whenever the 

facility is operating. The State of Maryland should include this in an enforceable permit. 

CPSG – Crane 

It appears Crane did not analyze all of the feasible emission control technologies and only 

analyzed the current control against uncontrolled emissions. 

‐ There was no consideration of applicable control technologies that could further limit 

NOx (e.g., SCR) or SO2 (e.g., FGD, circulating dry scrubber, spray dryer absorber). It 

appears the facility could improve their SO2 controls beyond the 88 percent stated 

through the use of low sulfur coal or any of the above post-consumption technologies 

with higher sulfur eastern bituminous coal. The fuel switch emission reduction of 88 

percent does not meet presumptive BART limits of 95 percent reduction in SO2 or 0.15 

lb SO2/MMBtu. 

‐ The discussion of NOx control technologies states a control efficiency of 80 percent for 

SNCR when compared to baseline levels, but the description of SNCR states a typical 

control ranging from 30 to 50 percent. This discrepancy should be explained since it is 

the basis for the facility determining that SNCR is BART. Similarly, the emission rate 

stated (0.30 lb/MMBtu) is typical for most SNCR systems whereas SCR has been shown 
5

to have emission rates of 0.10 lb/MMBtu. In general, SCR provides a much higher level 

of emission control for NOx and should be considered in a cost effectiveness analysis in 

Crane’s BART analysis. The final BART guidelines list presumptive NOx emission 

limits for BART eligible dry bottom wall-fired coal-fired units burning sub-bituminous 

(e.g., Powder River Basin) coal to be 0.23 lb/MMBtu. An emission rate of 0.30 lb 

NOx/MMBtu does not meet presumptive BART levels. 

‐

CPSG – Wagner 

We are concerned that all of the BART analyses and metrics for considering the control 

technologies were not consistent. Some facilities used dollars per ton reduced as the metric to 

consider what is cost effective, while others (e.g., Wagner) used dollars per deciview for the 

same function. This is important since different metrics tell a different story. We suggest both 

metrics be calculated and used as part of the BART analysis and determination. 

The analysis for Wagner states visibility improvements at Shenandoah NP from SO2 emission 

reductions at Wagner equate to $47,000,000 per deciview and that that cost is not reasonable for 

those controls. However, considering 1) cumulative visibility improvements to all nearby Class I 

areas and 2) the cost of the emission reductions in dollars per deciview paint a different picture. 

Also, the analysis used compared the additional emission reductions from control scenario 1 to 

control scenario 2 rather than using emission reductions for each control scenario as compared to 

the baseline emissions. See the table below which makes those comparisons and indicates that 

FGD is a cost effective emission control technology for Wagner. The cost per ton SO2 removed 

is within the range stated in the final BART guidelines. The analysis in 

Table 1 also highlights that control option 1 is more expensive when measured with both dollar 

per deciview and dollar per ton than control option 2. Furthermore, the emission reduction for 

control option 1 does not meet the presumptive BART limits of 95 percent reduction in SO2 or a 

limit of 0.15 lb SO2/MMBtu. We recommend the State of Maryland determine that control 

option 2 be determined as BART for Wagner. 

Table 1 – Comparison of cost-effectiveness analyses for emission control case 1 and 2 for the 

Wagner Generating Station Unit 3. 
Cost effectiveness based on dollars per deciview

Class 1 Area Baseline Control1 Control2 Base‐C1 Base‐C2 C1‐C2 $/dV C1 $/dV C2 $/dV C1VC2

Shenandoah 1.24 0.87 0.21 0.37 1.03 0.66 $84,891,892 $30,495,146 $47,590,909

Brigantine 0.77 0.57 0.14 0.2 0.63 0.43 $157,050,000 $49,857,143 $73,046,512

Otter Creek 0.39 0.29 0.05 0.1 0.34 0.24 $314,100,000 $92,382,353 $130,875,000

Dolly Sods 0.45 0.32 0.06 0.13 0.39 0.26 $241,615,385 $80,538,462 $120,807,692

James River Face 0.51 0.37 0.06 0.14 0.45 0.31 $224,357,143 $69,800,000 $101,322,581

Cumulative 0.94 2.84 1.9 $33,414,894 $11,059,859 $16,531,579

Cost effectiveness based on dollars per ton of emission reduced

Baseline Control1 Control2 Base‐C1 Base ‐C2 C1‐C2 $/ton $/ton $/ton

Tons SO2

emissions 21,436 17,283 1,730 4,152 19,706 15,553 $7,565 $1,594 $2,019

3‐yr Avg. 8th highest dV change dV

9.8 EGU Alternative to BART for SO2 and NOx 

The statement “...there are some facilities (e.g., Wagner and Crane) that are not able to install 

FGD technology due to space constraints and company decisions related to control costs.” is not 

supported by their BART analyses. Also, “company decisions” are not one the factors 

considered in BART analyses for emission control technology. If these are indeed reasons for 

the determinations of BART technology they should be included in the BART analysis and 

discussed as such. 

The Forest Service would like to commend the State of Maryland for the emission reductions in 

the Maryland Healthy Air Act that exceed presumptive BART reductions. These additional 

emission reductions should help improve visibility at nearby Class 1 areas faster than expected. 

10.0 and 11.0 Reasonable Progress

We appreciate Maryland’s commitment to the MANE-VU Reasonable Progress Goals (pages 

104-105). The discussion on Maryland’s contribution to emission reductions focuses on sulfur, 

but does not discuss NOx reductions. 

The calculations in section 11.5 to demonstrate fair share appear to support Maryland’s assertion 

that it has met its fair share of emission reductions in MANE-VU. 

12.0 Long Term Strategy

The Forest Service agrees that fire from land management activities, such as controlled burning, 

was not a major contributor to regional haze in MANE-VU Class I Areas. We do support 

interagency development of a Smoke Management Program to address smoke from land 

management activities, even though there are no National Forest System lands in Maryland. 

12.9 New Source Review and Prevention of Significant Deterioration

We appreciate that the State of Maryland provided language in its SIP linking the Regional Haze 

and New Source Review programs: “Maryland commits to ensuring NSR and PSD permitting 

6
7

activity and will ensure that such activity supports Maryland’s regional haze SIP commitments.” 

This will help ensure the emissions from new stationary sources or major modifications of 

existing sources will make reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal (40 CFR 

51.307). This could be especially important for emissions from new sources that were not 

anticipated in 2018 emission inventories. 

13.0 Comprehensive Periodic Implementation Plan Revisions

Similarly, the Forest Service is pleased to see that Maryland is committed to regular SIP 

revisions and reasonable progress reports as outlined in the federal rule for regional haze. 

References:

U.S. EPA 1995. AP 42, Fifth Edition, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume 1: 

Stationary Point and Area Sources. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Office 

of Air and Radiation, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park. 

40 CFR Part 51, Regional Haze Regulations and Guidelines for Best Available Retrofit 

Technology (BART) Determinations; Final Rule. Environmental Protection Agency. 

July 6, 2005. Federal Register Vol. 70, No. 128. pp. 39104-39172. 
Comments from the Maryland Department of Planning

RESPONSE: Maryland thanks you for this comment.



TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT FOR 2002 MANE-VU 

SIP MODELING INVENTORIES, VERSION 3 

Prepared by 

E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc. 

3622 Lyckan Parkway, Suite 2005 

Durham, NC 27707 

November 20, 2006 

for the

Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU) 
[This page intentionally left blank.]
iii 

CONTENTS 

TABLES ........................................................................................................................................ vi 

FIGURES.....................................................................................................................................viii 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS...................................................................................... ix 

CHAPTER I – INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................. 1 

A. What is the purpose of this TSD? ....................................................................................... 1 

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

C. How is this TSD organized? ............................................................................................... 3 

CHAPTER II – POINT SOURCES................................................................................................ 4 

A. General Methods for all State and Local Agencies ............................................................ 4 

1. What Data Sources Were Used?................................................................................... 4 

2. What Quality Assurance Steps Were Performed? ........................................................ 5 

3. Version 3 Emissions Summary................................................................................... 18 

B. State-Specific Methods ..................................................................................................... 20 

1. Connecticut ................................................................................................................. 20 

2. Delaware ..................................................................................................................... 21 

3. District of Columbia ................................................................................................... 21 

4. Maine .......................................................................................................................... 22 

5. Maryland..................................................................................................................... 22 

6. Massachusetts ............................................................................................................. 23

7. New Hampshire .......................................................................................................... 23 

8. New Jersey.................................................................................................................. 24 

9. New York.................................................................................................................... 24 

10. Pennsylvania (State, Excluding Allegheny and Philadelphia Counties) .................... 25 

11. Pennsylvania (Allegheny County, FIPS code 42003)................................................. 27 

12. Pennsylvania (Philadelphia County, FIPS code 42101) ............................................. 28 

13. Rhode Island ............................................................................................................... 28 

14. Vermont ...................................................................................................................... 30 

C. What Issues Need to be Addressed in Future Versions? .................................................. 30 

CHAPTER III – AREA SOURCES ............................................................................................. 32 

A. General Methods for all States.......................................................................................... 32 

1. What Data Sources Were Used?................................................................................. 32 

2. What Quality Assurance Steps Were Performed? ...................................................... 34 

3. Version 3 Revisions .................................................................................................... 53 

4. Version 3 Emissions Summary................................................................................... 57 

B. State-Specific Methods ....................................................................................................... 58 

1. Connecticut ................................................................................................................. 58 

2. Delaware ..................................................................................................................... 59 

3. District of Columbia ................................................................................................... 60 

4. Maine .......................................................................................................................... 60 

5. Maryland..................................................................................................................... 61 

6. Massachusetts ............................................................................................................. 62

7. New Hampshire .......................................................................................................... 63 

8. New Jersey.................................................................................................................. 65 

9. New York.................................................................................................................... 65 

10. Pennsylvania ............................................................................................................... 70 

11. Rhode Island ............................................................................................................... 71 
iv 

12. Vermont ...................................................................................................................... 72 

C. What Issues Need to be Addressed in Future Versions? .................................................. 73 

CHAPTER IV – NONROAD SOURCES .................................................................................... 75 

A. General Methods for all States.......................................................................................... 75 

1. What Data Sources Were Used?................................................................................. 75 

2. What Quality Assurance Steps Were Performed? ...................................................... 79 

3. Version 3 Emission Summaries.................................................................................. 82 

B. State-Specific Methods ..................................................................................................... 84 

1. Connecticut ................................................................................................................. 84 

2. Delaware ..................................................................................................................... 84 

3. District of Columbia ................................................................................................... 85 

4. Maine .......................................................................................................................... 86 

5. Maryland..................................................................................................................... 87 

6. Massachusetts ............................................................................................................. 88

7. New Hampshire .......................................................................................................... 89 

8. New Jersey.................................................................................................................. 89 

9. New York.................................................................................................................... 90 

10. Pennsylvania ............................................................................................................... 91 

11. Rhode Island ............................................................................................................... 92 

12. Vermont ...................................................................................................................... 93 

CHAPTER V – ONROAD SOURCES ........................................................................................ 94 

A. General Methods for All States......................................................................................... 94 

1. Data Sources ............................................................................................................... 94 

2. What Quality Assurance Steps were Performed? ....................................................... 95 

3. Version 3 Emission Summaries.................................................................................. 96 

B. State-Specific Methods ....................................................................................................... 97 

1. Connecticut ................................................................................................................. 97 

2. Delaware ..................................................................................................................... 99 

3. District of Columbia ................................................................................................. 100 

4. Maine ........................................................................................................................ 102 

5. Maryland................................................................................................................... 103 

6. Massachusetts ........................................................................................................... 105 

7. New Hampshire ........................................................................................................ 106 

8. New Jersey................................................................................................................ 108 

9. New York.................................................................................................................. 110 

10. Pennsylvania ............................................................................................................. 111 

11. Rhode Island ............................................................................................................. 113 

12. Vermont .................................................................................................................... 114 

CHAPTER VI – BIOGENIC SOURCES................................................................................... 117 

A. General Methods for all States........................................................................................ 117 

1. What Data Sources Were Used?............................................................................... 117 

2. Version 3 Emissions Summary................................................................................. 118 

B. State-Specific Methods ................................................................................................... 118

CHAPTER VII. TEMPORAL, SPECIATION, AND SPATIAL ALLOCATION PROFILES 

AND PREPARATION OF SMOKE (IDA) AND RPO DATA EXCHANGE 

PROTOCOL (NIF 3.0) FORMATS ............................................................................... 119 

A. Temporal Profiles............................................................................................................ 119 

1. Point and Area Sources............................................................................................. 119 
v 

2. Nonroad Sources....................................................................................................... 120 

3. Onroad Sources......................................................................................................... 120 

B. Speciation Profiles .......................................................................................................... 121 

1. Point and Area Sources............................................................................................. 121 

2. Nonroad Sources....................................................................................................... 121 

3. Onroad Sources......................................................................................................... 121 

C. Spatial Allocation Profiles .............................................................................................. 122

D. Preparation of SMOKE (IDA) and RPO Data Exchange Protocol (NIF 3.0) Formats .. 122 

CHAPTER VIII. METHODS FOR AREAS OUTSIDE OF THE MANE-VU REGION ..... 155 

CHAPTER IX. REFERENCES ........................................................................................... 157 

APPENDIX A - POINT SOURCE INVENTORY, VERSION 3: DATA SOURCES BY SCC, 

EMISSION TYPE PERIOD, AND POLLUTANT....................................................................A-1 

APPENDIX B - AREA SOURCE INVENTORY, VERSION 3: DATA SOURCES BY SCC, 

EMISSION TYPE PERIOD, AND POLLUTANT....................................................................B-1 

APPENDIX C - NONROAD SOURCE INVENTORY, VERSION 3: FINAL COUNTY, 

MONTHLY NATIONAL MOBILE INVENTORY MODEL (NMIM) INPUTS TEMPORAL 

PROFILES FOR POINT AND AREA SOURCES....................................................................C-1 
vi 

TABLES 

Table II-1. Description of the Field Names and Descriptions for the SCC Control Device 

Ratios Table ...................................................................................................................... 14 

Table II-2. Version 3 2002 MANE-VU Point Source Emissions by State.................................. 19 

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

Emission Types................................................................................................................. 20 

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

Types................................................................................................................................. 21 

Table II-5. District of Columbia 2002 Point, Version 3: Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and 

Emission Type .................................................................................................................. 21 

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

Types................................................................................................................................. 22 

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

Types................................................................................................................................. 22 

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

Emission Types................................................................................................................. 23 

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

Emission Types................................................................................................................. 23 

Table II-10. New Jersey 2002 Point, Version 3: Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and 

Emission Types................................................................................................................. 24 

Table II-11. New York 2002 Point, Version 3: Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and 

Emission Type .................................................................................................................. 25 

Table II-12. Pennsylvania 2002 Point, Version 3: Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and 

Emission Types................................................................................................................. 26 

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

End Date, and Emission Types ......................................................................................... 27 

Table II-14. Pennsylvania - Philadelphia County 2002 Point, Version 3: Unique List of Start 

Date, End Date, and Emission Types................................................................................ 28 

Table II-15. Rhode Island 2002 Point, Version 3: Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and 

Emission Types................................................................................................................. 30 

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

Types................................................................................................................................. 30 

Table III-1. Summary of MANE-VU-Sponsored Inventories Included in Version 1 of the Area 

Source Consolidated Emissions Inventory ....................................................................... 41 

Table III-2. Area Source Industrial, Commercial/Institutional, and Residential Fossil Fuel 

Combustion Uncontrolled Emission Factors for PM10-PRI/FIL, PM25-PRI/FIL, and 

PM-CON........................................................................................................................... 44 

Table III-3. SCCs for which PM25-PRI Emissions were Estimated by Applying a Ratio to the 

PM10-PRI Emissions in the State inventory .................................................................... 49 

Table III-4. Revisions to PM25-PRI and PM25-FIL Emissions for Paved and Unpaved Roads 

and Construction ............................................................................................................... 56 

Table III-5. Version 3 2002 MANE-VU Area Source Emissions by State ................................. 57 

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

Emission Types................................................................................................................. 58 

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

Types................................................................................................................................. 59 
vii 

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

and Emission Types .......................................................................................................... 60 

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

Types................................................................................................................................. 60 

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

Emission Types................................................................................................................. 61 

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

Emission Types................................................................................................................. 62 

Table III-12. New Hampshire 2002 Area, Version 3: Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and 

Emission Types................................................................................................................. 64 

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

Emission Types................................................................................................................. 65 

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

Emission Types................................................................................................................. 66 

Table III-15. Summary of New York's Revisions to Version 3 of MANE-VU's Area Source 

Inventory........................................................................................................................... 68 

Table III-16. Pennsylvania 2002 Area, Version 3: Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and 

Emission Types................................................................................................................. 70 

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

Emission Types................................................................................................................. 71 

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

Types................................................................................................................................. 72 

Table IV-1. List of Unique Aircraft, Commercial Marine, and Locomotive SCCs Reported by 

States in MANE-VU Inventory ........................................................................................ 76 

Table IV-2. Summary of Basis for 2002 MANE-VU Aircraft, Commercial Marine, and 

Locomotive Inventory....................................................................................................... 77 

Table IV-3. Data Source Code Descriptions................................................................................ 82 

Table IV-4. Annual 2002 Nonroad Sector Emissions by MANE-VU State................................ 82 

Table IV-5. Annual 2002 NONROAD2005 Model Emissions by MANE-VU State ................. 83 

Table IV-6. Annual 2002 Aircraft, Commercial Marine, and Locomotive Emissions by 

MANE-VU State............................................................................................................... 83 

Table IV-7. Delaware NONROAD External Data Files............................................................... 85 

Table IV-8. Maryland NONROAD External Data Files ............................................................. 87 

Table V-1. Annual 2002 Onroad Sector Emissions by MANE-VU State................................... 97 

Table V-2. Connecticut Onroad Data in SMOKE Input Files..................................................... 98 

Table V-3. Delaware Onroad Data in SMOKE Input Files....................................................... 100 

Table V-4. District of Columbia Onroad Data in SMOKE Input Files ..................................... 101 

Table V-5. Maine Onroad Data in SMOKE Input Files ............................................................ 102 

Table V-6. Maryland Onroad Data in SMOKE Input Files....................................................... 104 

Table V-7. Massachusetts Onroad Data in SMOKE Input Files ............................................... 105 

Table V-8. New Hampshire Onroad Data in SMOKE Input Files ............................................ 107 

Table V-9. New Jersey Onroad Data in SMOKE Input Files.................................................... 108 

Table V-10. New York Onroad Data in SMOKE Input Files.................................................... 110 

Table V-11. Pennsylvania Onroad Data in SMOKE Input Files............................................... 112 

Table V-12. Rhode Island Onroad Data in SMOKE Input Files ............................................... 113 

Table V-13. Vermont Onroad Data in SMOKE Input Files ...................................................... 115 

Table VI-1. Version 3 2002 MANE-VU Biogenic Source Emissions by State ........................ 118 
viii 

Table VII-1. Profiles, Cross-references, and Documentation for Model Inputs for Version 3 of 

2002 MANE-VU Inventory ............................................................................................ 123 

Table VII-2. Point Source Temporal Cross-reference Additions .............................................. 126 

Table VII-3. Unknown SCCs in the MANE-VU Point Source Inventory.................................. 130 

Table VII-4. Area Source Temporal Cross-Reference Updates ................................................ 131 

Table VII-5. Area Source Temporal Cross-Reference Additions.............................................. 136 

Table VII-6. Area Source Temporal Cross-Reference and Profile Additions for the MANE-VU 

Inventory......................................................................................................................... 141 

Table VII-7. Point Source Speciation Profiles Added to Speciation Cross-reference File for CBIV with PM Mechanism.................................................................................................. 151 

Table VII-8. Point Source SCCs Lacking Speciation Profile Assignments for CB-IV with PM 

Mechanism...................................................................................................................... 152 

Table VII-9. Summary of Version 3 Mass Emissions and SMOKE Input Files ....................... 153 

Table VII-10. Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Type Combinations for Daily 

Emissions in the MANE-VU 2002 Point and Area Source Inventories, Version 3 ....... 154 

Table VIII-1. Description of Non-MANE-VU Region Inventory Data Used for MANE-VU 

BaseB Modeling.............................................................................................................. 156

Table C-1. MANE-VU County, Monthly NMIM/NONROAD Inputs...................................... C-2 

FIGURES 

Figure 1. MANE-VU 12-Kilometer CMAQ Modeling Domain ................................................... 2 

Figure VIII-1. MANE-VU 12-Kilometer CMAQ Modeling Domain........................................ 155 
ix 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

ATP Anaerobic Thermal Processor 

BEIS Biogenic Emissions Inventory System 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CAIR Clean Air Interstate Rule 

CAMD Clean Air Markets Division 

CAP criteria air pollutant 

CE Control Equipment (NIF 3.0) table 

CEM Continuous Emissions Monitoring 

CENRAP Central Regional Air Planning Organization 

CERR Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule 

CMU Carnegie Mellon University 

CNG compressed natural gas 

CO carbon monoxide 

CO2 carbon dioxide 

EF emission factor

EFIG Emission Factors and Inventory Group 

EGU electricity generating unit 

EI inventory 

EM Emission (NIF 3.0) table 

EP Emission Process (NIF 3.0) table 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ERP Emission Release Point (NIF 3.0) table 

ETBE ethyl tertiary butyl ether 

ETOH ethanol 

ETS Emission Tracking System 

EU Emission Unit (NIF 3.0) table 

FIPS Federal Information Processing Standard 

FIRE Factor Information and REtrieval Factor 

GIS geographic information system 

GSE ground support equipment 

HAP hazardous air pollutant 

HC hydrocarbon 

HPMS Highway Performance Monitoring System 

ID identification 

IDA Inventory Data Analyzer format 

I/M inspection and maintenance 

km kilometer 

LAI leaf area indices 

LEV low emission vehicle 

LPG liquified petroleum gas 

MACT maximum achievable control technology 

MANE-VU Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union 

MARAMA Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association 

MTBE methyl tertiary butyl ether 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

NAICS North American Industrial Classification System 
x 

NEI National Emissions Inventory 

NH3 ammonia 

NIF NEI Input Format 

NMIM National Mobile Inventory Model 

NO nitrous oxide 

NOx oxides of nitrogen 

NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

ORIS Office of Regulatory Information Systems 

OTC Ozone Transport Commission 

PAR photosynthetic active radiation 

PE Emission Period (NIF 3.0) table 

Pechan E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc. 

PFC portable fuel container 

PM particulate matter 

PM-CON condensible PM 

PM10 particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a 

nominal 10 micrometers 

PM10-FIL filterable PM10 

PM10-PRI primary PM10

PM2.5 particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a 

 nominal 2.5 micrometers 

PM25-FIL filterable PM2.5 

PM25-PRI primary PM2.5

POTWs public owned treatment works 

ppm parts per million 

psi pounds per square inch 

QA quality assurance 

QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan 

RPO Regional Planning Organization 

RVP Reid vapor pressure 

SCC Source Classification Code 

SPDPRO speed profile 

SPDREF speed cross reference 

SI Site (NIF 3.0) table 

SIC Standard Industrial Classification 

SIP State Implementation Plan 

S/L State and Local 

SMOKE Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions 

SO2 sulfur dioxide 

TAME tertiary amyl methyl ether 

TR Transmittal (NIF 3.0) table 

TSD technical support document 

U.S. United States 

VISTAS Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the Southeast 

VMT vehicle miles traveled 

VOC volatile organic compound 

WRAP Western Regional Air Partnership 
 1 

CHAPTER I – INTRODUCTION 

A. What is the purpose of this TSD? 

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

preparing Version 3 of the 2002 base year criteria air pollutant (CAP) and ammonia (NH3) 

emissions inventories for point, area, onroad, nonroad, and biogenic sources for the MidAtlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU) Regional Planning Organization (RPO). 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. Local air planning agencies include Philadelphia and Allegheny County, 

Pennsylvania. The region also includes the Penobscot Tribe of Maine Indian Nation (Tribal code 

018) and the St. Regis Band of Mohawk Indians of New York (Tribal code 007). However, 

these tribal authorities did not provide any data for the 2002 MANE-VU inventory. MANE-VU 

will use these inventories to support air quality modeling, State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

development, and implementation activities for the regional haze rule and fine particulate matter 

(PM) and ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). 

The inventories and supporting data prepared include the following: 

(1) Comprehensive, county-level, mass emissions and modeling inventories for of 2002 

emissions for CAPs and NH3 for the State and Local (S/L) agencies included in the 

MANE-VU region; 

(2) The temporal, speciation, and spatial allocation profiles for the MANE-VU region 

inventories; 

(3) Inventories for wildfires, prescribed burning, and agricultural field burning for the 

southeastern provinces of Canada; and 

(4) Inventories for other RPOs, Canada, and Mexico. 

The mass emissions inventory files were prepared in the National Emissions Inventory (NEI) 

Input Format Version 3.0 (NIF 3.0). The modeling inventory files were prepared in Sparse 

Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions/Inventory Data Analyzer (SMOKE/IDA) format. Ancillary 

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

compatible format. Figure 1 shows the Models-3 Community Multiscale Air Quality Modeling 

System (CMAQ) modeling domain for the MANE-VU region. 

The inventories include annual emissions for sulfur dioxide (SO2), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), 

volatile organic compounds (VOC), carbon monoxide (CO), NH3, and particles with an 

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

and PM2.5). The inventories included summer day, winter day, and average day emissions. 

However, not all agencies included daily emissions in their inventories, and, for the agencies that 

did, the temporal basis for the daily emissions varied between agencies. The temporal profiles 

prepared for this project will be used to calculate daily emissions when not available in the 

inventory files. 
 2 

Figure 1. MANE-VU 12-Kilometer CMAQ Modeling Domain 

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

Work on Version 1 of the 2002 MANE-VU inventory began in April 2004. The consolidated 

inventory for point, area, onroad, and nonroad sources was prepared by starting with the 

inventories that S/L agencies submitted to the United States (U.S.) Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) from May through July of 2004 as a requirement of the Consolidated Emissions 

Reporting Rule (CERR). The EPA’s format and content quality assurance (QA) programs (and 

other QA checks not included in EPA’s QA software) were run on each inventory to identify 

format and/or data content issues (EPA, 2004a). E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc. (Pechan) 

worked with the MANE-VU S/L agencies and the staff of the Mid-Atlantic Regional Air 

Management Association (MARAMA) to resolve QA issues and augment the inventories to fill 

data gaps in accordance with the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) prepared for this 

project (MANE-VU, 2004a). MARAMA is the MANE-VU organization’s employees, whereas 
 3 

MANE-VU is the member S/L agencies plus MARAMA employees. MARAMA is one of three 

RPOs (in addition to Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) and North East States for Coordinated 

Air Use Management) supporting the MANE-VU effort. 

A draft of the point and area source inventories and summary files were provided for stakeholder 

review during August 2004. Stakeholder comments were reviewed by the S/L agencies and 

revisions to the inventory files were made to the files to incorporate stakeholder comments as 

approved by each S/L agency. The inventories were finalized during December 2004 and the 

SMOKE input files were prepared and reviewed by the modelers during December 2004 and 

early January 2005. The final inventory and SMOKE input files were finalized during January 

2005. 

Work on Version 2 (covering the period from April through September 2005) involved 

incorporating revisions requested by some S/L agencies on the point, area, and onroad 

inventories. Work on Version 3 (covering the period from December 2005 through April 2006) 

included additional revisions to the point, area, and onroad inventories as requested by some 

states. Thus, the Version 3 inventory for point, area, and onroad sources were built upon 

Versions 1 and 2. This work also included development of the biogenics inventory. Version 3 

of the nonroad inventory was completely redone due to changes that EPA made to the 

NONROAD2005 model. 

C. How is this TSD organized? 

Chapters II through V of this TSD present the general and State-specific methods and data 

sources used to develop Version 3 of MANE-VU’s 2002 inventory for point, area, nonroad, and 

onroad sources. Chapter VI presents the methods, data sources, and model used to develop the 

biogenics inventory. Chapter VII documents the temporal allocation, speciation, and spatial 

allocation modeling input files used for Version 3 of MANE-VU’s 2002 inventory for all sectors. 

Chapter VIII describes the non-MANE-VU region inventory data used for MANE-VU BaseB 

Modeling. References for the TSD are provided in Chapter IX. Appendices A and B provide the 

QA Summary Report files prepared during development of the State-specific inventories for 

point and area sources, respectively. Appendices A and B also provide tables that identify for 

each S/L agency, the Version 3 data sources, emission type period, pollutant, and the number of 

counties by source classification code (SCC). For the nonroad inventory, Appendix C provides 

the final county, monthly National Mobile Inventory Model (NMIM) inputs provided or 

confirmed by the States for Reid vapor pressure (RVP), weight percent oxygen, and gasoline 

sulfur. 
 4 

CHAPTER II – POINT SOURCES 

A. General Methods for all State and Local Agencies 

 

1. What Data Sources Were Used? 

Version 3 of the 2002 MANE-VU point source inventory is based primarily on Version 1 with 

some state-specific revisions incorporated into Versions 2 and 3. Version 1 was developed using 

the inventories that S/L agencies submitted to EPA from May through July of 2004 as a 

requirement of the CERR. All 12 State agencies submitted point source inventories to EPA. In 

addition, Allegheny and Philadelphia Counties in Pennsylvania each submitted their own point 

source inventories to EPA. The EPA performed some limited QA review of the S/L inventories 

to identify format, referential integrity, and duplicate record issues. The EPA revised the 

inventories to address these issues and made the files available to the S/L agencies on August 6, 

2004. These inventory files were used as the starting point for Version 1 of the MANE-VU 

inventory. These inventory files were obtained from EPA, consolidated into a single data set, 

subjected to extensive QA review, revised (as approved by the MANE-VU S/L agencies) to 

address QA issues and to fill data gaps identified while preparing Version 1. Subsequently, the 

following agencies provided revisions to their point source inventories: 

• Version 2 – Connecticut, Delaware, and Maryland 

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

The revisions that these states provided for Versions 2 and 3 are discussed in the “State-Specific 

Methods” section of this chapter. 

In order to track the origin of data, the temporal period of emissions, and to facilitate generation 

of emission summaries, the following NIF plus fields were added to the Transmittal (TR), Site 

(SI), Emission Unit (EU), Emission Release Point (ER), Emission Process (EP), Emission Period 

(PE), Emission (EM), and Control Equipment (CE) tables: 

• Data Source Codes: 

Code Description

S State agency-supplied data. 

L Local agency-supplied data to incorporate S/L comments for individual 

records. 

P NH3 emissions from MANE-VU inventory for cement kilns. 

AUG-A PM Augmentation: ad-hoc change. 

AUG-C PM Augmentation: standard augmentation method. 

AUG-O PM Augmentation: set PMxx-FIL = PMxx-PRI for SCCs starting with 

10 (external fuel combustion) and 20 (internal fuel combustion). Note: 

emission factors and particle-size data for estimating condensible 

emissions for fuel combustion SCCs starting with 30 were not available; 

therefore, condensible emissions were not estimated for these processes 
 5 

if an agency provided filterable and not primary emissions for these 

processes. In other words, the primary emissions were assumed to equal 

the filterable emissions. 

AUG-Z PM Augmentation: automated fill-in of zero values where all PM for a 

particular process is zero. 

• Revision Date: This field indicates the month and year during which the last revision 

was made to a record. 

• State Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS): This field indicates the state 

FIPS code of the submittal. 

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

The following NIF plus fields were added to the EM table: 

• Emission Ton Value: This field indicates the values of the emissions in tons. This 

field was used to prepare summaries of emissions on a consistent EU basis. 

• Emission Type Period: This field indicates the period of the Emission Type – either 

ANNUAL or NONANNUAL. This field was used to prepare summaries of annual 

emissions. 

• CAP_HAP: This field identifies records for CAP versus records for hazardous air 

pollutants (HAPs). For the MANE-VU inventory, the flag is CAP for all records. 

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

Note that the QAPP for Version 1 includes more data source codes than were used in Version 3 

of the point source inventory. The data source codes listed above are the codes used in 

Version 3. The exception is for Rhode Island, who requested that their Version 2 inventory be 

replaced with its inventory included in the final 2002 NEI prepared by EPA. Thus, for Rhode 

Island, it was agreed to maintain the data source codes used in the NEI in Version 3 of the 

MANE-VU inventory. The data source codes for Rhode Island’s point source inventory are 

explained under the state-specific section for Rhode Island. 

2. What Quality Assurance Steps Were Performed? 

A QAPP was prepared and approved by MANE-VU/MARAMA and the EPA Regional Office 

prior to initiating work on Version 1 of the inventory (MANE-VU, 2004a). This QAPP was 

followed during preparation of all three versions of the inventory. This section provides an 

overview of the QA checks completed on each version of the inventory. The QA process for 

each S/L inventory involved the following steps: 

• Conduct QA checks on each S/L inventory; 

• Prepare a QA Summary Report for submittal to the agency for review; 
 6 

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

• Repeat the QA checks on the revised inventory to verify that the corrections were 

completed; 

• Perform augmentation to correct for missing data; and 

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

a. QA checks for S/L agency inventories 

The following discusses the QA diagnoses that were run on the consolidated point source 

inventory data set. For each S/L agency, a “QA Summary Report” was prepared for each QA 

check in an Excel Workbook file. The results of each QA check was summarized in a separate 

spreadsheet and submitted to the S/L agency for review and resolution. The agencies provided 

corrections to the data in the Excel files or via e-mail and the inventory was updated with the 

corrections. 

i. Continuous Emissions Monitoring (CEM) Analysis 

The goal of this analysis was to compare annual NOx and SO2 emissions that were measured with 

CEM systems and reported to EPA to the annual NOx and SO2 emissions reported in the S/L 

inventories. Facilities report hourly CEM data to EPA for units that are subject to CEM 

reporting requirements of the NOx SIP Call rule and Title IV of the Clean Air Act (CAA). Thus, 

hourly CEM emissions were summed to the annual level and compared to the annual emissions 

in the S/L inventories. If the S/L agencies agreed, the CEM hourly emissions would be used to 

support air quality modeling to accurately reflect the temporal distribution of emissions from 

CEM units during 2002. Since some of the states require facilities to certify the emissions they 

report for inclusion in the inventory, the agencies needed proof that the emissions in the CEM 

inventory compared well with the emissions in the S/L inventory. 

The 2002 CEM inventory containing hourly NOx and SO2 emissions and heat input data were 

downloaded from the EPA/Clean Air Markets Division’s (CAMD) web site 

(www.epa.gov/airmarkets) on July 8, 2004 (CAMD, 2004). The data were provided by quarter 

and state resulting in 48 separate files for the 12 states in the MANE-VU region. For each state, 

the hourly emissions were summed to the annual level by facility and EU. 

The first stage in the CEM analysis involved preparing a crosswalk file to match facilities and 

units in the CEM inventory to facilities and units in the S/L inventories. In the CEM inventory, 

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

facilities and the unit ID identifies unique boilers and internal combustion engines (i.e., turbines 

and reciprocating engines). In 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. Thus, an Excel Workbook was sent to the S/L agencies that 

contained an initial crosswalk with the ORIS ID and unit ID in the CEM inventory matched to 

the state and county FIPS, state facility ID, and EU ID in the S/L inventory. Agencies were 

asked to confirm/correct/supplement the information in the crosswalk. The initial crosswalk also 

contained annual emissions summed from the hourly CEM emissions and flags that indicated if 
 7 

CEM units were subject to reporting requirements under the NOx SIP Call and/or Title IV of the 

CAA. It should be noted that the initial matching of the IDs in both inventories was based on 

previous crosswalks that had been developed for the 1999 NEI and in-house information 

compiled by Pechan. The matching at the facility level was nearly complete; however, S/L 

agency assistance was needed to match most of CEM units to EUs in the S/L inventories. 

The crosswalk was updated with corrections to facility and CEM unit-to-EU matches, and with 

new matches provided by the S/L agencies. The matching of each CEM unit to an EU was still 

incomplete. Consequently, the comparison of annual emissions was performed at the facility 

level. 

The second stage in the CEM analysis was to prepare an Excel Workbook file for each S/L 

agency that compared the annual emissions summed from the hourly CEM inventory to the 

annual emissions reported in the S/L inventory. The file included three spreadsheets that 

compared annual emissions at the facility level, listed the facilities in the CEM inventory that 

could not be matched to the facilities in the S/L inventory, and listed the facilities in the S/L 

inventory identified as an electricity generating unit (EGU) that could not be matched to a 

facility in the CEM inventory. The Excel files were sent to the S/L agencies for review. The S/L 

agencies then indicated if they did or did not want to use the hourly CEM inventory. 

The facility-level comparison of CEM to emission inventory NOx and SO2 emissions found that 

for some facilities, the annual emissions from the S/L inventory exceeded the CEM annual 

emissions because the facility in the S/L inventory contained more than just CEM units. This 

condition was determined to be acceptable. However, S/L agencies were asked to review data 

for facilities where the CEM emissions were higher than the emissions summed from the S/L 

inventory. For these cases, CEM emissions may be higher than those reported in a S/L inventory 

due to methods EPA uses for using artificially high default values to fill in hourly CEM data 

when not reported or when a CEM unit was not working properly. 

After reviewing the comparison of the CEM to S/L inventory emissions, New York and Vermont 

elected to use the 2002 CEM inventory containing hourly NOx and SO2 emissions for all 

facilities. Maryland; New Hampshire; and Allegheny County, Pennsylvania elected to use the 

2002 CEM data for some but not all of the facilities within their jurisdiction. The Excel 

Workbook files containing the comparison of CEM to S/L inventories provides a spreadsheet 

identifying the facilities for which these S/L agencies elected to use the CEM inventory. 

Subsequent to the completion of this analysis, it was determined that the structure of the 

EPA/CAMD file would not be compatible with the format of the SMOKE input file. The 

database structure did not affect the annual emissions summed from the hourly CEM emissions 

used in the comparison to S/L inventory data. For each of the S/L agencies that elected to use 

the 2002 CEM data, CAMD agreed to provide separate database files for each state with a 

structure compatible with the SMOKE input file format. Pechan then used the crosswalk to add 

to the CEM inventory files the state and county FIPS, state facility ID, and EU ID (if the 

crosswalk contains a CEM unit to EU match) to the hourly CEM database files provided by 

CAMD. The modified database was then used to create the SMOKE input files for these states. 
 8 

Note that Delaware requested that the 2002 CEM inventory for its facilities not be used for 

regional haze modeling. However, if the consolidated point source inventory prepared under this 

project is used to support ozone episode modeling, Delaware may consider using the CEM 

hourly data for the episodes modeled. Therefore, the 2002 CEM inventory was also processed 

for Delaware’s facilities. 

ii. PM Emissions Consistency and Completeness Review 

The following consistency checks were performed at the EM table data key level (for annual 

emissions) to compare PM emissions: 

• If a process was associated with a PM emission record, but was missing one or more 

of the following (as appropriate for the SCC [i.e., condensible PM (PM-CON) is 

associated with fuel combustion only]): filterable PM10 (PM10-FIL), primary PM10

(PM10-PRI), filterable PM2.5 (PM25-FIL), primary PM2.5 (PM25-PRI), or PM-CON, 

the record was flagged for review. 

• The following equations were used to determine consistency: 

 PM10-FIL + PM-CON = PM10-PRI 

 PM25-FIL + PM-CON = PM25-PRI 

 PM-FIL + PM-CON = PM-PRI 

• The following comparisons were applied to determine consistency: 

 PM10-PRI >= PM10-FIL 

 PM25-PRI >= PM25-FIL 

 PM10-PRI >= PM-CON 

 PM25-PRI >= PM-CON 

 PM10-FIL >= PM25-FIL 

 PM10-PRI >= PM25-PRI 

 PM-PRI >= PM10-PRI 

 PM-PRI >= PM25-PRI 

 PM-FIL >= PM10-FIL 

 PM-FIL >= PM25-FIL 

If the data failed one of these checks it was diagnosed as an error, summarized in an Excel 

Workbook file, and provided to the S/L agency for corrections. If a S/L agency did not provide 

corrections to these errors, the errors were corrected or filled in according to the augmentation 

procedures. 
 9 

iii. ERP Coordinate Review 

Location coordinates for point sources were evaluated using geographic information system 

(GIS) mapping to determine if the coordinates were within 0.5-kilometers of the boundary of the 

county in which the source was located. If not, the S/L agency was asked to review the 

coordinates and provide corrections to either the coordinates or the state and county FIPS codes. 

The 0.5-kilometer test resulted in a large number of ERPs for review by the agencies. Therefore, 

to assist S/L agencies in prioritizing their review of coordinates, ERP records with coordinates 

located more than 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, and 10 or more kilometers from their county boundary, and 

coordinates that mapped outside of their state boundary were identified. Annual emissions 

summed to the ERP level were included in the QA Summary Report to identify records with zero 

emissions for all pollutants and to identify the highest emitting stacks. The QA Summary Report 

was provided to the S/L agency for review and corrections. 

iv. ERP Parameter Review 

The EPA’s QA guidance for diagnosing ERP issues for the point source NEI (EPA, 2004b) was 

applied to identify QA issues in the S/L point source inventories. The QA guidance involved 

diagnosing the correct assignment of the ERP type (i.e., stack or fugitive), parameters with zero 

values, parameters not within the range of values specified in the EPA’s QA procedures, and 

consistency checks (i.e., comparing calculated values against the values reported in the 

inventory). In many cases errors were caused by missing or zero values. In other cases, out-ofrange errors were caused by unit conversion issues (e.g., stack parameters were in ft, ft/sec, cu 

ft/sec, or degrees Fahrenheit). The QA issues were summarized in a separate QA Summary 

Report for each agency and each agency was asked to provide corrections. If an agency did not 

provide corrections for out-of-range or missing values, the data were corrected or filled in 

according to the ERP augmentation procedures. 

v. Control Device Type and Control Efficiency Data Review 

The CE codes in the “Primary Device Type Code” and “Secondary Device Type Code” fields 

were reviewed to identify invalid codes (i.e., codes that did not exist in the NIF 3.0 reference 

table) and missing codes (e.g., records with a null or uncontrolled code of 000 but with control 

efficiency data). 

QA review of control efficiency data involved diagnosis of two types of errors. First, records 

were reviewed to identify control efficiency values that were reported as a decimal rather than as 

a percent value. Records with control efficiencies with decimal values were flagged as a 

potential error (although not necessarily an error, since the real control efficiency may be less 

than 1%). 

The second check identified records where 100% control was reported in the CE table, but the 

emissions in the EM table were greater than zero and the rule effectiveness value in the EM table 

was null, zero, or 100% (implying 100% control of emissions). Because many agencies did not 

populate the rule effectiveness field or a default value of zero was assigned, records with null or 

zero rule effectiveness values were included where the CE was 100% and emissions were greater 
 10 

than zero. The records that met these criteria were summarized in a QA Summary Report for 

review and correction, if necessary, by the S/L agency. 

vi. Start and End Date Checks 

QA review was conducted to identify start date and end date values in the PE and EM tables to 

confirm consistency with the inventory year in the TR table, and to confirm that the end date 

reported was greater than the start date reported. This check did not identify any QA issues in 

the three versions of the inventory. 

vii. Annual and Daily Emissions Comparison 

The following QA checks were conducted to identify potential errors associated with the 

incorrect reporting of daily and/or annual emissions: 

• Any “DAILY” type record that is greater than its associated “ANNUAL”. 

A review of the daily vs. annual comparison revealed that in many cases, the daily value was 

nonzero (but very small), but the annual value was zero. This was generally a result of rounding 

in a S/L agency’s original emissions database, where annual records were recorded in tons per 

year to a set number of decimal places, while the corresponding daily records were recorded in 

pounds per year to a set number of decimal places. The annual record rounds to zero in the 

original database, while the daily value remains non-zero. A tolerance check reveals the 

following (comparison in tons): 

• Difference Tolerance (daily - annual)> 0 

• Difference Tolerance (daily - annual)> .000001 

• Difference Tolerance (daily - annual)> .00001 

• Difference Tolerance (daily - annual)> .0001 

• Difference Tolerance (daily - annual)> .001 

• Difference Tolerance (daily - annual)> .01 

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

• Connecticut (09) 11 records 

• Maine (23) 4 records 

• Maryland (24) 72 records 

• New Jersey (34) 2935 records 

• Pennsylvania Allegheny County (42003) 17 records 

• Pennsylvania Philadelphia County (42101) 146 records 

• Rhode Island (44) 1 record 

Rhode Island, Philadelphia, and New Jersey responded that the dailies that were greater than the 

annuals could be deleted. Maryland determined that they should be kept since the difference 

values were small. The records for the remaining S/L agencies were kept. This QA issue only 

occurred during processing of Version 1. 
 11 

b. Responses from S/L agencies 

Each S/L agency reviewed its “QA Summary Report” files and the S/L agency provided 

direction for correcting QA issues either in the QA Summary Report Excel files or via e-mail. 

The inventory was then revised to incorporate responses from each agency and the QA checks 

were run again to verify that the QA issues were addressed. If an agency responded to a QA 

issue by e-mail, the direction was recorded in the “QA Summary Report” file. The “QA 

Summary Report” file for each S/L agency was updated to document QA issues and resolution of 

issues associated with developing Versions 2 and 3 of the point source inventory. The “QA 

Summary Report” files for Version 3 are provided with this report in a separate zip file. The 

files in the zip file are organized in separate folders for each S/L agency. Each folder includes a 

separate Excel workbook file for the following QA checks if a QA issue existed: 

• PM Augmentation QA Summary; 

• Stack Parameter QA Summary; 

• Stack Coordinates QA Summary; 

• Stack Parameter and Coordinate Augmentation Summary; 

• CEM Comparisons and Revisions; and 

• Control Device/Efficiency Summary. 

c. Gap Filling and Augmentation 

The following discusses the augmentation procedures that were used to fill in missing data that 

were not supplied by the S/L agencies. The S/L agencies approved the procedures before they 

were applied. These procedures were applied after revising the inventory to address QA issues 

as directed by each S/L agency. 

i. MANE-VU-Sponsored Inventories 

MANE-VU prepared a 2002 NH3 emissions inventory for cement kilns for SCCs 30500606 and 

30500706 located in four MANE-VU states. Maryland chose to add one new facility 

24013/0012 (state and county FIPS code/facility ID). New York chose to add the following 

three sites 36001/4010300016, 36001/4012400001, and 36111/3514800084. Maine and 

Pennsylvania chose not to add emissions from this inventory. The data for Maryland and New 

York were added to Version 1. These data were not changed in Versions 2 and 3 of the point 

source inventory. 

ii. PM Augmentation 

The PM augmentations process gap-fills missing PM pollutant complements. For example, if a 

S/L agency provided only PM10-PRI pollutants the PM augmentation process filled in the 

PM25-PRI pollutants. The steps in the PM augmentation process were as follows: 

• Step 1: Initial QA and remediation of S/L provided PM pollutants; 
 12 

• Step 2: Development of PM factor ratios based on factors from the Factor 

Information and REtrieval (FIRE) Data System, version 6.2, and the PM Calculator 

(EPA, 2003a; EPA, 2004c); 

• 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. 

An Access database (named Reference Tables for PM Augmentation) accompanies this 

document. This database contains the SCC Control Device Ratio table, the Emission Factors 

table, and Emission Factors Crosstab table discussed in Step 2. The Emission Factors Crosstab 

table contains the ratios developed from the Emission Factors table. The Emission Factors table 

contains detailed information on the emission factors used to develop the ratios. The PM 

Calculator ratio table can be provided upon request – it contains all possible combinations for 

SCC and Control Device types that are available in the PM Calculator. Ratios from the PM 

calculator were developed using a standard input of 100 TONS of uncontrolled PM-FIL 

emissions. 

1. Initial QA and Remediation of PM Pollutants 

S/L agencies were initially presented with files that detailed potential inconsistencies and 

missing information in their PM pollutant inventory. Inconsistencies in PM pollutants include 

the following: 

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

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

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

• PM10-FIL less than PM25-FIL; 

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

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

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

Potential missing information was summarized in a table which detailed the variety of cases 

provided by each S/L agency. For example, an S/L agency might have provided PM10-FIL and 

PM25-FIL for some processes, but provided only PM10-FIL for other processes. 

S/L agencies were asked to review this information and provide corrections where possible. In 

general, corrections (or general directions) were provided in the case of the potential 

inconsistency issues. An example of a general direction provided by a S/L agency was to 

remove PM25-FIL where greater than PM10-FIL because the PM10-FIL was (in their particular 

case) known to be more reliable. In other cases, the agency-provided specific process-level 

pollutant corrections. If specific direction was not provided by the agency, zero PM pollutants 

were generally removed, or complements were set equal to the higher number. 
 13 

2. Development of PM Factor Ratio 

The primary deliverable of this step of the process was the development of a table keyed by 

SCC, primary control device, and secondary control device. This table is called the SCC Control 

Device Ratios table (see Table II-1). This table was filled according to the following steps: 

• Ratios (both condensible and noncondensible) were added from FIRE for SCCs 

starting with 10* (external fuel combustion) and 20* (internal fuel combustion) where 

there was a direct match between the provided SCC, and primary and secondary 

control devices. 

• Ratios (non-condensable) were added from the PM Calculator for SCCs starting with 

10* and 20* where there was not a direct match between the provided SCC, and 

primary and secondary control devices. Condensible ratios were added from the PM 

Calculator based on the uncontrolled SCC for these SCCs. In some cases, it was 

necessary to map the SCC and control devices to the PM calculator to find a match 

for the noncondensible ratios. In other cases, it was necessary to map the SCC to 

FIRE to find a match for condensible ratios. 

• For natural gas, process gas, and liquified petroleum gas (LPG) SCCs starting with 

10* and 20*, it was assumed (based on FIRE emission factors) that the PMPRI/PM10-PRI/PM25-PRI ratio was equal to 1. It was also assumed that the PMFIL/PM10- FIL /PM25- FIL was equal to 1. Condensible ratios were calculated from 

uncontrolled FIRE emission factors for these SCCs. In some cases it was necessary 

to map the SCC to FIRE to find a match for condensible ratios. 

• Ratios for SCCs not like 10* and 20* were obtained from the PM Calculator. It was 

assumed that the condensible component was zero. 
 14 

Table II-1. Description of the Field Names and Descriptions for the SCC Control 

Device Ratios Table 

Field Name Field Description 

PM Calculator A “Yes” in this field indicates that at least some of the information was retrieved from the PM 

Calculator 

FIRE A “Yes” in this field indicates that at least some of the information was retrieved from the Emission 

Factors table. A “Condensible Ratios” in this field indicates that the condensible ratios factors were 

retrieved from this table. 

Other A field to indicate other sources as necessary. 

SCC Source category code from the S/L agency-provided data. 

SCC_DESC Description of source category code from the S/L agency-provided data. 

maptoSCC This field equals SCC unless the SCC provided was not found in the appropriate source table. In 

that case, the SCC was mapped using the closest available appropriate mapping choice. 

maptoSCC_DESC Description of the maptoSCC. 

mapSCCNote Any notes related to the mapping of the SCC. A “Yes” in this field indicates that the SCC was 

mapped. 

PD Primary device type from the S/L agency provided data. 

PD_DESC Description of the primary device (PD). 

maptoPD This field equals PD unless the PD provided was not found in the appropriate source table. In that 

case, the PD was mapped using the closest available appropriate mapping choice. 

maptoPD_DESC Description of the maptoPD. 

mapPDNote Any notes related to the mapping of the PD. A “Yes” in this field indicates that the PD was mapped. 

SD Secondary device type from the S/L agency provided data. 

SD_DESC Description of the secondary device (SD). 

maptoSD This field equals SD unless the SD provided was not found in the appropriate source table. In that 

case, the SD was mapped using the closest available appropriate mapping choice. 

maptoSD_DESC Description of the maptoSD. 

mapSDNote Any notes related to the mapping of the SD. A “Yes” in this field indicates that the SD was mapped. 

PM-FIL/PM10-FIL This field and the following are ratios calculated from emission factors found either in FIRE or the 

PM calculator. 

PM-FIL/PM25-FIL This field and the following are ratios calculated from emission factors found either in FIRE or the 

PM calculator. 

PM-FIL/PM-PRI This field and the following are ratios calculated from emission factors found either in FIRE or the 

PM calculator. 

PM-PRI/PM10-PRI This field and the following are ratios calculated from emission factors found either in FIRE or the 

PM calculator. 

PM-PRI/PM25-PRI This field and the following are ratios calculated from emission factors found either in FIRE or the 

PM calculator. 

PM10-FIL/PM25-FIL This field and the following are ratios calculated from emission factors found either in FIRE or the 

PM calculator. 

PM10-PRI/PM25-PRI This field and the following are ratios calculated from emission factors found either in FIRE or the 

PM calculator. 

PM-CON/PM10-FIL Condensible ratios were calculate from FIRE if available for 10* and 20* SCCs. If condensible ratios 

were not found in FIRE for 10* and 20* these ratios were set to zero. 

PM-CON/PM10-PRI Condensible ratios were calculate from FIRE if available for 10* and 20* SCCs. If condensible ratios 

were not found in FIRE for 10* and 20* these ratios were set to zero. 

PM-CON/PM25-FIL Condensible ratios were calculate from FIRE if available for 10* and 20* SCCs. If condensible ratios 

were not found in FIRE for 10* and 20* these ratios were set to zero. 

PM-CON/PM25-PRI Condensible ratios were calculate from FIRE if available for 10* and 20* SCCs. If condensible ratios 

were not found in FIRE for 10* and 20* these ratios were set to zero. 

PM-CON/PM-FIL Condensible ratios were calculate from FIRE if available for 10* and 20* SCCs. If condensible ratios 

were not found in FIRE for 10* and 20* these ratios were set to zero. 

PM-CON/PM-PRI Condensible ratios were calculate from FIRE if available for 10* and 20* SCCs. If condensible ratios 

were not found in FIRE for 10* and 20* these ratios were set to zero. 

RPO Specific Note Indicates SCC and control device combinations are in the RPO inventory. 

Additional Notes Any notes regarding assumptions about ratios. 
 15 

3. Implementation of the QA Ratios 

In order to calculate the additional PM pollutants based on the SCC Control Device ratio table 

developed in the above step, a crosstab table was created from the EM table based on the 

following fields: 

• State FIPS 

• County FIPS 

• Tribal Code 

• EU ID 

• Process ID 

• Start Date 

• End Date 

• Emission Type 

• SCC 

• Primary Device Type 

• Secondary Device Type 

The primary and secondary device type fields were added based on information from the CE 

table. If CE information was not available these fields were defaulted to 000 

(“UNCONTROLLED”). In the few cases where there was a conflict between the control devices 

reported for the same process for PM pollutants (e.g., a PM10-PRI is listed as controlled, but 

PM-PRI did not have control information), the control device type was selected based on the 

controlled pollutant. 

In addition to the fields listed above, the crosstab included the PM emission amounts for the 

particular process and a field that indicated whether those emissions existed in the inventory. 

These fields were as follows: 

• PM_PRI 

• PM_FIL 

• PM10_PRI 

• PM10_FIL 

• PM25_PRI 

• PM25_FIL 

• PM_CON 

• PM_PRI_EXISTS 

• PM_FIL_EXISTS 

• PM10_PRI_EXISTS 

• PM10_FIL_EXISTS 

• PM25_PRI_EXISTS 

• PM25_FIL_EXISTS 

• PM_CON_EXISTS 
 16 

The emission values were in the PM_PRI, PM_FIL, PM10_PRI, PM10_FIL, PM25_PRI, 

PM25_FIL, PM_CON fields. The _EXISTS field indicated whether the pollutant was provided 

by the S/L agency. A zero indicated that the pollutant was not provided; a number greater than 

zero (usually one) indicates that it was provided by the S/L agency. 

Prior to the development of this crosstab, the EM table was filled in as much as possible using 

basic assumptions. For example, if the S/L agency provided zero emissions for some but not all 

forms of PM for a particular process, it was assumed that all forms of PM for that process were 

zero and they were filled in accordingly. Since that assumption was that for non 10* and 20* 

SCCs, the condensible value was zero – that would lead to PM10-FIL = PM10-PRI and PM25-

FIL = PM25-PRI and PM-FIL = PM-PRI. Given that assumption, values for these pollutants 

were also filled in. After this data insertion, a subset of the crosstab was created. This subset 

only contained processes that required additional augmentation. The SCC Control Device Type 

ratio table was based on only those SCC and control device types that required augmentation. 

The next step was to fill in the missing information in this crosstab using the information found 

in the SCC Control Device Ratio table. 

In calculating PM complement pollutants, priority was given to calculating –PRI and –CON 

pollutants. FIL pollutants were only calculated if necessary to calculate other pollutants or if it 

was a by-product of this calculation. 

In augmenting the PM pollutants, the non 10* and 20* SCCs were augmented first, with order 

given to augmenting based on PM10 where available, PM2.5 where available, and then PM. 

Augmenting the PM pollutants for the 10* and 20* SCCs is more complicated, but the basic 

approach was to augment based on PM10 (FIL or PRI) where available, PM2.5 (FIL or PRI) where 

available, and then PM (FIL or PRI) if PM10 or PM2.5 variations were not available. Where both 

PM10 (FIL or PRI) and PM2.5 (FIL or PRI) variations were both available, the calculation for 

PM-CON was generally driven from the PM10 number and the complements as necessary were 

back calculated. Where a PRI emission factor ratio was required and was not available, the FIL 

emission factor ratio was used. 

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

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

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

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

readjusted. In a few cases the appropriate combination of ratios, SCC, and control efficiencies 

were not available to calculate the PM10-PRI and PM25-PRI values. In these cases, PM10-PRI 

and PM25-PRI were set equal. The resultant PM table information was appended to the EM 

table. 

Note: The augmentation procedures resulted in some high condensible ratios that were 

calculated for some SCC control device type combinations. In most cases, these high 

condensible ratios were the result of the back calculation of PM-CON from PMxx-PRI records. 
 17 

Since the state had already provided the PMxx-PRI records, these PM-CON values were not 

added. 

The data source code field was used to identify records that were added to the inventory to 

complete the set of PM10-PRI and PM25-PRI emissions. 

iii. ERP Coordinates 

If an S/L agency did not provide corrections for ERP coordinates that map more than 5 km 

outside of the county boundary, or provide coordinates for ERP records that did not have any 

coordinates in the S/L inventory, the following procedures were applied to replace the 

coordinates: 

• Coordinates for other ERPs at the same facility, if available, that map within the 

county; 

• Coordinates for the centroid of the zip code for a facility if a valid zip code was 

provided or could be obtained from the agency if it is not valid; or 

• County centroid coordinates. 

The zip code was taken from the SI NIF 3.0 table. The zip code was compared to a reference 

table of valid zip codes to verify that it was an active zip code and existed in the state and county 

reported in the inventory. If a valid zip code for a facility could not be identified, the centroid 

for the facility’s county was used as a last resort. In some cases, the S/L agency provided 

confirmation that the S/L coordinates were correct even if the analysis indicated that the 

coordinates were outside of the county. These coordinates were not changed. Additionally, all 

coordinates were converted to latitude/longitude measurements. 

iv. ERP Parameters 

If valid ERP parameters were not provided by the S/L agency, the ERP augmentation procedures 

that EPA developed for the 2002 point source NEI were applied to the MANE-VU inventory 

(EPA, 2004b). It has been determined that the augmentation procedures in this document 

regarding SCC-specific ERP types and temperatures may be difficult to resolve. When this 

situation occurs, preference was given to the S/L agency -supplied ERP type and SCC. For 

example, the procedures do not account for cases where an EU has two processes with one 

defined as a stack source and the other as a fugitive source. Therefore, the S/L-supplied ERP 

type was used when this situation occurred. If the ERP type was null, and information was not 

available from the S/L agency, the stack height information was used as a guide. If stack height 

information was available, the ERP was treated as a stack, if stack height information was not 

available, the ERP was treated as a fugitive. An additional modification to the augmentation 

procedure was also implemented. Since in many cases null values were filled in with zeros by 

S/L local databases when comparing out-of-range velocities and flows (after it was determined 

that the stack and diameter information was correct) – null and zero values were treated in the 

same manner to prevent inappropriate replacement of stack parameter values. Additionally, 

stack parameter values were rounded to 1 decimal place when comparing with range values (just 
 18 

for the purposes of comparison) to prevent replacement of S/L parameter values based on 

negligible decimal differences. 

v. Control Device Type and Control Efficiency Data 

Control efficiencies that were 100% and rule effectiveness of 100% with non-zero emissions 

were diagnosed as potential errors and sent to the S/L agencies. Where possible these data were 

updated with S/L data corrections. Decimal control efficiencies were also diagnosed and sent to 

the S/L agencies. A decimal control efficiency was usually a sign that a control efficiency had 

not been entered as a percentage as is required by NIF 3.0. Where possible these data was 

updated with S/L data corrections. 

c. QA Review of Final Inventory 

 

Final QA checks were run on the revised point source inventory data set to ensure that all 

corrections provided by the S/L agencies were incorporated into the S/L inventories and that 

there were no remaining QA issues that could be addressed during the duration of the project. 

The EPA QA program was run on the inventory and the QA output was reviewed to verify that 

all QA issues that could be addressed were resolved. The QA output file was provided in an 

Access database along with Version 3 of the inventory. 

3. Version 3 Emissions Summary 

Table II-2 presents a State-level summary of the annual point source emissions in Version 3 of 

the 2002 MANE-VU inventory. Note that PM10-PRI and PM25-PRI emissions are included in 

the inventory for all SCCs for which S/L agencies reported any form of PM, PM10, and/or PM2.5

emissions. If an agency did not report PM10-PRI and/or PM25-PRI but reported PM-PRI, PMFIL, PM-CON, PM10-FIL, and/or PM25-FIL, the PM augmentation procedures discussed in the 

TSD were applied to the form of PM emissions supplied by the agency to calculate emissions for 

the other forms of PM emissions. If an agency reported PM10-PRI and/or PM25-PRI emissions 

but not PM10-FIL, PM25-FIL, or PM-CON emissions, the agency's inventory was not 

augmented to calculate filterable or condensible emissions. Note that PM-CON is associated 

with only fuel combustion sources. 
 19 

Table II-2. Version 3 2002 MANE-VU Point Source Emissions by State (Tons/Year) 

State CO NH3 NOx

PM10- 

FIL 

PM10- 

PRI 

PM25- 

FIL 

PM25- 

PRI PM-CON SO2 VOC 

Connecticut 4,053 12,923 738 1,617 0 1,283 389 15,988 4,907 

Delaware 9,766 196 16,345 2,466 4,217 1,919 3,666 1,750 73,744 4,755 

District of 

Columbia 248 4 780 91 161 54 132 68 963 69 

Maine 17,005 845 19,939 4,535 7,289 2,567 5,787 2,753 23,711 5,319 

Maryland 99,024 305 95,328 3,723 9,029 0 5,054 2,018 290,927 6,184 

Massachusetts 21,262 1,463 47,086 2,776 5,852 997 4,161 2,984 101,049 8,263 

New 

Hampshire 2,725 74 9,759 1,180 3,332 786 2,938 2,151 46,560 1,599 

New Jersey 12,300 51,593 2,928 6,072 2,543 4,779 3 61,217 14,401 

New York 66,427 1,861 118,978 1,808 10,392 1,965 7,080 210 294,729 11,456 

Pennsylvania 121,524 1,388 297,379 18,044 40,587 6,038 20,116 5,065 995,175 37,323 

Rhode Island 2,234 58 2,764 233 300 117 183 68 2,666 1,928 

Vermont 1,078 787 130 304 97 267 2 905 1,097 

MANE-VU 357,645 6,194 673,660 38,654 89,150 17,083 55,447 17,462 1,907,634 97,300 
 20 

B. State-Specific Methods 

For each of the MANE-VU states and two local agencies in Pennsylvania, this section identifies 

the temporal basis of the emissions included in Version 3 and discusses revisions incorporated 

into Version 3. In addition, this section also discusses the origin of each S/L agency’s emissions 

included in Version 3. For each agency, a table is provided in Appendix A that lists the data 

source codes by SCC, emission type period, and pollutant. In addition, an electronic folder is 

provided for each S/L agency containing the QA Summary Reports prepared during Version 1 

and other files documenting revisions included in Versions 2 and 3. 

1. Connecticut 

Connecticut’s Version 3 point source inventory originates from Version 1 except for the 

following revisions that Connecticut provided for Version 2 and included in Version 3: 

• Changed coordinates for AES Thames, Inc. in New London County to -72.3184, 41.4499 

(FIPS code 09011, facility identifier 1544). 

• Changed values for Hartford Steam (FIPS code 09003, facility identifier 3471), EU P0250, 

process 02 for summer daily values as follows: Changed actual throughput from 1934 

E6FT3 to 1.934 E6FT3, CO summer daily emissions from 53.185 tons to 0.0532 tons, 

NOx summer daily emissions from 255.288 tons to 0.1021 tons, and VOC summer daily 

emissions from 1.2569 tons to 0.0027 tons. 

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

Table II-3. Connecticut 2002 Point, Version 3: 

Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types 

Emission Type 

Period Start Date End Date 

Emission 

Type 

ANNUAL 20020101 20021231 30 

NONANNUAL 20011201 20020228 27 

NONANNUAL 20011201 20020228 29 

NONANNUAL 20020601 20020831 27 

NONANNUAL 20020601 20020831 29 

Table A-1 in Appendix A identifies the data sources by SCC, emission type period, and pollutant 

in the Version 3 point source inventory. This table also shows the number of counties by SCC. 

Note that some SCC and emission type period combinations are listed more than once because 

the data source codes are different for more than one SCC and emission type period combination. 

Connecticut provided the data for CO, NOx, PM10-PRI, SO2, and VOC. Connecticut did not 

provide any data for NH3. Emissions for PM10-FIL, PM25-PRI, PM25-FIL, and PM-CON were 

calculated from the PM10-PRI emissions provided by Connecticut using the PM augmentation 

procedures. 
 21 

2. Delaware 

Delaware’s Version 3 point source inventory originates from Version 1 except for some updates 

to ORIS Boiler IDs in the EU table that were incorporated into Version 2 and included in 

Version 3. Table II-4 shows the emission type periods for which Delaware provided emissions. 

Table II-4. Delaware 2002 Point, Version 3: 

Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types 

Emission Type 

Period Start Date End Date 

Emission 

Type 

ANNUAL 20020101 20021231 30 

NONANNUAL 20020601 20020831 29 

Table A-2 in Appendix A identifies the data sources by SCC, emission type period, and pollutant 

in the Version 3 point source inventory. This table also shows the number of counties by SCC. 

Note that some SCC and emission type period combinations are listed more than once because 

the data source codes are different for more than one SCC and emission type period combination. 

Delaware provided the data for CO, NH3, NOx, SO2, and VOC. Delaware also provided much of 

the PM emissions data but in some cases the PM augmentation procedures were applied to the 

PM data provided by Delaware to calculate emissions for other forms of PM (e.g., to estimate 

PM10-PRI from PM10-FIL, PM25-PRI from PM25-FIL, PM10-PRI and PM10-FIL from PM25-

PRI and PM25-FIL). 

3. District of Columbia 

The District of Columbia’s Version 3 point source inventory originates from Version 1. Table 

II-5 shows the emission type period for which the District of Columbia provided emissions. 

Table II-5. District of Columbia 2002 Point, Version 3: 

Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Type 

Emission Type 

Period Start Date End Date 

Emission 

Type 

ANNUAL 20020101 20021231 30 

Table A-3 in Appendix A identifies the data sources by SCC, emission type period, and pollutant 

in the Version 3 point source inventory. This table also shows the number of counties by SCC. 

The District of Columbia provided the data for CO, NH3, NOx, SO2, and VOC. The District of 

Columbia provided at least one form of PM emissions and the PM augmentation procedures 

were applied to the emissions provided by the District of Columbia to calculate emissions for the 

other forms of PM. 
 22 

4. Maine 

Maine’s Version 3 point source inventory originates from Version 1. Table II-6 shows the 

emission type periods for which Maine provided emissions. 

Table II-6. Maine 2002 Point, Version 3: 

Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types 

Emission Type 

Period Start Date End Date 

Emission 

Type 

ANNUAL 20020101 20021231 30 

NONANNUAL 20020601 20020831 29 

Table A-4 in Appendix A identifies the data sources by SCC, emission type period, and pollutant 

in the Version 3 point source inventory. This table also shows the number of counties by SCC. 

Note that some SCC and emission type period combinations are listed more than once because 

the data source codes are different for more than one SCC and emission type period combination. 

Maine provided the emissions data for CO, NH3, NOx, SO2, and VOC. Maine provided PM10-

FIL and/or PM25-FIL emissions data and the PM augmentation procedures were applied to the 

emissions that Maine provided to calculate emissions for the other forms of PM. 

5. Maryland 

Maryland’s Version 3 point source inventory originates from Version 1 except for some updates 

to ORIS Boiler IDs in the EU table that were incorporated into Version 2 and included in 

Version 3. Table II-7 shows the emission type periods for which Maryland provided emissions. 

Table II-7. Maryland 2002 Point, Version 3: 

Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types 

Emission Type 

Period Start Date End Date 

Emission 

Type 

ANNUAL 20020101 20021231 30 

ANNUAL 20040101 20041231 30 

NONANNUAL 20020101 20021231 29 

NONANNUAL 20020501 20020930 29 

NONANNUAL 20040101 20041231 29 

Table A-5 in Appendix A identifies the data sources by SCC, emission type period, and pollutant 

in the Version 3 point source inventory. This table also shows the number of counties by SCC. 

Note that some SCC and emission type period combinations are listed more than once because 

the data source codes are different for more than one SCC and emission type period combination. 

Maryland provided the emissions data for CO, NH3, NOx, SO2, VOC, PM10-PRI, and PM-PRI. 

The PM augmentation procedures were applied to the PM10-PRI emissions that Maryland 

provided to calculate emissions for the other forms of PM. Maryland provided NH3 emissions 

for its point sources except for one new facility (state and county FIPS code 24013, facility ID 

0012, SCC 30500622, data source code P) for which it used NH3 emissions for four EUs 

(preheater kiln/dry process) prepared by MANE-VU. 
 23 

6. Massachusetts 

Massachusetts’ Version 3 point source inventory originates from Version 1 except for the some 

stack parameter revisions that Massachusetts provided and were incorporated into Version 3. 

For Version 3, Massachusetts provided revisions to stack parameters in the ERP table for six 

EUs at three facilities. The revisions are listed in the Excel file named “MA Revisions to 

MANEVU V3 Point EI_040706.xls”. Table II-8 shows the emission type periods for which 

Massachusetts provided emissions. 

Table II-8. Massachusetts 2002 Point, Version 3: 

Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types 

Emission Type 

Period Start Date End Date 

Emission 

Type 

ANNUAL 20020101 20021231 30 

ANNUAL 20030101 20031231 30 

Table A-6 in Appendix A identifies the data sources by SCC, emission type period, and pollutant 

in the Version 3 point source inventory. This table also shows the number of counties by SCC. 

Note that some SCC and emission type period combinations are listed more than once because 

the data source codes are different for more than one SCC and emission type period combination. 

Massachusetts provided the emissions data for CO, NH3, NOx, SO2, and VOC. Massachusetts 

provided PM-FIL, PM10-FIL, and/or PM25-FIL emissions data and the PM augmentation 

procedures were applied to the emissions that Massachusetts provided to calculate emissions for 

the other forms of PM. 

7. New Hampshire 

New Hampshire’s Version 3 point source inventory originates from Version 1. 

Table II-9 shows the emission type periods for which New Hampshire provided emissions. 

Table II-9. New Hampshire 2002 Point, Version 3: 

Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types 

Emission Type 

Period Start Date End Date 

Emission 

Type 

ANNUAL 20020101 20021231 30 

NONANNUAL 20020601 20020831 29 

Table A-7 in Appendix A identifies the data sources by SCC, emission type period, and pollutant 

in the Version 3 point source inventory. This table also shows the number of counties by SCC. 

Note that some SCC and emission type period combinations are listed more than once because 

the data source codes are different for more than one SCC and emission type period combination. 

New Hampshire provided the emissions data for CO, NH3, NOx, SO2, and VOC. New 

Hampshire provided PM-FIL, PM10-FIL, and/or PM25-FIL emissions data and the PM 

augmentation procedures were applied to the emissions that New Hampshire provided to 

calculate emissions for the other forms of PM. 
 24 

8. New Jersey 

New Jersey’s Version 3 point source inventory originates from Version 1. In addition to the QA 

checks discussed previously in this TSD, New Jersey’s original inventory submittal to EPA 

contained several issues with SCCs. For Version 1, per direction provided by New Jersey, SCCs 

that were less than 8 digits were changed to SCCs with 8 digits. Also, as approved by New 

Jersey, inactive SCC 39999901 was changed to active SCC 39999999. The invalid unit “GAL” 

was changed to the valid unit “E6GAL” in the EP table. 

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

Table II-10. New Jersey 2002 Point, Version 3: 

Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types 

Emission Type 

Period Start Date End Date 

Emission 

Type 

ANNUAL 20020101 20021231 30 

NONANNUAL 20011201 20020228 29 

NONANNUAL 20020601 20020831 29 

Table A-8 in Appendix A identifies the data sources by SCC, emission type period, and pollutant 

in the Version 3 point source inventory. This table also shows the number of counties by SCC. 

Note that some SCC and emission type period combinations are listed more than once because 

the data source codes are different for more than one SCC and emission type period combination. 

New Jersey provided the emissions data for CO, NOx, SO2, and VOC. New Jersey provided PMPRI, PM10-PRI, and/or PM25-PRI emissions data and the PM augmentation procedures were 

applied to the emissions that New Jersey provided to calculate emissions for the other forms of 

PM. New Jersey did not provide any data for NH3. 

9. New York 

New York’s Version 3 point source inventory originates from Version 1 except for the following 

revisions that New York provided and were incorporated into Version 3. 

For Version 3, New York provided an Access database named “MANEVU_NY2002_ 

Point_Corrected_093005.mdb” with revisions to records in the EM table. New York also 

provided in this database 651 records that were not included in Version 2 of MANE-VU's point 

source inventory, and, therefore, these records were added to Version 3 of MANE-VU's point 

source inventory. The new records added emissions for pollutants (not in Version 2) for EUs 

and processes that existed in Version 2 of MANE-VU's point source inventory. 

The records in Version 2 that were revised and the records that were added to Version 3 are 

listed in the Excel file named “NY Revisions to MANE-VU V3 Point EI_040706.xls”. 

Table II-11 shows the emission type period for which New York provided emissions. 
 25 

Table II-11. New York 2002 Point, Version 3: 

Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Type 

Emission Type 

Period Start Date End Date 

Emission 

Type 

ANNUAL 20020101 20021231 30 

Table A-9 in Appendix A identifies the data sources by SCC, emission type period, and pollutant 

in the Version 3 point source inventory. This table also shows the number of counties by SCC. 

Note that some SCC and emission type period combinations are listed more than once because 

the data source codes are different for more than one SCC and emission type period combination. 

New York provided the emissions data for CO, NH3, NOx, SO2, and VOC. New York provided 

PM-PRI, PM10-PRI, and/or PM25-PRI emissions data and the PM augmentation procedures 

were applied to the emissions that New York provided to calculate emissions for the other forms 

of PM. New York provided NH3 emissions for its point sources except for four cement kilns for 

which it used NH3 emissions from a MANE-VU-sponsored inventory. The following identifies 

the facilities for which the MAEN-VU-sponsored NH3 emissions inventory for cement kilns was 

used. 

FIPS Code Facility ID SCC Data Source

 36001 4010300016 30500606 (2 kilns/dry process) P 

 36001 4012400001 30500706 (1 kiln/wet process) P 

 36111 3514800084 30500606 (1 kiln/dry process) P 

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

The Version 3 point source inventory for the state of Pennsylvania originates from Version 1. 

The following summary excludes Allegheny and Philadelphia Counties who provided their own 

point source inventories for Versions 1, 2, and 3. 

Table II-12 shows the emission type periods for which Pennsylvania provided emissions. Table 

A-10 in Appendix A identifies the data sources by SCC, emission type period, and pollutant in 

the Version 3 point source inventory. This table also shows the number of counties by SCC. 

Note that some SCC and emission type period combinations are listed more than once because 

the data source codes are different for more than one SCC and emission type period combination. 

Pennsylvania provided the emissions data for CO, NH3, NOx, SO2, and VOC. Pennsylvania 

provided PM10-PRI and/or PM25-PRI emissions data and the PM augmentation procedures 

were applied to the emissions that Pennsylvania provided to calculate emissions for the other 

forms of PM. 
 26 

Table II-12. Pennsylvania 2002 Point, Version 3: 

Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types 

Emission 

Type 

Period 

Start 

Date End Date 

Emission 

Type 

Emission 

Type 

Period 

Start 

Date End Date 

Emission 

Type 

ANNUAL 20020101 20020104 30 ANNUAL 20020131 20020812 30 

ANNUAL 20020101 20020111 30 ANNUAL 20020131 20021231 30 

ANNUAL 20020101 20020120 30 ANNUAL 20020201 20020228 30 

ANNUAL 20020101 20020123 30 ANNUAL 20020201 20020424 30 

ANNUAL 20020101 20020130 30 ANNUAL 20020201 20020831 30 

ANNUAL 20020101 20020131 30 ANNUAL 20020201 20020930 30 

ANNUAL 20020101 20020212 30 ANNUAL 20020201 20021030 30 

ANNUAL 20020101 20020215 30 ANNUAL 20020201 20021130 30 

ANNUAL 20020101 20020221 30 ANNUAL 20020201 20021231 30 

ANNUAL 20020101 20020228 30 ANNUAL 20020205 20021223 30 

ANNUAL 20020101 20020313 30 ANNUAL 20020213 20020913 30 

ANNUAL 20020101 20020329 30 ANNUAL 20020214 20021231 30 

ANNUAL 20020101 20020331 30 ANNUAL 20020216 20020331 30 

ANNUAL 20020101 20020412 30 ANNUAL 20020301 20020331 30 

ANNUAL 20020101 20020414 30 ANNUAL 20020301 20020430 30 

ANNUAL 20020101 20020422 30 ANNUAL 20020301 20020531 30 

ANNUAL 20020101 20020427 30 ANNUAL 20020301 20021031 30 

ANNUAL 20020101 20020430 30 ANNUAL 20020301 20021130 30 

ANNUAL 20020101 20020503 30 ANNUAL 20020301 20021231 30 

ANNUAL 20020101 20020514 30 ANNUAL 20020311 20021213 30 

ANNUAL 20020101 20020517 30 ANNUAL 20020311 20021231 30 

ANNUAL 20020101 20020521 30 ANNUAL 20020314 20021209 30 

ANNUAL 20020101 20020531 30 ANNUAL 20020318 20021223 30 

ANNUAL 20020101 20020603 30 ANNUAL 20020320 20020915 30 

ANNUAL 20020101 20020614 30 ANNUAL 20020320 20021231 30 

ANNUAL 20020101 20020626 30 ANNUAL 20020328 20021120 30 

ANNUAL 20020101 20020628 30 ANNUAL 20020330 20021122 30 

ANNUAL 20020101 20020630 30 ANNUAL 20020401 20020430 30 

ANNUAL 20020101 20020701 30 ANNUAL 20020401 20020531 30 

ANNUAL 20020101 20020731 30 ANNUAL 20020401 20020731 30 

ANNUAL 20020101 20020813 30 ANNUAL 20020401 20020930 30 

ANNUAL 20020101 20020831 30 ANNUAL 20020401 20021231 30 

ANNUAL 20020101 20020909 30 ANNUAL 20020409 20021205 30 

ANNUAL 20020101 20020930 30 ANNUAL 20020415 20021117 30 

ANNUAL 20020101 20021031 30 ANNUAL 20020415 20021231 30 

ANNUAL 20020101 20021101 30 ANNUAL 20020421 20021024 30 

ANNUAL 20020101 20021112 30 ANNUAL 20020424 20021016 30 

ANNUAL 20020101 20021130 30 ANNUAL 20020428 20021231 30 

ANNUAL 20020101 20021213 30 ANNUAL 20020429 20020922 30 

ANNUAL 20020101 20021216 30 ANNUAL 20020429 20021031 30 

ANNUAL 20020101 20021217 30 ANNUAL 20020501 20020630 30 

ANNUAL 20020101 20021220 30 ANNUAL 20020501 20020930 30 

ANNUAL 20020101 20021223 30 ANNUAL 20020501 20021013 30 

ANNUAL 20020101 20021230 30 ANNUAL 20020501 20021031 30 

ANNUAL 20020101 20021231 30 ANNUAL 20020501 20021231 30 

ANNUAL 20020102 20020703 30 ANNUAL 20020506 20021202 30 

ANNUAL 20020102 20021203 30 ANNUAL 20020511 20021231 30 

ANNUAL 20020102 20021215 30 ANNUAL 20020515 20021231 30 

ANNUAL 20020102 20021223 30 ANNUAL 20020519 20020727 30 

ANNUAL 20020102 20021227 30 ANNUAL 20020525 20021231 30 
 27 

Table II-12. (Continued) 

Emission 

Type 

Period 

Start 

Date End Date 

Emission 

Type 

Emission 

Type 

Period 

Start 

Date End Date 

Emission 

Type 

ANNUAL 20020102 20021228 30 ANNUAL 20020601 20020602 30 

ANNUAL 20020102 20021229 30 ANNUAL 20020601 20020831 30 

ANNUAL 20020102 20021230 30 ANNUAL 20020601 20020930 30 

ANNUAL 20020102 20021231 30 ANNUAL 20020601 20021019 30 

ANNUAL 20020103 20021126 30 ANNUAL 20020603 20021231 30 

ANNUAL 20020103 20021228 30 ANNUAL 20020606 20021127 30 

ANNUAL 20020103 20021231 30 ANNUAL 20020629 20021231 30 

ANNUAL 20020104 20020930 30 ANNUAL 20020701 20020731 30 

ANNUAL 20020104 20021223 30 ANNUAL 20020701 20020930 30 

ANNUAL 20020104 20021231 30 ANNUAL 20020701 20021231 30 

ANNUAL 20020105 20021218 30 ANNUAL 20020708 20021231 30 

ANNUAL 20020105 20021231 30 ANNUAL 20020801 20020831 30 

ANNUAL 20020106 20021231 30 ANNUAL 20020801 20020930 30 

ANNUAL 20020107 20021231 30 ANNUAL 20020801 20021130 30 

ANNUAL 20020108 20021221 30 ANNUAL 20020801 20021231 30 

ANNUAL 20020108 20021228 30 ANNUAL 20020802 20021231 30 

ANNUAL 20020110 20021204 30 ANNUAL 20020901 20020930 30 

ANNUAL 20020111 20021231 30 ANNUAL 20020901 20021231 30 

ANNUAL 20020113 20021006 30 ANNUAL 20020920 20021231 30 

ANNUAL 20020114 20021203 30 ANNUAL 20021001 20021030 30 

ANNUAL 20020115 20020318 30 ANNUAL 20021001 20021231 30 

ANNUAL 20020115 20020323 30 ANNUAL 20021028 20021231 30 

ANNUAL 20020115 20020326 30 ANNUAL 20021101 20021231 30 

ANNUAL 20020115 20020830 30 ANNUAL 20021118 20021231 30 

ANNUAL 20020123 20020127 30 ANNUAL 20021201 20021231 30 

ANNUAL 20020124 20021127 30 

11. Pennsylvania (Allegheny County, FIPS code 42003) 

The Version 3 point source inventory for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania originates from 

Version 1. Table II-13 shows the emission type periods for which Allegheny County provided 

emissions. 

Table II-13. Pennsylvania - Allegheny County 2002 Point, Version 3: 

Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types 

Emission Type 

Period Start Date End Date 

Emission 

Type 

ANNUAL 20020101 20021231 30 

NONANNUAL 20011201 20020228 29 

NONANNUAL 20020601 20020831 29 
 28 

Table A-11 in Appendix A identifies the data sources by SCC, emission type period, and 

pollutant in the Version 3 point source inventory. This table also shows the number of counties 

by SCC. Allegheny County provided the emissions data for CO, NH3, NOx, SO2, and VOC. 

Allegheny County provided PM-FIL, PM10-FIL, PM25-FIL, and/or PM-CON emissions data 

and the PM augmentation procedures were applied to the emissions that Allegheny County 

provided to calculate emissions for the other forms of PM. 

12. Pennsylvania (Philadelphia County, FIPS code 42101) 

The Version 3 point source inventory for Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania originates from 

Version 1. Table II-14 shows the emission type periods for which Philadelphia County provided 

emissions. 

Table II-14. Pennsylvania - Philadelphia County 2002 Point, Version 3: 

Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types 

Emission Type 

Period Start Date End Date 

Emission 

Type 

ANNUAL 20020101 20021231 30 

NONANNUAL 20011201 20020228 29 

NONANNUAL 20020601 20020831 29 

Table A-12 in Appendix A identifies the data sources by SCC, emission type period, and 

pollutant in the Version 3 point source inventory. This table also shows the number of counties 

by SCC. Philadelphia County provided the emissions data for CO, NH3, NOx, SO2, and VOC. 

Philadelphia County provided PM-FIL, PM10-FIL, and/or PM25-FIL emissions data and the PM 

augmentation procedures were applied to the emissions that Philadelphia County provided to 

calculate emissions for the other forms of PM. 

13. Rhode Island 

Rhode Island requested that their Version 2 inventory be replaced with the CAP and NH3

inventory in the final 2002 point source NEI that EPA released during March 2006. Therefore, 

all of Rhode Island’s point source data in Version 2 was replaced with the point source data 

provided in the final 2002 point source NEI. The following provides a summary of the QA 

issues identified and addressed in Version 1. The Excel file named “RI Revisions to MANE-VU 

V3 Point EI_040706.xls” provides documentation and correction of each of these issues for 

Version 3. 

The Site table in the NEI did not include the ORIS IDs for all of the EGUs identified in the EGU 

crosswalk table. Therefore, the crosswalk table was used to add the ORIS IDs to the Site table. 

Matching of boiler IDs to the EU table for one facility was maintained in the NEI, and, therefore, 

included in Version 3 of MANE-VU’s inventory. However, matching of boiler IDs for other 

facilities was not available in the crosswalk table. 
 29 

The data source codes that EPA used in the Rhode Island’s point source inventory for the NEI 

were maintained in the MANE-VU inventory. The following defines the codes: 

 Code Description

A Augmented PM data. 

CAMD Record only in 2002 Emission Tracking System (ETS)/CEM for 

SO2, NOx, and heat input values; other emissions estimated. 

SCAMD1 Data were received from the state. The state’s NOx and SO2

 emission values were replaced with the ETS values. 

99_PMPRI Not defined – presumed to mean PM-PRI data originating from the 

 1999 NEI. 

SUM Primary PM emissions calculated as the sum of the filterable PM 

and PM-CON emissions 

DIFF PM-CON emissions calculated as the difference between the 

primary PM and filterable PM emissions 

QA of PM emissions was also performed in accordance with the QAPP for the 2002 base year 

inventory for EM table records that were revised or added for Rhode Island and New York. As a 

result, it was identified that the emission ton value was not correctly calculated from the 

emission unit numerator and emission numeric value fields in the NEI file, therefore, the 

emission ton value was corrected for the MANE-VU inventory. In addition, the final NEI for 

Rhode Island contained NH3 emissions for several facilities but no SCCs were provided for the 

NH3 emissions; therefore, the NH3 emissions were removed for the MANE-VU inventory as 

requested by Rhode Island. 

For Version 3 of MANE-VU's inventory, Facility ID EGU1036 and Facility Name 

MANCHESTER STREET in the final 2002 NEI was changed to Facility ID AIR936 and Facility 

Name USGEN NEW ENGLAND INC per Rhode Island’s request because this is the same 

facility (with ORIS ID 3236). Also, for State Facility ID AIR594, EU ID 2, ERP 2, and Process 

ID 2, the SCC was changed from 39000589 to 39000599. In addition, the ORIS IDs reported in 

the NEI were revised to make them consistent with the crosswalk prepared for MANE-VU that 

matches state facility IDs to ORIS IDs. 

One issue was identified with one record for Rhode Island where the sum of the PM10-FIL and 

PM-CON emissions was more than the PM10-PRI emissions, and the sum of the PM25-FIL and 

PM-CON emissions was more than the PM25-PRI emissions for facility ID AIR1248 in County 

FIPS 44007; SCC 10300601 (External Combustion Boilers : Commercial/Institutional : Natural 

Gas : > 100 Million Btu/hr). In addition, the PM10-FIL emissions reported was 1.6 tons more 

than the PM10-PRI emissions reported, and the PM25-FIL emissions reported was 1.6 tons more 

than the PM25-PRI emissions reported for this facility. The record has very low emissions and it 

was not clear how the PM consistency issues should be addressed; therefore, due to time and 

resource constraints, this issue was not corrected in Version 3. 

 

Table II-15 shows the emission type periods for which Rhode Island provided emissions. 
 30 

Table II-15. Rhode Island 2002 Point, Version 3: 

Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types 

Emission Type 

Period Start Date End Date 

Emission 

Type 

ANNUAL 20020601 20020831 29 

NONANNUAL 20020601 20020831 29 

NONANNUAL 20020601 20020831 30 

Table A-13 in Appendix A identifies the data sources by SCC, emission type period, and 

pollutant in the Version 3 point source inventory. This table also shows the number of counties 

by SCC. Note that some SCC and emission type period combinations are listed more than once 

because the data source codes are different for more than one SCC and emission type period 

combination. Rhode Island provided the emissions data for CO, NOx, SO2, VOC, and PM-PRI. 

The EPA applied PM augmentation procedures to the PM-PRI emissions that Rhode Island 

provided to calculate emissions for the other forms of PM. The EPA added NH3 emissions for 

an EGU from EPA’s CAMD data; otherwise, NH3 emissions are not available for other point 

sources in Rhode Island. 

14. Vermont 

Vermont’s Version 3 point source inventory originates from Version 1. Table II-16 shows the 

emission type periods for which Vermont provided emissions. 

Table II-16. Vermont 2002 Point, Version 3: 

Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types 

Emission Type 

Period Start Date End Date 

Emission 

Type 

ANNUAL 20020101 20021231 30 

NONANNUAL 20020101 20020331 27 

NONANNUAL 20020101 20021231 29 

NONANNUAL 20020601 20020831 27 

Table A-14 in Appendix A identifies the data sources by SCC, emission type period, and 

pollutant in the Version 3 point source inventory. This table also shows the number of counties 

by SCC. Note that some SCC and emission type period combinations are listed more than once 

because the data source codes are different for more than one SCC and emission type period 

combination. Vermont provided the emissions data for CO, NOx, SO2, and VOC. Vermont 

provided PM-FIL, PM10-FIL, and/or PM25-FIL emissions data and the PM augmentation 

procedures were applied to the emissions that Vermont provided to calculate emissions for the 

other forms of PM. Vermont’s inventory does not include NH3 emissions. 

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

This section provides a summary of potential revisions to incorporate into future versions of the 

MANE-VU point source inventory. 
 31 

All States – A coordinated effort between the S/L agencies should be developed to apply 

consistent methods to avoid having to apply procedures to augment inventory data to correct for 

the QA issues and fill in missing data as discussed previously in this chapter. For example, this 

will ensure that consistent methods are applied across S/L agencies to ensure accurate reporting 

of stack parameters, PM emissions, and minimize other QA issues that were identified during the 

development of Versions 1, 2, and 3 of the inventory. 

For PM emissions, the S/L agencies should develop and apply a consistent method for including 

condensible emissions for fuel combustion sources that can be applied when the agencies 

develop their inventories. This may include compiling the emission factors for all forms of PM 

into one database, organized by SCC and control type (for filterable emissions), and sharing the 

database among the MANE-VU S/L agencies. Use of a consistent set of emission factors will 

help to avoid the PM consistency issues identified in Versions 1, 2, and 3 of the MANE-VU 

inventory as well as ensure that condensible emissions are included in the primary emissions 

reported in the inventory. 

The EGU crosswalk should be maintained to ensure that State Facility IDs and EU IDs are 

correctly matched with ORIS IDs and boiler IDs. 

State-specific suggestions are as follows: 

Connecticut, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont – Include NH3 emissions. 

New Jersey – Develop a method to translate the SCCs that are less than 8 digits reported by 

facilities to 8 digit SCCs for reporting in the inventory. 
32

CHAPTER III – AREA SOURCES 

A. General Methods for all States 

1. What Data Sources Were Used? 

Version 1 of the 2002 MANE-VU area source inventory was built on the inventories that the 

State agencies submitted to EPA from May through July of 2004 as a requirement of the CERR. 

Except for Rhode Island, all of the MANE-VU States also submitted area source inventories to 

EPA. Rhode Island elected to use the preliminary 2002 NEI for its area source inventory. The 

EPA performed some limited QA review of the State inventories to identify format, referential 

integrity, and duplicate record issues. The EPA revised the inventories to address these issues 

and made the files available to the State agencies on August 6, 2004. These inventory files were 

used as the starting point for the MANE-VU inventory. These inventory files were obtained 

from EPA, consolidated into a single data set, subjected to extensive QA review, and revised (as 

approved by the MANE-VU State agencies) to address QA issues and fill data gaps identified 

while preparing Version 1. Subsequently, the following agencies provided revisions to their area 

source inventories: 

• Version 2 – District of Columbia, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Jersey, 

New York, and Vermont. 

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

The Version 2 and 3 revisions for these States are discussed in section III.B (State-Specific 

Methods) of this chapter. In addition, as requested by MANE-VU, revisions were made to 

Version 3 to (1) add emissions for portable fuel containers (PFCs), industrial adhesives, and 

outdoor residential wood combustion for some States; (2) decrease the PM2.5 emissions for paved 

and unpaved roads and construction for all States; and (3) remove invalid CE records that 

originated from the preliminary 2002 NEI for some States. These revisions are explained in 

section III.A.3 of this chapter. 
33

To track the origin of data, the temporal period of emissions, and to facilitate generation of 

emission summaries, the following NIF plus fields were added to the EP, PE, EM, and CE tables: 

• Data Source Codes: 

For the area source inventory data, the data source codes are based on the following 9-character 

format: 

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

Code Field Length

Data Origin 1 

Year 3 (including leading hyphen) 

Grown/Not Grown/Carried Forward 2 (including leading hyphen) 

PM Augmentation 3 (including leading hyphen) 

Data Origin Codes

Code Description 

S State agency-supplied data 

L Local agency-supplied data 

R Tribal agency-supplied data 

P Regional Planning Organization 

E EPA/Emission Factors and Inventory Group (EFIG)-generated data 

Year Codes

Year for which data are supplied (e.g., Year = -02 for 2002), or from which prior year 

data are taken (e.g., Year = -99 for 1999; -01=2001). 

Grown/Carried Forward/Not Grown Codes

Code Description 

-G Used when emissions in a pre-2002 inventory are grown to represent 2002 

emissions. 

-F Used when emissions in a pre-2002 inventory are carried forward and included 

in the 2002 inventory without adjustment for growth. 

-X Used when the emissions are not grown or are not carried forward. For 

example, X is used when emissions are calculated for the 2002 inventory using 

2002 activity, or when data are replaced with 2002 State data. 
34

PM Augmentation Codes

-PA PM Augmented Emissions: Record for PM10/PM2.5 emissions that were 

updated or added using ad-hoc updates. 

-PC PM Augmented Emissions: Record added for PM10/PM2.5 emissions estimated 

using the PM Calculator. 

-PR PM Augmented Emissions: Record added for PM10/PM2.5 emissions estimated 

using ratios of PM10-to-PM or PM2.5-to-PM10. If PM10 and PM2.5 emissions 

are equal and one of the pollutants is assigned this code, the ratio is assumed to 

be 1. 

• Revision Date: This field indicates the month and year during which the last revision was 

made to a record. 

 

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

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

The following NIF plus fields were added to the EM table: 

• Emission Ton Value: This field indicates the values of the emissions in tons. This field 

was used to prepare summaries of emissions on a consistent EU basis. 

• Emission Type Period: This field indicates the period of the Emission Type – either 

ANNUAL, SEASONAL, MONTHLY, or DAILY. Emission table records designated as 

ANNUAL were used to prepare summaries of annual emissions. 

• CAP_HAP: This field identifies records for CAP versus records for HAPs. For the 

MANE-VU inventory, the flag is CAP for all records. 

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

2. What Quality Assurance Steps Were Performed? 

A QAPP was prepared and approved by MANE-VU/MARAMA and the EPA Regional Office 

prior to initiating work on Version 1 of the inventory (MANE-VU, 2004a). This QAPP was 

followed during preparation of all three versions of the inventory. This section provides an 

overview of the QA checks completed on each version of the inventory. The QA process for 

each State inventory involved the following steps that are also included in the following 

discussion: 

• Conduct QA checks on each State inventory; 

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

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

• Repeat the QA checks on the revised inventory to verify that the corrections were 

completed; 
35

• Perform augmentation to correct for missing data; and 

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

a. QA checks for State emission inventories 

The following QA checks were run on each State inventory: 

i. County and SCC coverage 

ii. Pollutant coverage 

iii. EPA QA summaries sent to State agencies 

iv. Range errors 

v. PM emissions consistency and completeness review 

vi. Control device type and control efficiency data review 

vii. Start and end date checks 

viii. Annual and daily emissions comparison 

County and SCC Coverage

The county coverage in the State inventories appeared to be reasonable for all States. The SCC 

coverage was difficult to evaluate simply by showing a count of the number of SCCs by State. 

Each State inventory was compared to the preliminary 2002 NEI, and area source categories in 

the NEI but not in a State inventory were sent to each agency for review. Each State agency then 

selected the NEI categories that were then added to the MANE-VU inventory. 

Pollutant Coverage

The pollutant coverage in the State inventories was complete for all pollutants except for PM10

and PM2.5. Diagnosis and resolution of PM10 and PM2.5 pollutant emissions is discussed later in 

section III.A.2.c. The exception was Connecticut who included only VOC, NOx, and CO 

emissions in its inventory submittal to EPA. 

EPA QA Summaries Sent to State Agencies

Under a separate project with EPA, Pechan performed QA review of the State area source 

inventories. This QA review involved running EPA’s QA program on each data set to identify 

and resolve QA issues. Using the results of this QA work, Pechan prepared two sets of QA 

summaries that EPA sent to the State agencies. Pechan contacted each State agency with QA 

issues identified in the EPA reports to obtain direction for correcting the QA issues identified in 

the reports. The following explains these two summaries: 
36

High-level Summary of State Inventories Submitted to EPA: 

The first summary was an Excel workbook file with four spreadsheets that provided the 

following information: 

• 2002 Nonpoint File Names: This spreadsheet documented names and formats of the 

files that EPA received from the State agencies and the dates on which they were 

transferred to Pechan. 

• 2002 Nonpoint Summary: This spreadsheet documented the name of the state 

agency, type of inventory (i.e., CAP, HAP, or both), a comparison of the number of 

the counties in the inventory to the total number of counties in the State to identify 

the geographic coverage of the inventory, a unique list of CAP codes, and the total 

number of area source SCCs. This spreadsheet also indicated if any nonroad or 

onroad emissions data were moved from the agency’s area source inventory to its 

nonroad or onroad inventory. 

• 2002 Nonpoint Emission Sums: This spreadsheet summarized emissions by start 

date, end date, and emission type and assigned the appropriate code to the emission 

type period NIF plus field. 

• 2002 Nonpoint Error Summary: This spreadsheet provided a copy of the 

“SummaryStats” table from the EPA QA program (EPA, 2004a). This table 

provided the count of records for each NIF 3.0 table and identified the number of 

records with errors by type of error. 

Detailed Summary of QA Issues: 

This summary (sent to State agencies on August 11) was prepared in a text file that listed by 

State and NIF table the number of records with errors, and provided corrections for the errors. 

To support documentation of corrections to some of the errors in the text file, Pechan prepared 

an Excel workbook file that summarized the following errors and corrections by State: invalid 

pollutants codes; invalid units; invalid maximum achievable control technology (MACT) codes; 

and invalid and inactive SCCs. A spreadsheet was also included to show the mapping of 

standard industrial classification (SIC) codes to North American Industrial Classification System 

(NAICS) codes. This crosswalk was used to correct invalid NAICS codes if a valid SIC code 

was available in the State inventories and vice versa. 
37

Additional QA for the MANE-VU Area Source Inventory

The following explains additional QA and data tracking that was performed for the MANE-VU 

inventory. The following data elements were reviewed to identify QA issues: 

• Range Errors; 

• PM Emissions Consistency and Completeness; 

• Control Device Codes and Control Efficiency Values; 

• Start and End Dates; 

• Annual and Daily Emissions Comparison; and 

• Comparison of State Inventories to the 2002 Preliminary NEI. 

For each State inventory for which QA issues were identified, a separate QA Summary Report 

was prepared in an Excel workbook file, and sent to each State agency for review. The State 

agencies provided directions in the Excel Workbook file, via e-mail, or by submitting revised 

records in NIF 3.0 in an Access database to correct the inventories. The QA reports are 

discussed under section III.A.2.b. 

Range Errors

The EPA’s QA program contains routines that compare annual emission values, numeric fields 

in the PE and EP tables, and other temporal numeric fields against a range of values. The QA 

program flags records that are less than or greater than the range of values for review. Pechan 

summarized the range errors for the State agencies to review and provide corrections. According 

to EPA, the ranges to which values in inventories are compared represent “normal” ranges that 

are based on percentiles from previous inventories. The range values are conservative in that 

EPA wants to identify suspicious values even though the values may be real (Thompson, 2002).

PM Emissions Consistency and Completeness Review

The following consistency checks were performed at the EM table data key level (for annual 

emissions) to compare PM emissions: 

• If an SCC was associated with a PM emission record, but was missing one or more of 

the following (as appropriate for the SCC [i.e., PM-CON is associated with fuel 

combustion only]): PM10-FIL, PM10-PRI, PM25-FIL, PM25-PRI, or PM-CON, the 

record was flagged for review. 

• The following equations were used to determine consistency: 

 PM10-FIL + PM-CON = PM10-PRI 

 PM25-FIL + PM-CON = PM25-PRI 
38

• The following comparisons were made to determine consistency: 

 PM10-PRI >= PM10-FIL 

 PM25-PRI >= PM25-FIL 

 PM10-PRI >= PM-CON 

 PM25-PRI >= PM-CON 

 PM10-FIL >= PM25-FIL 

 PM10-PRI >= PM25-PRI 

If the data failed one of these checks it was diagnosed as an error. If a State agency did not 

provide corrections to these errors, the errors were corrected/filled in according to an 

augmentation procedure explained in section III.A.2.c. 

For information purposes, all PM-PRI and PM-FIL records were flagged to indicate that these 

pollutants were included instead of, or in addition to, the standard PM10-PRI/FIL, PM25-

PRI/FIL, and PM-CON pollutants. 

Control Device Type and Control Efficiency Data Review

The CE codes in the “Primary Device Type Code” and “Secondary Device Type Code” fields 

were reviewed to identify invalid codes (i.e., codes that did not exist in the NIF 3.0 reference 

table) and missing codes (e.g., records with a null or uncontrolled code of 000 but with control 

efficiency data). 

QA review of control efficiency data involved diagnosis of two types of errors. First, records 

were reviewed to identify control efficiency values that were reported as a decimal rather than as 

a percent value. Records with control efficiencies with decimal values were flagged as a 

potential error (although not necessarily an error, since the real control efficiency may be less 

than 1%). Records with a 1% control efficiency value were also identified for review by the 

State agency to determine if the value was reported as a decimal in its internal data system but 

rounded to 1% when the data were converted to NIF 3.0. 

The second check identified records where 100% control was reported in the CE table, but the 

emissions in the EM table were greater than zero and the rule effectiveness value in the EM table 

was null, zero, or 100% (implying 100% control of emissions). Because many agencies did not 

populate the rule effectiveness field or a default value of zero was assigned, records with null or 

zero rule effectiveness values were included where the CE was 100% and emissions were greater 

than zero. For records that met these criteria, Pechan consulted with the State agency to 

determine if corrections were needed to any of the fields. 

Start and End Date Checks

QA review was conducted to identify start and end date values in the PE and EM tables to 

confirm consistency with the inventory year in the TR table, and to confirm that the end date 

reported was greater than the start date reported. 
39

Annual and Daily Emissions Comparison

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

• Multiple records coded at the SCC level as emission type 30, but with different start 

and end dates. While not a true duplicate, this may indicate an error or inclusion of 

both annual and seasonal values. 

• Multiple records coded at the SCC level as a daily emission type (27, 29, etc.) but 

with different start and end dates. While not a true duplicate, this may indicate an 

error or just inclusion of additional types of daily emissions. 

• Multiple records coded at the SCC level with the same start and end date, but 

different emission types. While not a true duplicate, this may indicate an error or 

just inclusion of additional types of daily emissions. 

• Any “DAILY” type record that was missing its associated “ANNUAL” record was 

flagged for review. 

• Any “DAILY” type record that was greater than its associated “ANNUAL” record 

was flagged for review. 

b. Responses from State Agencies 

QA Summary Reports were sent to the State agencies to review the QA issues identified. The 

State agencies were asked to return these reports to MANE-VU with their corrections 

documented in the reports. These reports were then used to document revisions to the State 

inventories. The QA Summary Reports containing the revisions provided by the State agencies 

are provided in Excel Workbook files with this TSD. 

c. Gap Filling and Augmentation 

This section explains the methods used to add data for categories and/or pollutants missing in a 

State’s inventory after revising the inventory to address QA issues. 

i. MANE-VU sponsored inventories 

ii. PM augmentation 

iii. Fossil fuel combustion sources 

iv. Other sources of PM emissions 

v. Merging of NEI data into S/L inventories 

vi. Revisions to the preliminary 2002 NEI incorporated into Version 1 of 

the MANE-VU inventory 

vii. Additional work on Area source methods 

- Fugitive Dust Emissions from Paved and Unpaved Roads 

- Wildfires and Prescribed Burning 
40

The following discusses the augmentation procedures that were applied to the State inventories 

to improve the inventories or to fill in missing data not supplied by the State agencies. 

MANE-VU -Sponsored Inventories

MANE-VU sponsored inventory development for residential wood combustion, open burning, 

public owned treatment works (POTWs), compositing, and industrial refrigeration. At the 

beginning of the project for developing Version 1, each State agency was requested to indicate if 

it (1) included the MANE-VU-sponsored inventory for one or more of these categories in the 

inventory it submitted to EPA; (2) included its own estimates for a category in the inventory it 

submitted to EPA; or (3) if it did not include a category in its inventory, if the MANE-VUsponsored inventory or the 2002 preliminary NEI should be used as the source of data for the 

category. The results of this Version 1 inventory development request are summarized in Table 

III-1. 

Improvements to fugitive dust emissions for the paved and unpaved road categories were 

completed after the draft version of the consolidated area source inventory was prepared. 

Agencies provided guidance on if they wanted the MANE-VU-sponsored inventory for these two 

categories to replace the paved and unpaved road inventories they had included in their 

inventories. For paved roads, all States requested that the MANE-VU-sponsored inventory be 

used; however, New Jersey and Maryland requested that the winter-time sand/silt adjustment not 

be included in their inventories. For unpaved roads, nine of the 12 States requested that the 

MANE-VU-sponsored inventory be used. New Jersey requested that its unpaved road inventory 

be used instead of the MANE-VU-sponsored inventory. In addition, the District of Columbia 

and Delaware do not have any unpaved road activity and excluded this category from their 

inventories. 

PM Augmentation

Procedures were developed to estimate missing pollutant data from data provided by the State 

agencies in order to develop a complete set of PM10-PRI and PM25-PRI emissions to support air 

quality modeling. The following discusses the procedures for fossil fuel combustion sources first 

followed by the procedures for all other area sources of PM emissions. 

Fossil Fuel Combustion Sources

Fossil fuel combustion sources include industrial, commercial/institutional, and residential 

anthracite coal, bituminous/subbituminous coal, distillate oil and kerosene, residual oil, natural 

gas, and LPG. All of these sources emit both filterable and condensible emissions. The QA 

review of the PM emissions data for these sources focused on verifying that the emissions 

reported in the State inventories included both filterable and condensible emissions. The 

emissions for these pollutants can be reported in State inventories individually (i.e., as filterable 

and condensible separately) or as primary emissions (i.e., the sum of the filterable and 

condensible emissions). The QA review also focused on evaluating the emission factors reported 

in the State inventories to determine if they were reasonable. 
41 

Table III-1. Summary of MANE-VU-Sponsored Inventories Included in Version 1 of th

Source Consolidated Emissions Inventory 

MANE-VU Inventory Included in 

State’s Inventory Submitted to 

EPA 

Not Included in State’s 

Inventory - Add to MANE-VU 

Inventory 

State’s Inventory Include

Developed Estimat

Area Source 

Category Pollutant SCCs Annual 

Summer 

Day 

Winter 

Day Annual 

Summer 

Day 

Winter 

Day Annual 

Summer 

Day 

POTWs NH3, VOC 2630020010 

(Wastewater 

Treatment) 

DE, NJ, PA DE, NJ, PA VT VT CT, DC, DE, 

MA, MD, NH, 

NJ, NY 

CT, DC, DE, 

MA, MD, NH

NJ 

 2630020020 

(Biosolids 

Processes) 

DE, NJ, PA DE, NJ, PA VT VT CT, DC, DE, 

MA, MD, NH, 

NJ, NY 

CT, DC, DE, 

MA, MD, NH

NJ 

 2630050000 

(Digested Sludge) 

DE, NH, 

NJ, PA 

DE, NH, NJ, 

PA 

 VT VT CT, DC, DE, 

MA, MD, NY

CT, DC, DE, 

MA, MD 

Composting NH3, VOC 2680001000 (Biosolids) NH, NJ NH, NJ CT, DC, MA, ME, 

PA, VT 

CT, DC, MA, 

ME, PA, VT 

 2680002000 

(Mixed Biosolids and 

Green Waste) 

NH, NJ NH, NJ CT, DC, 

MA, ME, 

PA, VT 

CT, DC, MA, 

ME, PA, VT 

 2680003000 

(Composting; Green 

Waste) 

 DC, MA, 

ME 

DC, MA, ME 

Industrial Refrigeration 

NH3 2399010000 ME, NH, 

NJ 

ME, NH, NJ CT, MA, 

PA, VT 

CT, MA, PA, 

VT 

2104008000 

(Indoor) 

MA, MD, 

NH 

MA, MD, 

NH 

MA, MD, 

NH 

CT, DE, 

ME 

CT, DE, ME CT, DE, 

ME 

Residential NJ, NY, VT NJ Wood Combustion 

All criteria 

pollutants/ 

precursors, and 

many toxic air 

pollutants 

2104008070 

(Outdoor) 

MA, MD, 

NH 

MA, MD, 

NH 

MA, MD, 

NH 

CT, DE, 

ME 

CT, DE, ME CT, DE, 

ME 

2610000100 

(Leaves) 

MA, MD, 

NH, PA 

 DC, DE, 

NY, VT 

 NJ NJ 

2610000400 

(Brush) 

MA, MD, 

PA 

 CT, DC, 

DE, NY, VT

 NJ NJ 

2610030000 

(Municipal Solid 

Waste) 

MA, MD, 

PA 

 DC, DE, 

NY 

 NH, NJ NH, NJ 

Open Burning All criteria pollutants/ 

precursors, and 

many toxic air 

pollutants 

2610040400 

(Municipal Yard 

Waste) 

MA, NY, 

PA 

 DC, NY, 

VT 

 DE, NJ DE, NJ 
Table III-1 (continued) 

42 

Notes: Gray shading identifies categories for which daily emissions are not available. POTWs: CT, MD: Provided VOC but not NH3 emissions in its State inventory. 

DC, MA, MD, ME, NH, RI: Reported POTW emissions under SCC 2630020000 (Total Processed). DE: MANE-VU inventory used for NH3; DE provided its own VOC emissions under SCC 2630020000 (Total Processed). 

NJ: MANE-VU-sponsored inventory used for NH3 only. NJ included its own inventory for the other criteria pollutants under SCCs 2630010000 and 2630020000. 

NY: Reported VOC emissions under SCC 2630000000 (from the preliminary 2002 NEI) and SCC 2630020000 (State-developed inventory). MANE-VU-sponsored 

Composting: CT, NH: SCC 2680003000 is not in the MANE-VU-sponsored composting inventory for these States. DE: This State does not have composting activity. MD: State requested that the MANE-VU inventory for this category not be included in its inventory. NY, RI: Did not include emissions for this category in the 2002 inventory. Industrial Refrigeration: DC: Requested that the preliminary 2002 NEI be used but the NEI does not contain any emissions for this category in DC. DE: State-developed emissions are included in point source inventory. MD, RI: Did not include emissions for this category in its inventory. ME: Used the MANE-VU inventory emissions under SCC 2302080002 (Miscellaneous Food and Kindred Products/Refrigeration). 

NH: Original inventory submittal to EPA includes SO2 and PM emissions for SCC 2399000000 from the preliminary 2002 NEI; NH3 emissions for SCC 239901000

NY: Original inventory submittal to EPA includes SO2 and PM emissions for SCC 2399000000 from the preliminary 2002 NEI; NY did not use the MANE-VU-spon

2399010000. 

Residential Wood Combustion: DC: RWC inventory in 2002 NEI covers seven SCCs and does not include daily emissions. Open Burning: CT: Statewide activity for SCC 2610000100 (Leaves) and SCC 2610030000 (Municipal Solid Waste) is negligible.  For SCCs 2610000400 (Brush) and 2610040400 (Municipal Yard Waste), State initially provided VOC, NOx, and CO emissions under SCC 2610000000 whic

master SCC list. CT recalculated emissions to include VOC, NOx, CO, PM10-PRI/-FIL, and PM25-PRI/-FIL, and placed the emissions on valid SCC 261

since the majority of the activity is associated with activities covered by this SCC. 

MD: The MANE-VU inventory for SCC 2610040400 (Municipal Yard Waste) reports zero emissions indicating that the activity for the category does not occur in M

inventory for this reason. 

NH: Did not include NH3 emissions in MANE-VU inventory for SCC 2610040400 (Municipal Yard Waste). 
43 

To support the QA review effort, the uncontrolled PM emission factors shown in Table III-2 

were compiled from AP-42. The emission factors reported in the State inventories were 

compared to the emission factors in this table. Emission factors that appeared too high or too 

low were flagged for review by the State agency. In addition, inventory data were flagged for 

review by the State agency if the emissions were reported under the primary PM pollutant codes 

but the emission factors matched with the emission factors for filterable PM in Table III-2. 

Finally, if emission factors were not reported in the State agency inventory, the emission factors 

were back-calculated using the throughput data (if available), emissions, rule effectiveness 

values, and control efficiency data (if available). The back-calculated emission factors were 

compared to the factors in Table III-2 to identify data with major difference between the factors. 

It is emphasized that the uncontrolled emission factors in Table III-2 were used as a reference for 

reviewing State inventory data. The emission factors in this table should not be construed to be 

the best available for all State agencies since the emission factors will vary depending on the 

composition of the boiler population in an agency’s area source inventory. 

Delaware, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania 

provided their own inventory for all fossil fuel combustion categories. Connecticut, the District 

of Columbia, Maine, Rhode Island, and Vermont used fossil fuel combustion inventory data in 

the preliminary 2002 NEI for some or all of the categories. The following provides details on the 

origin of the fossil fuel combustion inventories for these States: 

 

Connecticut supplied VOC, NOx, and CO emissions from its 1999 inventory for industrial 

and commercial/institutional fossil fuel combustion. PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI, SO2, and 

NH3 emissions were taken from preliminary NEI estimates (carried forward from 

Version 3 of the 1999 NEI). For the residential sector, Connecticut’s inventory was taken 

from the preliminary 2002 NEI. Connecticut provided guidance on the counties with 

natural gas and LPG activity for which to use the NEI estimates. 

For the District of Columbia, the preliminary NEI was used to gap fill missing PM10-PRI 

and PM25-PRI emissions for commercial/institutional bituminous/ subbituminous coal 

combustion and PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI, SO2, and NH3 for commercial/institutional natural 

gas combustion. The NEI estimates for these commercial/institutional categories were 

carried forward from Version 3 of the 1999 NEI. The District of Columbia used the NEI 

estimates for residential bituminous/subbituminous coal combustion. 

Maine and Rhode Island used the preliminary 2002 NEI for all three sectors. The NEI 

estimates for the industrial and commercial/institutional sectors were carried forward from 

Version 3 of the 1999 NEI, while the residential sector estimates are based on 2000 or 

2002 activity estimates prepared by EPA. 

Vermont used the preliminary 2002 NEI for the industrial and commercial/ institutional 

sectors and residential anthracite coal (carried forward from Version 3 of the 1999 NEI), 

but provided its own inventory for residential distillate oil, natural gas, and LPG. 

 
44 

Table III-2. Area Source Industrial, Commercial/Institutional, and Residential Fossil Fuel 

Uncontrolled Emission Factors for PM10-PRI/FIL, PM25-PRI/FIL, and PM-CON 

Pollutant1 

Uncontrolled Emission Factor (EF) EF Numerator EF Denominator 

Calculated Uncontrolled EF Reference 

Industrial Boilers: Anthracite Coal (SCC 2102001000) PM10-FIL 2.3 x % Ash content 

of coal 

LB TON 30.77 AP-42 Table 1.2-4 EF calculated from formula o

(13.38%). Reference for ash content is EPA, 20

PM25-FIL 0.6 x % Ash content 

of coal 

LB TON 8.03 AP-42 Table 1.2-4 EF calculated from formula o

(13.38%) (used Commercial/Institutional emissio

content is EPA, 2002. 

PM-CON 0.08 x % Ash 

content of coal 

LB TON 1.07 AP-42 Table 1.2-3 Used formula for SCC 10300

formula of .08 * % Ash Content (13.38%). Refer2002. 

PM10-PRI LB TON 31.84 PM25-PRI LB TON 9.10 Industrial Boilers: Bituminous/Subbituminous Coal (SCC 2102002000) PM10-FIL 13.2 LB TON 13.2 AP-42 Table 1.1-9 EF (used Commercial/InstitutPM25-FIL 4.6 LB TON 4.6 AP-42 Table 1.1-9 EF (used Commercial/InstitutPM-CON 1.04 LB TON 1.04 AP-42 Table 1.1-5 (used Commercial/InstitutionaPM10-PRI LB TON 14.24 PM25-PRI LB TON 5.64 Industrial Boilers and IC Engines: Distillate Oil (SCC 2102004000) PM10-FIL 1 LB E3GAL 1 AP-42 Table 1.3-6 PM25-FIL 0.25 LB E3GAL 0.25 AP-42 Table 1.3-6 PM-CON 1.3 LB E3GAL 1.3 AP-42 Table 1.3-2 PM10-PRI LB E3GAL 2.30 PM25-PRI LB E3GAL 1.55 Industrial Boilers: Residual Oil (SCC 2102005000) PM10-FIL 7.17 x % Sulfur 

content of oil 

LB E3GAL 10.683 AP-42 Table 1.3-5. EF calculated from formula 

A=1.12(S)+0.37; Assumed S=1% for purpose of 

PM25-FIL 4.67 x % Sulfur 

content of oil 

LB E3GAL 6.958 AP-42 Table 1.3-5. EF calculated from formula 

A=1.12(S)+0.37; Assumed S=1% for purpose of 

PM-CON 1.5 LB E3GAL 1.5 AP-42 Table 1.3-2 PM10-PRI LB E3GAL 12.18 PM25-PRI LB E3GAL 8.46 Industrial Boilers and IC Engines: Natural Gas (SCC 2102006000) PM10-FIL 1.9 LB E6FT3 1.9 AP-42 Table 1.4-2 PM25-FIL 1.9 LB E6FT3 1.9 AP-42 Table 1.4-2 PM-CON 5.7 LB E6FT3 5.7 AP-42 Table 1.4-2 PM10-PRI 7.6 LB E6FT3 7.60 PM25-PRI 7.6 LB E6FT3 7.60 
Table III-2 (continued) 

45 

Pollutant1 

Uncontrolled Emission Factor (EF) EF Numerator EF Denominator 

Calculated Uncontrolled EF Reference 

Industrial Boilers - Liquified Petroleum Gas (SCC 2102007000) PM10-FIL 0.6 LB E3GAL 0.6 AP-42 Table 1.5-1 PM25-FIL 0.6 LB E3GAL 0.6 AP-42 Table 1.5-1 PM-CON 0.506 LB E3GAL 0.506 Used natural gas PM-CON emission factor of 5.

PM controls and uncontrolled). Used factor of 0

factor from lb/Million Cubic Feet of natural gas to Reference: AP-42, Table 1.4-2. Conversion facnatural gas (AP-42, Table 1.4-2) and 90,500 BtuAppendix A, page A-5). 

PM10-PRI LB E3GAL 1.11 PM25-PRI LB E3GAL 1.11 Industrial Boilers: Kerosene (SCC 2102011000) PM10-FIL 1 LB E3GAL 1 AP-42 Table 1.3-6 PM25-FIL 0.25 LB E3GAL 0.25 AP-42 Table 1.3-6 PM-CON 1.3 LB E3GAL 1.3 AP-42 Table 1.3-6 PM10-PRI LB E3GAL 2.30 PM25-PRI LB E3GAL 1.55 Commercial/Institutional Heating: Anthracite Coal (SCC 2103001000) PM10-FIL 2.3 x % Ash content 

of coal 

LB TON 30.77 AP-42 Table 1.2-4 EF calculated from formula o

(13.38%). Reference for ash content is EPA, 20

PM25-FIL 0.6 x % Ash content 

of coal 

LB TON 8.03 AP-42 Table 1.2-4 EF calculated from formula o

(13.38%). Reference for ash content is EPA, 20

PM-CON 0.08 x % Ash 

content of coal 

LB TON 1.07 AP-42 Table 1.2-3 Used formula for SCC 10300

formula of 0.08 * % Ash Content (13.38%). Refe

2002. 

PM10-PRI LB TON 31.84 PM25-PRI LB TON 9.10 Commercial/Institutional Heating: Bituminous and Lignite (SCC 2103002000) PM10-FIL 13.2 LB TON 13.2 AP-42 Table 1.1-9 EF PM25-FIL 4.6 LB TON 4.6 AP-42 Table 1.1-9 EF PM-CON 1.04 LB TON 1.04 AP-42 Table 1.1-5 (0.04 lb/MMBtu * 26MMBtu/toPM10-PRI LB TON 14.24 PM25-PRI LB TON 5.64 Commercial/Institutional Heating: Distillate Oil (SCC 2103004000) PM10-FIL 1.08 LB E3GAL 1.08 AP-42 Table 1.3-7 PM25-FIL 0.83 LB E3GAL 0.83 AP-42 Table 1.3-7 PM-CON 1.3 LB E3GAL 1.3 AP-42 Table 1.3-2 PM10-PRI LB E3GAL 2.38 PM25-PRI LB E3GAL 2.13 
Table III-2 (continued) 

46 

Pollutant1

Uncontrolled Emission Factor (EF) EF Numerator EF Denominator 

Calculated Uncontrolled EF Reference 

Commercial/Institutional Heating: Residual Oil (SCC 2103005000) PM10-FIL 5.17 x % Sulfur 

content of oil 

LB E3GAL 7.703 AP-42 Table 1.3-7. EF calculated from formula 

A=1.12(S)+0.37; Assumed S=1% for purpose of 

PM25-FIL 1.92 x % Sulfur 

content of oil 

LB E3GAL 2.861 AP-42 Table 1.3-7. EF calculated from formula 

A=1.12(S)+0.37; Assumed S=1% for purpose of 

PM-CON 1.5 LB E3GAL 1.5 AP-42, Table 1.3-2 PM10-PRI LB E3GAL 9.20 PM25-PRI LB E3GAL 4.36 Commercial/Institutional Heating: Natural Gas (SCC 2103006000) PM10-FIL 1.9 LB E6FT3 1.9 AP-42 Table 1.4-2 PM25-FIL 1.9 LB E6FT3 1.9 AP-42 Table 1.4-2 PM-CON 5.7 LB E6FT3 5.7 AP-42 Table 1.4-2 PM10-PRI LB E6FT3 7.60 PM25-PRI LB E6FT3 7.60 Commercial/Institutional Heating: Liquified Petroleum Gas (SCC 2103007000) PM10-FIL 0.4 LB E3GAL 0.4 AP-42 Table 1.5-1 (Propane for Commercial BoiPM25-FIL 0.4 LB E3GAL 0.4 AP-42 Table 1.5-1 (Propane for Commercial BoiPM-CON 0.506 LB E3GAL 0.506 Used natural gas PM-CON emission factor of 5.

PM controls and uncontrolled). Used factor of 0

factor from lb/Million Cubic Feet of natural gas to Reference: AP-42, Table 1.4-2. Conversion facnatural gas (AP-42, Table 1.4-2) and 90,500 BtuAppendix A, page A-5). 

PM10-PRI LB E3GAL 0.91 PM25-PRI LB E3GAL 0.91 Commercial/Institutional Heating: Kerosene (SCC 2103011000) PM10-FIL 1.08 LB E3GAL 1.08 AP-42 Table 1.3-7 Used EF for Distillate Oil (per PM25-FIL 0.83 LB E3GAL 0.83 AP-42 Table 1.3-7 Used EF for Distillate Oil (per PM-CON 1.3 LB E3GAL 1.3 AP-42 Table 1.3-2 Used EF for Distillate Oil (per PM10-PRI LB E3GAL 2.38 PM25-PRI LB E3GAL 2.13 Residential Heating: Anthracite Coal (SCC 2104001000) PM10-FIL 10 LB TON 10 EPA, 2002. PM25-FIL 0.6 x % Ash content 

of coal 

LB TON 8.03 EF calculated from formula of 0.6 * % Ash Conte

EF and ash content is EPA, 2002. 

PM-CON 0.08 x % Ash 

content of coal 

LB TON 1.07 EF calculated from formula of 0.08 * % Ash Con

EF and ash content is EPA, 2002. 

PM10-PRI LB TON 11.07 PM25-PRI LB TON 9.10 
Table III-2 (continued) 

47 

Pollutant1

Uncontrolled Emission Factor (EF) EF Numerator EF Denominator 

Calculated Uncontrolled EF Reference 

Residential Heating: Bituminous and Lignite Coal (SCC 2104002000) PM10-FIL 6.2 LB TON 6.2 AP-42 Table 1.1-11 PM25-FIL 3.8 LB TON 3.8 AP-42 Table 1.1-11 PM-CON 1.04 LB TON 1.04 AP-42 Table 1.1-5 (0.04 lb/MMBtu * 26 MMBtu/tPM10-PRI LB TON 7.24 PM25-PRI LB TON 4.84 Residential Heating: Distillate Oil (SCC 2104004000) PM10-FIL 1.08 LB E3GAL 1.08 AP-42 Table 1.3-7 (Commercial/Institutional EF) PM25-FIL 0.83 LB E3GAL 0.83 AP-42 Table 1.3-7 (Commercial/Institutional EF) PM-CON 1.3 LB E3GAL 1.3 AP-42 Table 1.3-2 PM10-PRI LB E3GAL 2.38 PM25-PRI LB E3GAL 2.13 Residential Heating: Natural Gas - All types (SCC 2104006000) PM10-FIL 1.9 LB E6FT3 1.9 AP-42 Table 1.4.2 PM25-FIL 1.9 LB E6FT3 1.9 AP-42 Table 1.4.2 PM-CON 5.7 LB E6FT3 5.7 AP-42 Table 1.4.2 PM10-PRI LB E6FT3 7.60 PM25-PRI LB E6FT3 7.60 Residential Heating: Liquified Petroleum Gas (SCC 2104007000) PM10-FIL 0.4 LB E3GAL 0.4 AP-42 Table 1.5-1 (Same factor used for Propan

based on EIIP) 

PM25-FIL 0.4 LB E3GAL 0.4 AP-42 Table 1.5-1 (Same factor used for Propan

based on EIIP) 

PM-CON 0.506 LB E3GAL 0.506 Used natural gas PM-CON emission factor of 5.

PM controls and uncontrolled). Used factor of 0

factor from lb/Million Cubic Feet of natural gas to Reference: AP-42, Table 1.4-2. Conversion facnatural gas (AP-42, Table 1.4-2) and 90,500 BtuAppendix A, page A-5). 

PM10-PRI LB E3GAL 0.91 PM25-PRI LB E3GAL 0.91 Residential Heating: Kerosene (SCC 2104011000) PM10-FIL 1.08 LB E3GAL 1.08 AP-42 Table 1.3-7 Used EF for Distillate Oil (per PM25-FIL 0.83 LB E3GAL 0.83 AP-42 Table 1.3-7 Used EF for Distillate Oil (per PM-CON 1.3 LB E3GAL 1.3 AP-42 Table 1.3-2 Used EF for Distillate Oil (per PM10-PRI LB E3GAL 2.38 PM25-PRI LB E3GAL 2.13 1 PM10-PRI EF = sum of PM10-FIL and PM-CON emission factors; PM25-PRI EF = sum of PM25-FIL and PM-CON emission factors. 
48

Revisions to the NEI for residential LPG and kerosene were completed after the preliminary 

2002 NEI was released in February 2004. Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Maine, and 

Rhode Island approved replacement of the preliminary 2002 NEI estimates with the revised 

estimates for LPG. Connecticut was the only State that elected to use the NEI for the residential 

kerosene category, and Connecticut approved replacing the preliminary 2002 NEI for this 

category with the revised inventory prepared by EPA. 

Other Sources of PM Emissions

For States that provided only PM10-FIL and PM25-FIL emissions, PM10-PRI emissions were 

set equal to PM10-FIL emissions and PM25-PRI emissions were set equal to PM25-FIL 

emissions. The PM10-PRI and PM25-PRI emissions that were added to the inventory were 

assigned a data source code of S-02-X-PR where S-02-X represents the code assigned to the 

PM10-FIL and PM25-FIL emissions provided by the State agency and the “-PR” indicates that 

the ratio was applied to estimate the primary emissions (in this case, the ratio of primary to 

filterable emissions is “1”). 

PM25-PRI emissions missing from State inventories were estimated by applying a ratio of 

PM25-PRI-to-PM10-PRI emissions to the PM10-PRI emissions provided by the State agency. 

Table III-3 identifies the agencies with SCCs for which ratios were applied to estimate PM25-

PRI emissions. This table also shows the ratios and the reference for the ratios. 
49

Table III-3. SCCs for which PM25-PRI Emissions were Estimated by Applying a 

Ratio to the PM10-PRI Emissions in the State inventory 

SCC SCC Description Agency 

Ratio of 

PM25-

PRI to 

PM10-

PRI Reference 

2309100010 Industrial Processes: Fabricated Metals: 

SIC 34: Coating, Engraving, and Allied 

Services: Electroplating 

NY 0.947 AP-42 emission factors for hard chrome 

plating tank controlled with mist 

eliminator. AP-42 (Table 12.20-3) 

shows 94.7% of total PM as less than 

2.35 micrometers. Applied factor to 

State-supplied PM10-PRI emissions to 

estimate PM25-PRI emissions. 

2461023000 Solvent Utilization: Miscellaneous Nonindustrial: Commercial: Asphalt Roofing: 

Total: All Solvent Types 

MA 1 No data available; assumed PM25-PRI 

equals PM10-PRI. 

2601000000 Waste Disposal, Treatment, and Recovery: 

On-site Incineration: All Categories: Total 

MD, NH 1 No data available; assumed PM25-PRI 

equals PM10-PRI. 

2610000100 Waste Disposal, Treatment, and Recovery: 

On-site Incineration: All Categories: Yard 

Waste - Leaf Species Unspecified 

NH 1 No data available; assumed PM25-PRI 

equals PM10-PRI. 

2810001000 Miscellaneous Area Sources: Other 

Combustion: Forest Wildfires: Total 

MD 1 No data available; assumed PM25-PRI 

equals PM10-PRI. 

2810015000 Miscellaneous Area Sources: Other 

Combustion: Prescribed Burning for Forest 

Management: Total 

MD 1 No data available; assumed PM25-PRI 

equals PM10-PRI. 

2810020000 Miscellaneous Area Sources: Other 

Combustion: Prescribed Burning of 

Rangeland: Total 

MD 0.86 Based on ratio of PM25-PRI to PM10-

PRI for same SCC used by States in 

2002 NEI. 

2810030000 Miscellaneous Area Sources: Other 

Combustion: Structure Fires: Total 

MD, NH 0.91 NEI Method. 

2810050000 Miscellaneous Area Sources: Other 

Combustion: Motor Vehicle Fires: Total 

MD, NH 0.91 NEI Method. 

d. 2002 NEI 

Merging of NEI Data into State Inventories

The area source inventory provided by each State agency was compared to the 2002 NEI to 

identify categories in the NEI that were not in each State inventory. The list of categories 

identified was provided to each State agency and each agency then selected the NEI categories to 

be added to its inventory. Identification of categories included in the 2002 NEI but not in a State 

inventory involved a two-step process. First, Pechan identified the categories in the NEI that did 

not have an electronic match on the data key of the EM table between the State inventory and the 

NEI. Then, Pechan manually compared the NEI categories without an electronic match to the 

State inventory to identify and eliminate NEI categories that were in the State inventory but had 

a different SCC. For example, a State inventory may use a general SCC for a category while the 

NEI may use different SCCs to breakout emissions at a finer detail. Examples of categories 

where this typically occurred include the residential wood combustion, open burning of land 

clearing debris, solvent utilization, and petroleum marketing and transportation categories. In 
50

addition, if a State agency requested that a MANE-VU-sponsored inventory be added to its 

inventory, the NEI categories that overlapped with the MANE-VU -sponsored categories were 

removed from the list of NEI categories considered for incorporation into a State inventory. 

The source categories in the 2002 NEI that were added to a State inventory can be identified 

where the data source code starts with “E”. These categories can be identified using the data 

source code field in the NIF 3.0 files or in the summary of area source emissions that contains 

the data source code. 

Revisions to the Preliminary 2002 NEI

During preparation of the MANE-VU inventory, EPA completed revisions to the emissions for 

six categories in the preliminary 2002 NEI released in February 2004. As agreed to with each 

State agency, the revised emissions were used in the MANE-VU inventory in lieu of the 

preliminary 2002 NEI emissions if the agency requested that the category be included. 

• Non-Residential Construction (SCC 2311020000): 2002 emissions data replaced 

data in preliminary 2002 NEI that were carried forward from 1999 NEI. 

• Highway Construction (SCC 2311030000): 2002 emissions data replaced data in 

preliminary 2002 NEI that were carried forward from 1999 NEI. 

• Open Burning of Land Clearing Debris (SCC 2610000500): 2002 emissions data 

replaced data in preliminary 2002 NEI that were carried forward from 1999 NEI. 

The activity for this category was based on activity prepared for the non-residential 

and highway construction categories. For 2002, emissions were set to zero for 

counties with a population that was 80% urban or more based on 2000 Census data. 

This was not done for the 1999 NEI. For the NEI method, it was assumed that 

highly urban counties do not allow this activity to take place. Note that 2002 

emissions data were already included in the preliminary 2002 NEI for the open 

burning of residential municipal solid waste, open burning of yard waste, and the 

residential construction categories. 

• Residential LPG Combustion (SCC 2104007000): 2000 emissions data replaced 

data in the preliminary 2002 NEI that were carried forward from 1999 NEI. 

• Residential Kerosene Combustion (SCC 2104011000): 2000 emissions data 

replaced data in the preliminary 2002 NEI that were carried forward from 1999 

NEI. 

• Residential Wood Combustion (SCCs starting with 2104008xxx; 4 SCCs for 

fireplaces and 3 SCCs for woodstoves): The preliminary 2002 NEI emissions were 

revised to: 
51

• Correct the CO, PM10-PRI, and PM25-PRI emission factors for fireplaces 

without inserts (this change doubled the emission factors associated with 

correcting an error in converting the values from g/kg to lb/ton); 

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

• Replace 1997 total residential wood consumption with 2001 estimates (this 

change reduced wood consumption for fireplaces with inserts and 

woodstoves); 

• Update urban/rural population data to reflect 2002 estimates based on year 

2002 total county population and year 2000 county ratios of urban/rural 

population to total population; and 

• Change the data source code from E-02-X (this was incorrect) to E-01-X to 

reflect 2001 activity data adjusted to 2002. 

e. QA Review of Final Inventory 

Final QA checks were run on the revised data set to ensure that all corrections provided by the 

State agencies were incorporated into the State inventories and that there were no remaining QA 

issues that could be addressed during the duration of the project. After exporting the inventory 

in Oracle to an Access database in NIF 3.0, the EPA’s QA program was run on the Access 

database and the QA output was reviewed to verify that all QA issues that could be addressed 

were resolved (EPA, 2004a). 

The output file from the EPA’s QA program run on the area source inventory is provided 

in an Access 2000 database along with the Access database containing the area source inventory 

in NIF 3.0. 

Additional Work on Area Source Methods

• Fugitive Dust Emissions from Paved and Unpaved Roads 

Review of Methods 

This work involved compiling and summarizing information on emission estimation methods 

and data sources from the MANE-VU State agencies, RPOs, and EPA for the following fugitive 

dust area source categories: windblown dust, paved and unpaved roads, agricultural tiling and 

harvesting, and construction activities. A short survey form was prepared and sent to the 

MANE-VU State agencies to collect information on whether an agency had activity for each 

category during 2002. For each agency for which activity occurred in its jurisdiction during 

2002, information was requested on the methods and data sources it used to prepare its 2002 

inventory for each category. This information was used to prioritize the categories (e.g., work on 

agricultural field burning was eliminated from further consideration if MANE-VU State agencies 
52

did not have activity for this category). The methods and data applied by RPOs other than 

MANE-VU were obtained from RPO websites and discussions with the RPOs. 

The results of this review were documented in a technical memorandum (MANE-VU, 2004b). 

Based on the results of the review, MANE-VU decided to proceed with developing a paved and 

unpaved road fugitive dust inventory that incorporated improvements to activity data used in the 

NEI methodology. 

Methods for Improving Paved and Unpaved Road Fugitive Dust Inventory 

Fugitive dust emissions from paved and unpaved roads are classified under SCCs 2294000000 

and 2296000000, respectively. Fugitive dust emissions from paved and unpaved road traffic 

were estimated for PM10-PRI, PM10-FIL, PM25-PRI, and PM25-FIL. Since these categories 

are not sources of PM-CON, PM10-PRI emissions are equal to PM10-FIL emissions and PM25-

PRI emissions are equal to PM25-FIL. The following provides a summary of the methods. 

Paved Roads 

Several changes were made in the paved road fugitive dust emission calculations to improve 

these estimates over those prepared for EPA’s 2002 NEI. First, the monthly precipitation data 

representing the number of days in a month with at least 0.01 inches of precipitation were 

developed at the county level. In comparison, a single monthly precipitation value was used to 

model an entire State in the 2002 NEI. Thus, the resulting MANE-VU county-specific paved 

road fugitive dust emission estimates should be more representative of each county than the NEI 

data since precipitation events can vary significantly from one part of the State to another. 

The second improvement made to the paved road fugitive dust emission calculations was the use 

of county and road-type-specific average vehicle weights. This is an improvement over the NEI 

where a single average vehicle weight is applied nationwide. Thus, in the MANE-VU inventory, 

county/road type combinations with significant heavy truck traffic have a higher average vehicle 

weight and a corresponding emission factor compared to county/road type combinations with 

primarily lighter vehicle traffic. 

The final improvement made to the MANE-VU paved road emission calculations was the use of 

the winter silt loading adjustments. These adjustments account for the application of sand and 

salt on the roads during months with frozen precipitation. The 2002 NEI does not include any 

wintertime silt loading adjustments. The effect of the wintertime silt loading adjustments is an 

increase in the paved road emission factors during the months in which it is applied. The months 

during which this adjustment was applied varied by State in the MANE-VU inventory. 

Unpaved Roads 

The county-specific precipitation data used in the paved road fugitive dust calculations were also 

used to improve the unpaved road fugitive dust calculations. As with the paved roads, this 

represents an improvement over the State-specific precipitation data used in the 2002 NEI 
53

unpaved road emission inventory. The other improvement made to the unpaved roads was the 

use of State-supplied unpaved road mileage data by county for Maine. 

•Wildfires and Prescribed Burning 

Review of Methods 

This work involved compiling and summarizing information on emission estimation methods 

and data sources from the MANE-VU State agencies, RPOs, and EPA for the following area 

source categories: wildfires, prescribed burning, slash burning, and agricultural field burning. 

The approach previously described for the fugitive dust categories was used to collect and 

compile data from the MANE-VU State agencies, RPOs other than MANE-VU, and EPA for the 

fire categories. All of the information collected from these various information sources was 

summarized in a technical memorandum (MANE-VU, 2004c). 

Results of Methods Review 

MANE-VU recognized the need to improve the methods for estimating emissions for the fire 

categories. The most important revision would be to inventory fire events as point sources rather 

than as area sources at the county-level. However, due to resource constraints, it was decided 

not to pursue improvements to the methods for estimating emissions from the fire categories. It 

should be noted that during this project, some of the MANE-VU States provided revisions to 

their wildfire and prescribed burning inventories to add PM25-PRI emissions and to improve the 

spatial allocation of activity data at the county level. These improvements were incorporated 

into the MANE-VU area source inventory. 

3. Version 3 Revisions 

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

States. 

Gap Filling

In Version 2 of MANE-VU’s inventory, emissions for PFCs, industrial adhesives, and residential 

outdoor wood burning existed for some States but were missing for other States. Since these are 

categories for which SIP rules may be developed, it was determined that emissions for these 

categories should be added to Version 3. The following provides a summary of the Version 3 

revisions to address missing data concerns for these categories: 

• PFCs: MANE-VU estimated default 2002 emissions for these States using a per capita 

emission factor and county population data for each State. The derivation of the emission 

factor, population data, and calculation of annual and daily VOC emissions for PFCs is 

provided in an Excel file named “PFC_Adhesive Calcs for 2002_022106.xls” along with 

this TSD. 
54

Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont elected 

to use MANE-VU’s default inventory which was added to Version 3. Massachusetts 

elected to use the per capita emission factor but provided revisions to the population data, 

used 2002 owner occupied units to allocate the emissions to counties, and then allocated 

emissions between the commercial (16%) and residential (84%) sectors. Massachusetts’ 

calculations are provided in the spreadsheet named "Version 3 Revisions" in the Excel 

file named MA_AR_QA_Report_030806.xls" provided with this TSD. 

• Industrial Adhesives: Emissions for industrial adhesives were missing in Version 2 for 

Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Rhode 

Island. MANE-VU estimated default 2002 emissions for these States using a per capita 

emission factor and county population data for each State. The derivation of the emission 

factor, population data, and calculation of annual and daily VOC emissions for industrial 

adhesives is provided in an Excel file named “PFC_Adhesive Calcs for 

2002_022106.xls” along with this TWD. 

Massachusetts elected to use MANE-VU’s gap-filling inventory which was added to 

Version 3. The rest of the States elected to use EPA’s 2002 inventory which is based on 

a top-down, mass balance methodology where national industrial adhesive solvent 

estimates were allocated to counties using industrial employment. The EPA estimates 

were adjusted to remove uncontrolled VOC emissions included in the final 2002 point 

source NEI. The point-source adjustments were conducted at the county level. Note that 

the point-source-adjusted emissions for Rhode Island are zero for all three counties. 

Note New Jersey is the only State that prepared its own 2002 inventory for this category 

that is included in Version 3. The industrial adhesive inventory data for the rest of the 

MANE-VU States originates from the 1999 NEI. These States were contacted to 

determine if they wanted the 1999 data replaced with the default estimates or with the 

EPA’s 2002 inventory for industrial adhesives. Maine commented that the 1999 

estimates are more realistic of the solvent emissions for their State than the 2002 NEI or 

MANE-VU default estimates. The other States did not indicate that they wanted their 

data replaced. Therefore, the 1999 NEI data for Maine, New Hampshire, New York, 

Pennsylvania, and Vermont was not changed in Version 3 of MANE-VU’s inventory. 

• Residential Wood Burning: Residential outdoor wood burning emissions were missing in 

Version 2 of the MANE-VU inventory for the District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, Rhode 

Island, and Vermont. In Versions 1 and 2, New Jersey’s and New York’s emissions for 

outdoor wood burning were included with their inventory for indoor wood burning. The 

District of Columbia, Rhode Island, and Vermont elected to use MANE-VU’s outdoor 

wood burning inventory which was added to Version 3. In addition, per direction 

provided by New Jersey, its wood burning inventory was replaced with the MANE-VUsponsored indoor wood burning inventory in Version 3, and the MANE-VU outdoor 

wood burning inventory was added to Version 3. 
55

New York’s inventory in Version 2 included emissions for both residential indoor and 

outdoor wood burning. For Version 3, New York provided revisions that lowered its 

overall emissions relative to Version 2 and broke out its inventory to show emissions for 

fireplaces, woodstoves, and outdoor equipment separately. New York also added NH3

emissions to its inventory for Version 3. 

Adjustments to PM2.5 Emissions for Fugitive Dust Categories

Information developed by the Western Governors’ Association, Western Regional Air 

Partnership (WRAP) Dust Emissions Joint Forum and EPA indicates that, for paved and unpaved 

roads and the construction nonpoint source categories, the PM2.5-to-PM10 ratio is lower than the 

ratio used in the EPA method to estimate PM25-PRI/-FIL emissions from PM10-PRI/-FIL 

emissions (WRAP, 2005). Therefore, for the final 2002 NEI, EPA applied an adjustment factor 

to the PM25-PRI/-FIL emissions to correct for overestimates of PM25-PRI/-FIL emissions for 

these categories. Because the PM2.5-to-PM10 ratio used for the MANE-VU States is based on the 

EPA method, this information was communicated to the MANE-VU States and all of the States 

agreed that these adjustments should be made to the MANE-VU inventory. Table III-4 identifies 

the categories to which this adjustment was applied, the old and new PM2.5-to-PM10 ratios, and 

the adjustment factors applied to the PM25-PRI/-FIL emissions in Version 3 of MANE-VU’s 

inventory. Note that these adjustments to PM2.5 emissions were applied prior to applying the 

transport adjustment factors for PM10 and PM2.5 emissions. The modelers applied the transport 

adjustment factors to the mass emissions in Version 3. Documentation of the file containing the 

transport adjustment factors is provided under “Speciation Profiles” section of Table VII-1 in 

Chapter VII. 

For the construction categories, the EPA assumed an original PM2.5-to-PM10 ratio of 0.15 and an 

adjustment factor of 0.67. However, the original PM2.5-to-PM10 ratio used for both the NEI 

method and MANE-VU's inventory for construction is 0.2. Based on discussions with EPA, the 

goal is to revise the original PM2.5 emissions such that the PM2.5-to-PM10 ratio is 0.1. Therefore, 

for Version 3 of MANE-VU's 2002 area source inventory, an adjustment factor of 0.5 (ratio of 

0.1-to-0.2) was applied to adjust the PM2.5 emissions. 

Note that based on Pechan’s discussions with EPA during the week of March 6, 2006 concerning 

the application of the paved road PM2.5 adjustment factor, it was determined that adjusting the 

emissions by applying the factor (shown in Table III-4) to the PM2.5 emissions is a simplistic 

approach. The EPA noted that it is evaluating this issue and will be issuing guidance in the near 

future for revising the equation for estimating PM2.5 emissions which, when applied, will likely 

yield different results. Because EPA was unable to provide guidance on how to address this 

issue before Version 3 needed to be completed during the week of March 6, the adjustment 

factor shown in Table III-4 was applied to the PM2.5 emissions for paved roads because this 

adjustment will provide a better estimate of PM2.5 emissions than the unadjusted emissions. 
56

Table III-4. Revisions to PM25-PRI and PM25-FIL Emissions for Paved and 

Unpaved Roads and Construction 

SCC SCC Description 

Original 

PM2.5-to-PM10

Ratio 

Revised 

PM2.5-to-PM10

Ratio 

Adjustment 

Factor1,2

2294000000 Mobile Sources : Paved Roads : All Paved Roads : 

Total: Fugitives 

0.25 0.15 0.6 

2296000000 Mobile Sources : Unpaved Roads : All Unpaved 

Roads : Total: Fugitives 

0.15 0.1 0.67 

2296005000 Mobile Sources : Unpaved Roads : Public Unpaved 

Roads : Total: Fugitives 

0.15 0.1 0.67 

2296010000 Mobile Sources : Unpaved Roads : Industrial 

Unpaved Roads : Total: Fugitives 

0.15 0.1 0.67 

2311000000 Industrial Processes : Construction: SIC 15 - 17 : 

All Processes : Total 

0.2 0.1 0.50 

2311010000 Industrial Processes : Construction: SIC 15 - 17 : 

Residential : Total 

0.2 0.1 0.50 

2311010040 Industrial Processes : Construction: SIC 15 - 17 : 

Residential : Ground Excavations 

0.2 0.1 0.50 

2311020000 Industrial Processes : Construction: SIC 15 - 17 : 

Industrial/Commercial/Institutional : Total 

0.2 0.1 0.50 

2311020040 Industrial Processes : Construction: SIC 15 - 17 : 

Industrial/Commercial/Institutional : Ground 

Excavations 

0.2 0.1 0.50 

2311030000 Industrial Processes : Construction: SIC 15 - 17 : 

Road Construction : Total 

0.2 0.1 0.50 

1

 For these categories, filterable and primary emissions are equal because they are not sources of condensible emissions. The adjustment 

factor was applied to both the PM25-PRI and PM25-FIL emissions and emission factors in the MANE-VU inventory. 2

 See text for discussion of issue concerning the adjustment factor for paved road PM2.5 emissions. Also, for construction, see text for 

explanation of PM2.5 adjustment factor shown in this table. 

Removal of Invalid CE Records

For the following SCCs, Version 2 contained invalid CE records for Connecticut, the District of 

Columbia, Maine, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont that 

were removed in Version 3: 

SCC SCC Description

2311020000 Construction: SIC 15 - 17 : Industrial/Commercial/Institutional : Total 

2311030000 Construction: SIC 15 - 17 : Road Construction : Total 

2610000100 Open Burning : All Categories : Yard Waste - Leaf Species Unspecified 

2610000400 Open Burning : All Categories : Yard Waste - Brush Species Unspecified 

2610030000 Open Burning : Residential : Household Waste 

The CE records all originate from the preliminary 2002 NEI that have been removed from the 

final 2002 nonpoint NEI. They are invalid because they have a control efficiency value of 100% 

and corresponding records in the EM table with rule effectiveness and rule penetration values of 

100% (implying that the emissions are zero), but with emissions greater than zero. The Excel 

spreadsheet file named “CE_records_removed from V3.xls” provides the CE records by State 

and county FIPS, SCC, and pollutant code that were removed in Version 3. 
57

4. Version 3 Emissions Summary 

Table III-5 presents a State-level summary of the annual area source emissions in Version 3 of 

the 2002 MANE-VU inventory. Note that PM10-PRI and PM25-PRI emissions are included in 

the inventory for all SCCs for which State agencies reported any form of PM, PM10, and/or PM2.5

emissions. If an agency did not report PM10-PRI and/or PM25-PRI but reported PM-PRI, PMFIL, PM-CON, PM10-FIL, and/or PM25-FIL, the PM augmentation procedures discussed in the 

TSD were applied to the form of PM emissions supplied by the agency to calculate emissions for 

the other forms of PM emissions. If an agency reported PM10-PRI and/or PM25-PRI emissions 

but not PM10-FIL, PM25-FIL, or PM-CON emissions, the agency's inventory was not 

augmented to calculate filterable or condensible emissions. Note that PM-CON is associated 

with only fuel combustion sources. 

For NH3, the area source inventory includes emissions for natural sources for the following 

States: SCCs 28060xxxxx for domestic cats and dogs in Delaware, Massachusetts, and New 

Jersey; 28070xxxxx for wild animals in Delaware, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York; 

and SCC 2810010000 for human perspiration in Delaware, Massachusetts, and New Jersey. 

The area source inventory also includes NH3 biogenic emissions (SCC 2701420000) for 

Massachusetts. 

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

State CO NH3 NOx PM10-FIL 

PM10-

PRI 

PM25-

FIL 

PM25-

PRI 

PMCON SO2 VOC 

Connecticut 70,198 5,318 12,689 37,790 48,281 4,038 14,247 846 12,418 87,302 

Delaware 14,052 13,279 2,608 12,910 13,039 3,075 3,204 128 1,588 15,519 

District of 

Columbia 2,300 14 1,644 5,745 6,293 507 1,029 147 1,337 6,432 

Maine 109,223 8,747 7,360 155,237 168,953 19,090 32,774 686 13,149 100,621 

Maryland 141,178 25,834 15,678 31,116 95,060 3,375 27,318 611 12,393 120,254 

Massachusetts 136,552 18,809 31,358 150,046 192,839 23,354 42,067 1,156 54,923 162,016 

New 

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

New Jersey 97,657 17,572 26,692 37,282 61,601 2,811 19,350 476 10,744 167,882 

New York 356,254 67,422 98,803 288,991 369,595 30,894 87,154 102 130,409 507,292 

Pennsylvania 266,935 79,911 47,591 363,173 391,897 51,792 74,925 266 63,679 240,785 

Rhode Island 8,007 883 3,886 7,090 8,295 887 2,064 336 4,557 31,402 

Vermont 43,849 9,848 3,208 51,392 56,131 6,729 11,065 180 4,087 23,265 

MANE-VU 1,325,853 249,795 262,477 1,172,909 1,455,311 153,243 332,729 5,383 316,357 1,528,141 
58

B. State-Specific Methods 

For each of the MANE-VU States, this section identifies the temporal basis of the emissions 

included in Version 3 and discusses revisions incorporated into Version 3. In addition, this 

section also discusses the origin of each State agency’s emissions included in Version 3. For 

each agency, a table is provided in Appendix B that lists the data source codes by SCC, emission 

type period, and pollutant. In addition, an electronic folder is provided for each State agency 

containing the QA Summary Reports prepared for Versions 1, 2, and/or 3 and other files 

documenting revisions included in Versions 2 and 3. Except for Rhode Island, a QA Summary 

Report was prepared for Version 1. Subsequently, a QA Summary Report was prepared for 

States that provided Version 2 or 3 revisions. Rhode Island elected to use EPA’s draft 2002 NEI 

for Versions 1 and 2 but provided revisions for Version 3; therefore, a QA Summary Report is 

available for Version 3 only for Rhode Island. 

1. Connecticut 

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

Table III-6. Connecticut 2002 Area, Version 3: 

Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types 

Emission 

Type 

Period Start Date End Date 

Emission 

Type 

ANNUAL 20020101 20021231 30 

DAILY 20011201 20020228 27 

DAILY 20020601 20020831 27 

DAILY 20020601 20020831 29 

Table B-1 in Appendix B identifies the data sources by SCC, emission type period, and pollutant 

in the Version 3 area source inventory. This table also shows the number of counties by SCC. 

Note that some SCC and emission type period combinations are listed more than once because 

the data source codes are different for more than one SCC and emission type period combination. 

Connecticut provided 2002 emissions for many of the area source categories in Version 3. 

Connecticut elected to use the EPA’s 2002 inventory for industrial adhesives. Connecticut 

elected to use MANE-VU-sponsored inventories for the following source categories: 

• Annual and daily VOC, NOx, CO, NH3, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI, and SO2 emissions for 

indoor and outdoor residential wood combustion; 

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

unpaved roads; 

• Annual and daily NH3 emissions for industrial refrigeration processes; 

• Annual and daily VOC emissions for PFCs; and 

• Annual and daily VOC and NH3 emissions for composting. 

Emissions for the remaining area source categories were taken from the draft 2002 NEI. For 

Connecticut, these emissions are either based on 2002 data prepared by EPA or carried forward 
59

from final Version 3 of the 1999 NEI. Data carried forward from the 1999 NEI originate from 

either State data included in the 1999 NEI or EPA data developed for the 1999 NEI. 

2. Delaware 

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

Table III-7. Delaware 2002 Area, Version 3: 

Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types 

Emission 

Type 

Period 

Start 

Date End Date 

Emission 

Type 

Emission 

Type 

Period 

Start 

Date End Date 

Emission 

Type 

ANNUAL 20020101 20020831 30 DAILY 20011201 20020228 27 

ANNUAL 20020101 20021231 30 DAILY 20020101 20020831 27 

ANNUAL 20020512 20020512 30 DAILY 20020512 20020512 27 

ANNUAL 20020629 20020629 30 DAILY 20020601 20020831 27 

ANNUAL 20021029 20021029 30 DAILY 20020629 20020629 27 

ANNUAL 20021104 20021104 30 DAILY 20021029 20021029 27 

ANNUAL 20021205 20021205 30 DAILY 20021104 20021104 27 

 DAILY 20021205 20021205 27 

Table B-2 in Appendix B identifies the data sources by SCC, emission type period, and pollutant 

in the Version 3 area source inventory. This table also shows the number of counties by SCC. 

Note that some SCC and emission type period combinations are listed more than once because 

the data source codes are different for more than one SCC and emission type period combination. 

Delaware provided 2002 emissions for the majority of the area source categories in Version 3, 

and used 2002 data that EPA prepared for the draft 2002 NEI or MANE-VU-sponsored 

inventories for the remaining categories. Delaware elected to use the EPA’s 2002 inventory for 

industrial adhesives, and prepared its own inventory for PFCs. Delaware elected to use data 

from MANE-VU-sponsored inventories for the following source categories: 

 

• Annual and daily VOC, NOx, CO, NH3, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI, and SO2 emissions for 

indoor and outdoor wood burning; 

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

(note: there are no unpaved roads in Delaware); 

• Annual and daily NH3 emissions for POTWs; and 

• Annual VOC, NOx, CO, NH3, PM10-PRI, PM10-FIL, PM25-PRI, PM25-FIL, and SO2

emissions for open burning categories. 
60

3. District of Columbia 

Table III-8 shows the emission type periods for which the District of Columbia provided 

emissions. 

Table III-8. District of Columbia 2002 Area, Version 3: 

Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types 

Emission 

Type 

Period Start Date End Date 

Emission 

Type 

ANNUAL 20020101 20021231 30 

DAILY 20011201 20020228 27 

DAILY 20020601 20020831 27 

Table B-3 in Appendix B identifies the data sources by SCC, emission type period, and pollutant 

in the Version 3 area source inventory. This table also shows the number of counties by SCC. 

The District of Columbia provided 2002 emissions for the majority of the area source categories 

in Version 3. The District of Columbia provided annual VOC emissions for PFCs for Version 2 

that were kept in Version 3. The District of Columbia elected to use the EPA’s 2002 inventory 

for industrial adhesives and indoor wood burning. The exception is for the following categories 

for which the District of Columbia elected to use data from MANE-VU-sponsored inventories: 

• Annual and daily VOC, NOx, CO, NH3, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI, and SO2 emissions for 

outdoor wood burning; 

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

(note: there are no unpaved roads in the District of Columbia); 

• Annual and daily VOC and NH3 emissions for composting; and 

• Annual VOC, NOx, CO, NH3, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI, and SO2 emissions for open burning 

categories. 

4. Maine 

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

Table III-9. Maine 2002 Area, Version 3: 

Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types 

Emission 

Type 

Period Start Date End Date 

Emission 

Type 

ANNUAL 20020101 20021231 30 

DAILY 20011201 20020228 27 

DAILY 20020601 20020831 27 

DAILY 20020601 20020831 29 

DAILY 20020601 20020929 29 
61

Table B-4 in Appendix B identifies the data sources by SCC, emission type period, and pollutant 

in the Version 3 area source inventory. This table also shows the number of counties by SCC. 

Note that some SCC and emission type period combinations are listed more than once because 

the data source codes are different for more than one SCC and emission type period combination. 

Maine provided 2002 emissions for many of the area source categories in Version 3. Maine’s 

inventory for industrial adhesives originates from the 1999 NEI. Maine provided annual and 

daily VOC and annual NH3 emissions for industrial wastewater treatment that were added to 

Version 3. Maine elected to use data from MANE-VU-sponsored inventories for the following 

source categories: 

• Annual and daily VOC, NOx, CO, NH3, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI, and SO2 emissions for 

indoor and outdoor wood burning; 

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

unpaved roads; 

• Annual and daily VOC emissions for PFCs; and 

• Annual and daily VOC and NH3 emissions for composting. 

5. Maryland 

Table III-10 shows the emission type periods for which Maryland provided emissions. Table B5 in Appendix B identifies the data sources by SCC, emission type period, and pollutant in the 

Version 3 area source inventory. This table also shows the number of counties by SCC. 

Table III-10. Maryland 2002 Area, Version 3: 

Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types 

Emission 

Type 

Period Start Date End Date 

Emission 

Type 

Emission 

Type 

Period 

Start 

Date End Date 

Emission 

Type 

ANNUAL 20020101 20021231 30 MONTHLY 20020101 20020131 30 

SEASONAL 20020401 20020930 30 MONTHLY 20020201 20020228 30 

SEASONAL 20020401 20021031 30 MONTHLY 20020301 20020331 30 

SEASONAL 20020601 20020831 30 MONTHLY 20020401 20020430 30 

DAILY 20011201 20020228 27 MONTHLY 20020501 20020531 30 

DAILY 20020101 20021231 29 MONTHLY 20020601 20020630 30 

DAILY 20020401 20020930 29 MONTHLY 20020701 20020731 30 

DAILY 20020401 20021031 29 MONTHLY 20020801 20020831 30 

DAILY 20020601 20020831 27 MONTHLY 20020901 20020930 30 

DAILY 20020601 20020831 29 MONTHLY 20021001 20021031 30 

 MONTHLY 20021101 20021130 30 

 MONTHLY 20021201 20021231 30 

Maryland provided 2002 annual, seasonal, and daily emissions for the majority of the area source 

categories in Version 3 and used 2002 data that EPA prepared for the draft 2002 NEI for 

industrial adhesives and commercial cooking. Maryland prepared its own inventory for PFCs. 

Maryland elected to use data from MANE-VU-sponsored inventories for the following source 

categories: 
62

 

• Annual and daily VOC, NOx, CO, NH3, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI, and SO2 emissions for 

indoor and outdoor wood burning; 

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

unpaved roads; 

• Annual VOC, NOx, CO, NH3, PM10-PRI, PM10-FIL, PM25-PRI, PM25-FIL, and SO2

emissions for open burning categories; and 

• Annual and monthly NH3 emissions for agricultural crop fertilizers. 

For Version 2, Maryland provided revisions to annual, seasonal, and daily VOC emissions for 

SCC 2505030120 (Storage and Transport : Petroleum and Petroleum Product Transport : Truck : 

Gasoline). Maryland also removed PM10-FIL and PM25-FIL annual, seasonal, and daily 

records for open burning of land clearing debris (SCC 2610000500). Maryland had revised the 

PM10-PRI and PM25-PRI emissions in an earlier version of the MANE-VU inventory but not 

the PM10-FIL and PM25-FIL. As a result of revising the primary emissions, the filterable 

emissions were no longer met the consistency check as compared to the primary emissions. 

QA of PM emissions in Version 3 identified one record for Maryland in county 510 for SCC 

2801000003 (Agriculture - Crops : Tilling) where PM10-PRI annual emissions are 2317.2 tons 

and PM25-PRI annual emissions are 0 tons. For the other counties in Maryland with this SCC, 

PM25-PRI emissions are about 20% of the PM10-PRI emissions. This issue was not addressed 

due to time and resource constraints for completing revisions to Version 3. 

6. Massachusetts 

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

Table III-11. Massachusetts 2002 Area, Version 3: 

Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types 

Emission 

Type 

Period 

Start 

Date End Date 

Emission 

Type 

ANNUAL 20020101 20021231 30 

DAILY 20011201 20020228 27 

DAILY 20020601 20020831 27 

DAILY 20020601 20020831 29 

Table B-6 in Appendix B identifies the data sources by SCC, emission type period, and pollutant 

in the Version 3 area source inventory. This table also shows the number of counties by SCC. 

Massachusetts provided 2002 annual and daily emissions for the majority of the area source 

categories in Version 3 and used 2002 data that EPA prepared for the draft 2002 NEI for 

residential coal combustion, asphalt roofing, and agricultural livestock (NH3). 
63

Massachusetts elected to use data from MANE-VU-sponsored inventories for the following 

source categories: 

 

• Annual and daily VOC, NOx, CO, NH3, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI, and SO2 emissions for 

indoor and outdoor wood burning; 

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

unpaved roads; 

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

• Annual and daily NH3 emissions for industrial refrigeration processes; 

• Annual and daily VOC and NH3 emissions for composting; and 

• Annual VOC, NOx, CO, NH3, PM10-PRI, PM10-FIL, PM25-PRI, PM25-FIL, and SO2

emissions for open burning categories. 

For Version 2, Massachusetts revised annual and summer day VOC emissions for 14 counties for 

the following categories: aircraft refueling, surface coating, degreasing, miscellaneous nonindustrial: consumer and commercial products and pesticides, and gasoline service stations (stage 

1: balanced submerged fill). Massachusetts also revised annual and daily emissions for 14 

counties for forest wildfires, revised annual emissions for four counties for residential open 

burning of brush using the correct rule penetration factors for the counties, and revised control 

efficiency and control device data for selected categories in the CE table. 

For Version 3, Massachusetts revised annual and summer day VOC emissions for 14 counties for 

auto refinishing. In the CE table, Massachusetts changed control device code 102 (low-solvent 

coatings) to 000 (uncontrolled) and associated control efficiency values were set to null for all 

counties. Massachusetts also added annual and summer day VOC emissions for 14 counties for 

gasoline service stations (stage 2: displacement loss/controlled). 

For PFCs, Massachusetts elected to use the per capita emission factor but provided revisions to 

the population data, used 2002 owner occupied units to allocate the emissions to counties, and 

then allocated emissions between the commercial (16%) and residential (84%) sectors. 

Massachusetts’ calculations are provided in the spreadsheet named "Version 3 Revisions" in the 

Excel file named MA_AR_QA_Report_030806.xls". 

7. New Hampshire 

Table III-12 shows the emission type periods for which New Hampshire provided emissions. 

Table B-7 in Appendix B identifies the data sources by SCC, emission type period, and pollutant 

in the Version 3 area source inventory. This table also shows the number of counties by SCC. 

New Hampshire provided 2002 emissions for many of the area source categories in Version 3. 

New Hampshire’s inventory for industrial adhesives originates from the 1999 NEI. 
64

Table III-12. New Hampshire 2002 Area, Version 3: 

Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types 

Emission 

Type 

Period 

Start 

Date End Date 

Emission 

Type 

ANNUAL 20020101 20021231 30 

DAILY 20011201 20020228 27 

DAILY 20020601 20020831 27 

DAILY 20020601 20020831 29 

MONTHLY 20020101 20020131 30 

MONTHLY 20020201 20020228 30 

MONTHLY 20020301 20020331 30 

MONTHLY 20020401 20020430 30 

MONTHLY 20020501 20020531 30 

MONTHLY 20020601 20020630 30 

MONTHLY 20020701 20020731 30 

MONTHLY 20020801 20020831 30 

MONTHLY 20020901 20020930 30 

MONTHLY 20021001 20021031 30 

MONTHLY 20021101 20021130 30 

MONTHLY 20021201 20021231 30 

New Hampshire elected to use data from MANE-VU-sponsored inventories for the following 

source categories: 

 

• Annual and daily VOC, NOx, CO, NH3, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI, and SO2 emissions for 

indoor and outdoor wood burning; 

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

unpaved roads; 

• Annual and daily VOC emissions for PFCs; 

• Annual and daily NH3 emissions for industrial refrigeration processes and POTWs; 

• Annual and daily VOC and NH3 emissions for composting; 

• Annual VOC, NOx, CO, NH3, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI, and SO2 emissions for open burning 

categories; and 

• Annual and monthly NH3 emissions for agricultural crop fertilizers and livestock. 

Emissions for the remaining area source categories were taken from the draft 2002 NEI; these 

emissions are either based on 2002 data prepared by EPA or EPA data carried forward from final 

Version 3 of the 1999 NEI. 

New Hampshire provided revisions to Version 2 that were kept in Version 3. For Version 2, 

New Hampshire revised annual and daily VOC emissions for the gasoline storage and transport 

sector to reflect revisions it made to the 2002 inventory that EPA prepared for the 2002 NEI. 

The categories revised include bulk plant breathing losses, gasoline service stations (stages 1 and 

2 total and underground tank breathing and emptying losses), and gasoline tank trucks. 
65

8. New Jersey 

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

Table III-13. New Jersey 2002 Area, Version 3: 

Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types 

Emission 

Type 

Period Start Date End Date 

Emission 

Type 

ANNUAL 20020101 20021231 30 

DAILY 20011201 20020228 27 

DAILY 20011201 20020228 29 

DAILY 20020601 20020831 27 

DAILY 20020601 20020831 29 

Table B-8 in Appendix B identifies the data sources by SCC, emission type period, and pollutant 

in the Version 3 area source inventory. This table also shows the number of counties by SCC. 

New Jersey provided 2002 emissions for the majority of the area source categories. New Jersey 

provided its own 2002 inventory for industrial adhesives and PFCs. Emissions for the remaining 

area source categories were taken from the draft 2002 NEI (that are either based on 2002 data 

prepared by EPA or EPA data carried forward from final Version 3 of the 1999 NEI) or MANEVU-sponsored inventories. New Jersey elected to use MANE-VU-sponsored inventories for the 

following source categories: 

• Annual and daily VOC, NOx, CO, NH3, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI, and SO2 emissions for 

indoor and outdoor residential wood combustion (replacing New Jersey’s indoor 

residential wood combustion inventory provided in Versions 1 and 2); 

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

• Annual and daily NH3 emissions for industrial refrigeration processes and POTWs; and 

• Annual and daily VOC and NH3 emissions for composting. 

For Version 3, New Jersey added annual and summer day VOC emissions for 21 counties for 

SCC 2501060100 (gasoline service stations : stage 2: total). The emissions are summarized in 

the spreadsheet named "Version 3 Revisions" in the Excel file named "NJ_AR_QA_Report_ 

030806.xls". New Jersey provided 2002 emissions data for the industrial adhesives and PFC 

categories in Version 1. For Version 2, New Jersey corrected PM25-PRI emissions that were 

greater than PM10-PRI emissions for SCC 2601000000 (on-site incineration : all categories : 

total). 

9. New York 

Table III-14 shows the emission type periods for which New York provided emissions. Table B9 in Appendix B identifies the data sources by SCC, emission type period, and pollutant in the 

Version 3 area source inventory. This table also shows the number of counties by SCC. Note 

that some SCC and emission type period combinations are listed more than once because the 

data source codes are different for more than one SCC and emission type period combination or 
66

because emissions are not reported for all pollutants for the same SCC and emission type period 

combination. 

Table III-14. New York 2002 Area, Version 3: 

Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types 

Emission 

Type 

Period 

Start 

Date End Date 

Emission 

Type 

ANNUAL 20020101 20021231 30 

MONTHLY 20020101 20020131 30 

MONTHLY 20020201 20020228 30 

MONTHLY 20020301 20020331 30 

MONTHLY 20020401 20020430 30 

MONTHLY 20020501 20020531 30 

MONTHLY 20020601 20020630 30 

MONTHLY 20020701 20020731 30 

MONTHLY 20020801 20020831 30 

MONTHLY 20020901 20020930 30 

MONTHLY 20021001 20021031 30 

MONTHLY 20021101 20021130 30 

MONTHLY 20021201 20021231 30 

New York provided revisions to annual emissions for all 62 counties for the categories and 

pollutants shown in Table III-15. This revision completely replaced the 2002 emissions that 

New York provided in Version 2. Table III-15 also identifies categories and pollutants for which 

emissions were added to Version 3 (i.e., not in Version 2). The emissions are summarized in the 

spreadsheet named "Version 3 Revisions" in the Excel file named 

NY_AR_QA_Report_030806.xls". 

New York’s inventory in Version 2 included emissions for both residential indoor and outdoor 

wood burning. For Version 3, New York provided revisions that lowered its overall emissions 

relative to Version 2 and broke out its inventory to show emissions for fireplaces, woodstoves, 

and outdoor equipment separately. New York also added NH3 emissions to its inventory for 

Version 3. New York’s inventory for industrial adhesives originates from the 1999 NEI. New 

York provided its own 2002 inventory for PFCs. Emissions for the remaining area source 

categories were taken from the draft 2002 NEI (that are either based on 2002 data prepared by 

EPA or EPA data carried forward from final Version 3 of the 1999 NEI) or MANE-VUsponsored inventories. 

New York elected to use MANE-VU-sponsored inventories for the following source categories: 

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

unpaved roads; 

• Annual and daily NH3 emissions for agricultural livestock; and 

• Annual VOC, NOx, CO, NH3, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI, and SO2 emissions for open burning 

categories. 
67

A QA issue that may affect the use of the MANE-VU inventory for air quality modeling and 

revisions to the projection year inventory is the addition of SCCs 2103004001 and 2103004002 

by New York that are not in EPA’s master SCC list used by the EPA QA program. These SCCs 

are defined in Table III-15. In addition, the QA program shows SCCs for PFCs and outdoor 

wood burning as invalid because EPA has not updated the master list to include these SCCs for 

the EPA QA program. These SCCs were included in Version 2 and should have been assigned 

speaciation profiles and included in the projection year inventory prepared from Version 2. 
68

Table III-15. Summary of New York's Revisions to Version 3 of MANE-VU's Area Source 

SCC SCC Description Pollutant Type of ReRevisions to Waste Disposal, Treatment, and Recovery : Wastewater Treatment 

2630020000 Public Owned : Total Processed VOC Revised em

Revisions to Stationary Source Fuel Combustion : Residential : Wood 

2104008001 Fireplaces: General VOC, NOX, CO, NH3, SO2, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI Added NH3

of pollutants 

2104008052 Non-catalytic Woodstoves: Low Emitting VOC, NOX, CO, NH3, SO2, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI Added emis2104008070 Outdoor Wood Burning Equipment VOC, NOX, CO, NH3, SO2, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI Added emis

Revisions to Stationary Source Fuel Combustion : Electric Utility 

2101001000 Anthracite Coal : Total: All Boiler Types VOC, NOX, CO, NH3, SO2, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI No change 2101002000 Bituminous/Subbituminous Coal : Total: All Boiler Types VOC, NOX, CO, NH3, SO2, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI Revised em2101004000 Distillate Oil : Total: Boilers and IC Engines VOC, NOX, CO, NH3, SO2, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI Revised em2101005000 Residual Oil : Total: All Boiler Types VOC, NOX, CO, NH3, SO2, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI Revised em2101006000 Natural Gas : Total: Boilers and IC Engines VOC, NOX, CO, NH3, SO2, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI Revised em

Revisions to Stationary Source Fuel Combustion : Industrial 

2102001000 Anthracite Coal : Total: All Boiler Types VOC, NOX, CO, NH3, SO2, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI No change 2102002000 Bituminous/Subbituminous Coal : Total: All Boiler Types VOC, NOX, CO, NH3, SO2, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI Revised em2102004000 Distillate Oil : Total: Boilers and IC Engines VOC, NOX, CO, NH3, SO2, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI Revised em2102005000 Residual Oil : Total: All Boiler Types VOC, NOX, CO, NH3, SO2, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI Revised em2102006000 Natural Gas : Total: Boilers and IC Engines VOC, NOX, CO, NH3, SO2, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI Revised em2102007000 Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG) : Total: All Boiler Types VOC, NOX, CO, SO2, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI Revised em2102008000 Wood : Total: All Boiler Types VOC, NOX, CO, SO2, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI No change 2102011000 Kerosene : Total: All Boiler Types VOC, NOX, CO, NH3, SO2, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI Added emis

Revisions to Stationary Source Fuel Combustion : Commercial/Institutional 

2103001000 Anthracite Coal : Total: All Boiler Types VOC, NOX, CO, NH3, SO2, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI No change 2103002000 Bituminous/Subbituminous Coal : Total: All Boiler Types VOC, NOX, CO, NH3, SO2, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI Revised em2103005000 Residual Oil : Total: All Boiler Types VOC, NOX, CO, NH3, SO2, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI Revised em2103004000 Residual Oil : Total: Boilers and IC Engines VOC, NOX, CO, NH3, SO2, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI Removed a

SCCs 2103

2103004001 Distillate Oil : Boilers VOC, NOX, CO, NH3, SO2, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI Added emis2103004002 Distillate Oil : IC Engines VOC, NOX, CO, SO2, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI Added emis2103006000 Natural Gas : Total: Boilers and IC Engines VOC, NOX, CO, NH3, SO2, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI Revised em2103007000 Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG) : Total: All Combustor Types VOC, NOX, CO, SO2, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI Revised em2103008000 Wood : Total: All Boiler Types VOC, NOX, CO, SO2, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI Revised em2103011000 Kerosene : Total: All Combustor Types VOC, NOX, CO, NH3, SO2, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI Added emis
69

Table III-15. Summary of New York's Revisions to Version 3 of MANE-VU's Area Source Inven

SCC SCC Description Pollutant Type of ReRevisions to Stationary Source Fuel Combustion : Residential 

2104001000 Anthracite Coal : Total: All Combustor Types VOC, NOX, CO, NH3, SO2, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI No change 2104002000 Bituminous/Subbituminous Coal : Total: All Combustor Types VOC, NOX, CO, NH3, SO2, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI Revised em2104004000 Distillate Oil : Total: All Combustor Types VOC, NOX, CO, NH3, SO2, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI Revised em2104006010 Natural Gas : Residential Furnaces VOC, NOX, CO, SO2, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI Revised em2104007000 Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG) : Total: All Combustor Types VOC, NOX, CO, SO2, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI Revised em2104011000 Kerosene : Total: All Heater Types VOC, NOX, CO, NH3, SO2, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI Added emis
70

10. Pennsylvania 

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

Table III-16. Pennsylvania 2002 Area, Version 3: 

Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types 

Emission 

Type 

Period 

Start 

Date End Date 

Emission 

Type 

Emission 

Type 

Period 

Start 

Date End Date 

Emission 

Type 

ANNUAL 20020101 20021231 30 MONTHLY 20020101 20020131 30 

DAILY 20011201 20020228 27 MONTHLY 20020201 20020228 30 

DAILY 20020601 20020831 27 MONTHLY 20020301 20020331 30 

 MONTHLY 20020401 20020430 30 

 MONTHLY 20020501 20020531 30 

 MONTHLY 20020601 20020630 30 

 MONTHLY 20020701 20020731 30 

 MONTHLY 20020801 20020831 30 

 MONTHLY 20020901 20020930 30 

 MONTHLY 20021001 20021031 30 

 MONTHLY 20021101 20021130 30 

 MONTHLY 20021201 20021231 30 

Table B-10 in Appendix B identifies the data sources by SCC, emission type period, and 

pollutant in the Version 3 area source inventory. This table also shows the number of counties 

by SCC. Note that some SCC and emission type period combinations are listed more than once 

because the data source codes are different for more than one SCC and emission type period 

combination. Pennsylvania provided 2002 emissions for the majority of the area source 

categories. Pennsylvania provided its own 2002 inventory for PFCs and residential indoor wood 

burning. Pennsylvania’s inventory for industrial adhesives originates from the 1999 NEI. 

Emissions for the remaining area source categories were taken from the draft 2002 NEI (that are 

either based on 2002 data prepared by EPA or EPA data carried forward from final Version 3 of 

the 1999 NEI) or MANE-VU-sponsored inventories. 

Pennsylvania elected to use MANE-VU-sponsored inventories for the following source 

categories: 

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

unpaved roads; 

• Annual and daily NH3 emissions for industrial refrigeration processes and agricultural crop 

fertilizers and livestock; 

• Annual and daily VOC and NH3 emissions for POTWs and composting; and 

• Annual VOC, NOx, CO, NH3, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI, and SO2 emissions for open burning 

categories. 
71

11. Rhode Island 

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

Table III-17. Rhode Island 2002 Area, Version 3: 

Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types 

Emission 

Type 

Period 

Start 

Date End Date 

Emission 

Type 

ANNUAL 20020101 20021231 30 

DAILY 20011201 20020228 27 

DAILY 20020601 20020831 27 

DAILY 20020601 20020831 29 

Table B-11 in Appendix B identifies the data sources by SCC, emission type period, and 

pollutant in the Version 3 area source inventory. This table also shows the number of counties 

by SCC. Rhode Island provided 2002 annual VOC emissions for several solvent utilization 

categories (surface coating, degreasing, graphic arts, rubber/plastics, and industrial adhesive); 

annual and daily VOC emissions for petroleum and petroleum product storage (gasoline service 

stations and all transport types); and annual VOC emissions for POTWs. Rhode Island’s indoor 

wood burning inventory originates from the draft 2002 NEI. Emissions for the remaining area 

source categories were taken from the draft 2002 NEI (that are either based on 2002 data 

prepared by EPA or EPA data carried forward from final Version 3 of the 1999 NEI) or 

MANE-VU-sponsored inventories. 

Rhode Island elected to use MANE-VU-sponsored inventories for the following source 

categories: 

• Annual and daily VOC, NOx, CO, NH3, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI, and SO2 emissions for 

outdoor wood burning; 

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

unpaved roads; and 

• Annual and daily VOC emissions for PFCs. 
72

12. Vermont 

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

Table III-18. Vermont 2002 Area, Version 3: 

Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Types 

Emission 

Type 

Period 

Start 

Date End Date 

Emission 

Type 

ANNUAL 20020101 20021231 30 

DAILY 20011201 20020228 27 

DAILY 20020601 20020831 27 

DAILY 20020601 20020831 29 

Table B-12 in Appendix B identifies the data sources by SCC, emission type period, and 

pollutant in the Version 3 area source inventory. This table also shows the number of counties 

by SCC. Vermont provided 2002 annual VOC, NOx, CO, PM10-PRI or PM10-FIL, PM25-PRI 

or PM25-FIL, and SO2 emissions for residential fuel combustion (distillate oil, natural gas, LPG, 

and indoor wood burning); annual VOC emissions for gasoline service stations and breathing 

losses at bulk terminals; annual VOC, NOx, CO, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI, and SO2 emissions for 

residential open burning; annual VOC, NOx, CO, NH3, PM10-PRI, and PM25-PRI emissions for 

forest fires, and annual VOC, NOx, CO, PM10-PRI, and PM25-PRI emissions for structure fires. 

Vermont’s inventory for industrial adhesives originates from the 1999 NEI. 

For Version 2, Vermont provided revisions to EPA’s draft 2002 inventory for SCC 2501050120 

(bulk stations and terminals : breathing loss : gasoline) to incorporate the effects of vapor 

balance controls not accounted for in the EPA estimates. The revised inventory for this category 

was added to Version 2 (and kept in Version 3) that did not include this category. Control 

records were added to the NIF 3.0 CE table for the counties with vapor balance controls. In 

addition, Vermont provided emissions for three counties (i.e., county FIPS codes 50015, 50017, 

and 50019) that were not in EPA's inventory. Emissions for the remaining area source categories 

were taken from the draft 2002 NEI (that are either based on 2002 data prepared by EPA or EPA 

data carried forward from final Version 3 of the 1999 NEI) or MANE-VU-sponsored inventories. 

Vermont elected to use MANE-VU-sponsored inventories for the following source categories: 

• Annual and daily VOC, NOx, CO, NH3, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI, and SO2 emissions for 

outdoor wood burning; 

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

unpaved roads; 

• Annual and daily NH3 emissions for industrial refrigeration processes and POTWs; 

• Annual and daily VOC emissions for PFCs; 

• Annual and daily VOC and NH3 emissions for composting; and 

• Annual VOC, NOx, CO, NH3, PM10-PRI, PM10-FIL, PM25-PRI, PM25-FIL, and SO2

emissions for open burning categories. 
73

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

This section provides a summary of potential revisions to incorporate into future versions of the 

MANE-VU area source inventory. 

All States – A coordinated effort between the State agencies should be developed to apply 

consistent methods to avoid having to apply procedures to augment inventory data to correct for 

the QA issues and fill in missing data as discussed previously in this chapter. For example, this 

will ensure that consistent methods are applied across State agencies to ensure consistent and 

accurate reporting of source categories using the same SCCs across States, PM emissions, and 

minimize other QA issues that were identified during the development of Versions 1, 2, and 3 of 

the inventory. 

For PM emissions, the State agencies should develop and apply a consistent method for 

including condensible emissions for fuel combustion sources that can be applied when the 

agencies develop their inventories. This may include compiling the emission factors for all 

forms of PM into one database, organized by SCC and control type (for filterable emissions), and 

sharing the database among the MANE-VU State agencies. Use of a consistent set of emission 

factors will help to avoid the PM consistency issues identified in Versions 1, 2, and 3 of the 

MANE-VU inventory as well as ensure that condensible emissions are included in the primary 

emissions reported in the inventory. 

State-specific suggestions are as follows: 

Delaware: Revise the residential wood combustion emissions inventory with the latest revisions 

sponsored by MARAMA. 

Rhode Island: This State felt that the area sources (from the nonpoint inventory EPA prepared) 

which they had changed to zeros in Version 3 would revert back to the Version 2 numbers which 

were from the EPA report. Rhode Island would like to see this change in the next version of the 

inventory. (Table with changes can be received upon request). 

New Jersey: 

• Why is the EPA VOC emission factor for fireplaces completely out of proportion with the 

other emission factors? The ratio of conventional wood stoves/fireplaces = 0% to 10% 

for other pollutants and is 77% for VOC. It is discussed in the Pechan Technical Memo 

#5, 9/3/03, page 19, how a study of the accuracy of the emission factors showed the VOC 

should be more like 10 to 30 lb/ton, instead of 229 lb/ton and the woodstove emission 

factors (certified) should be higher than Emission Inventory Improvement Program 

guidance. 

• The summer seasonal adjustment factors for indoor wood burning used in the model 

appear high. This combined with the very high VOC emission factor results in high 

ozone season wood burning emissions. 
74

• In general, the accuracy of the very large residential wood burning numbers, all pollutants. 

• The large fugitive dust inventory numbers don not correlate to dust found in monitors, 

even with the latest 30% to 40% reduction in paved and unpaved road emissions. 

• We need consistent guidance from the EPA for adhesives and sealants, PFC, and 

commercial cooking. 
75

CHAPTER IV – NONROAD SOURCES 

A. General Methods for all States 

This section provides an overview of the data sources and QA steps used in preparing the 2002 

nonroad sector inventory for the MANE-VU States. The nonroad sector is comprised of nonroad 

engines included in EPA’s NONROAD model, as well as other engines not modeled in 

NONROAD, including aircraft, commercial marine vessels and locomotives. 

1. What Data Sources Were Used? 

Data sources used for the various nonroad categories are described below. 

a. Aircraft, Commercial Marine, and Locomotive Categories 

As a starting point, aircraft, commercial marine vessel and locomotive inventories were prepared 

using the inventories that State agencies submitted to the EPA in June 2004 as a requirement of 

the CERR. In addition, some States provided data directly to MANE-VU for use in this 

inventory that were not submitted for the CERR. 

Missing data were supplemented with estimates from EPA’s preliminary 2002 NEI. For the 

aircraft and commercial marine vessel source categories, the 2002 NEI CAP emissions were 

estimated by carrying over the 2001 estimates. 2001 emissions were estimated using the 

methodologies described in EPA’s Documentation for Aircraft, Commercial Marine Vessel, 

Locomotive, and Other Nonroad Components of the National Emissions Inventory (EPA, 2003b). 

The 2002 locomotive emissions were calculated using 2002 activity data and the methodologies 

described in the EPA, 2003b documentation. 

Table IV-1 provides a summary of the aircraft, commercial marine, and locomotive emission 

SCCs reported in the MANE-VU inventory. Table IV-2 provides a summary of the basis for 

these nonroad subsector emissions by State. 
76

Table IV-1. List of Unique Aircraft, Commercial Marine, and Locomotive SCCs Reported by Stat

SCC SCC Description 1 SCC Description 2 SCC Description 3 SCC Description 4 2275000000 Mobile Sources Aircraft All Aircraft Types and Operations Total 2275001000 Mobile Sources Aircraft Military Aircraft Total 2275020000 Mobile Sources Aircraft Commercial Aircraft Total: All Types 2275050000 Mobile Sources Aircraft General Aviation Total 2275060000 Mobile Sources Aircraft Air Taxi Total 2275070000 Mobile Sources Aircraft Aircraft Auxiliary Power Units Total 2280000000 Mobile Sources Marine Vessels, Commercial All Fuels Total, All Vessel Types 2280002000 Mobile Sources Marine Vessels, Commercial Diesel Total, All Vessel Types 2280002010 Mobile Sources Marine Vessels, Commercial Diesel Ocean-going Vessels 2280002020 Mobile Sources Marine Vessels, Commercial Diesel Harbor Vessels 2280002100 Mobile Sources Marine Vessels, Commercial Diesel Port emissions 2280002200 Mobile Sources Marine Vessels, Commercial Diesel Underway emissions 2280003100 Mobile Sources Marine Vessels, Commercial Residual Port emissions 2280003200 Mobile Sources Marine Vessels, Commercial Residual Underway emissions 2285000000 Mobile Sources Railroad Equipment All Fuels Total 2285002000 Mobile Sources Railroad Equipment Diesel Total 2285002005 Mobile Sources Railroad Equipment Diesel Total Line Haul Locomoti2285002006 Mobile Sources Railroad Equipment Diesel Line Haul Locomotives: C2285002007 Mobile Sources Railroad Equipment Diesel Line Haul Locomotives: C2285002008 Mobile Sources Railroad Equipment Diesel Line Haul Locomotives: P2285002009 Mobile Sources Railroad Equipment Diesel Line Haul Locomotives: C2285002010 Mobile Sources Railroad Equipment Diesel Yard Locomotives 
77

Table IV-2. Summary of Basis for 2002 MANE-VU Aircraft, Commercial Marine, and Locomo

 Basis for Subsector of Nonroad Inventory 

FIPSST State Aircraft Commercial Marine Vessels L

09 Connecticut 2002 Preliminary NEI 2002 Preliminary NEI State supplied 10 Delaware June 2004 CERR Submittal; State 

supplied revisions in Sep 2004 

June 2004 CERR Submittal June 2004 CE

11 District of Columbia Not supplied by State and not available 

from NEI 

2002 Preliminary NEI June 2004 CE

23 Maine State supplied in Oct 2004 State supplied in Oct 2004 State supplied 24 Maryland June 2004 CERR Submittal; State 

supplied revisions in Sep 2004 

June 2004 CERR Submittal; State supplied revisions in Oct 2004 

June 2004 CE

25 Massachusetts June 2004 CERR Submittal State-supplied for June 2004 CERR 

Submittal, with revisions as directed by State 

June 2004 CE

33 New Hampshire June 2004 CERR Submittal 2002 Preliminary NEI June 2004 CE34 New Jersey June 2004 CERR Submittal June 2004 CERR Submittal June 2004 CE36 New York 2002 Preliminary NEI State supplied in Oct 2004 2002 Prelimina42 Pennsylvania State supplied to Pechan in June 2004 State supplied to Pechan in June 2004 State supplied 

State supplied 

44 Rhode Island State-supplied for June 2004 CERR 

Submittal, with revisions as directed by State 

State-supplied for June 2004 CERR Submittal, with revisions as directed by State 

State-supplied 

50 Vermont 2002 Preliminary NEI Not supplied by State and not available 

from NEI 

Not supplied bfrom NEI 
78

b. NONROAD Model Categories 

NONROAD model categories include equipment such as recreational marine and land-based 

vehicles, farm and construction machinery, and lawn and garden equipment. Aircraft ground 

support equipment (GSE) and rail maintenance equipment are also included in NONROAD. 

These equipment are powered by diesel, gasoline, compressed natural gas (CNG) and LPG 

engines. 

EPA released a final version of NONROAD during December 2005 called NONROAD2005 

(EPA, 2005a). To reflect the updates made to EPA’s final NONROAD model, all MANE-VU 

Version 2 NONROAD model estimates were replaced with updated NONROAD2005 emission 

estimates. 

EPA also released an updated version of its NMIM, which incorporates the final 

NONROAD2005 model. EPA’s NMIM2005 is a consolidated modeling system that 

incorporates the NONROAD and MOBILE models, along with a county database of inputs 

(EPA, 2005b). The NMIM county database contains monthly input data to reflect countyspecific fuel parameters and temperatures. Because incorporating revised monthly inputs for use 

in NMIM2005 is more efficient than preparing county-specific monthly option files needed to 

run NONROAD2005 independently, Pechan used NMIM2005 for most MANE-VU States. The 

two exceptions were for the District of Columbia and Maine due to the differences in oxygenated 

fuel inputs used for NMIM versus NONROAD. 

As a first step, Pechan compiled fuel input data available from NMIM2005 by county and by 

month for all MANE-VU states for 2002. Pechan developed a spreadsheet that summarized the 

gasoline RVP, gasoline weight percent oxygen, and gasoline and diesel sulfur content proposed 

as inputs to the updated runs. Values consistent with State-supplied MOBILE6 inputs used for 

the development of 2002 MANE-VU highway vehicle inventories were presented for use where 

they differed from NMIM. Pechan requested that States confirm the use of these data for the 

NONROAD model runs, or provide alternative inputs. 

The final county, monthly NMIM inputs provided or confirmed by the States for RVP, weight 

percent oxygen, and gasoline sulfur are presented in Appendix C, Table C-1. Pechan used 

NMIM’s 2002 default value for nonroad diesel sulfur content. This value is 2,457 parts per 

million (ppm) for land-based equipment, and 2,767 ppm for recreational marine, for all 

MANE-VU counties. 

Pechan also requested that States provide any local activity data in the format of updated 

NONROAD external data files. These include data files which specify activity parameters such 

as equipment populations, equipment annual hours of use, county allocation factors, and monthly 

allocation profiles. 

Pechan updated the NMIM county database for 2002 to add in new gasoline profiles to reflect 

the monthly and county fuel input values provided by States. Pechan also updated the NMIM 

county database to cross reference the State-supplied NONROAD data files that replaced default 
79

NONROAD2005 inputs. Pechan then ran NMIM/NONROAD2005 at the county and monthly 

level for 2002 and generated the results in NIF 3.0. 

c. NONROAD2005 Model Runs 

The majority of the model runs were performed using NMIM2005. NMIM and NONROAD 

have differences in the required format of the oxygenated fuel inputs. For NONROAD, this 

variable is required to be expressed as a composite weight percent oxygen that accounts for the 

market share and the percent oxygen of all contributing oxygenates. Since NMIM models HAP 

emissions, the volume percent and market share of each of four oxygenates must be entered as 

fuel inputs. These oxygenates include methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), ethyl tertiary butyl 

ether (ETBE), ethanol (ETOH), and tertiary amyl methyl ether (TAME). In cases where only 

one known oxygenate is present, this is straightforward to reflect in NMIM, as weight percent 

can be easily converted to volume percent. However, two States (the District of Columbia and 

Maine) provided a composite weight percent value for more than one oxygenate, but could not 

provide the corresponding volume percent and market share for each oxygenate to use in NMIM. 

As such, Pechan used NONROAD2005 for both the District of Columbia and Maine so that their 

submitted values for weight percent oxygen could be used directly. The 2002 minimum, 

maximum, and average hourly temperatures included in NMIM2005 were used to calculate 

average monthly temperature inputs to NONROAD for both States. 

Pechan developed monthly NONROAD option files and ran these files through NONROAD2005 

to generate monthly emissions that were then summed to develop an annual 2002 inventory. 

Pechan performed additional calculations using NMIM emission factors and fuel consumption to 

calculate NH3, since NONROAD does not calculate NH3 emissions. 

2. What Quality Assurance Steps Were Performed? 

The final MANE-VU nonroad inventory was comprised of emission estimates that were either: 

1) submitted by States for the June 2004 CERR submittal or as additional revisions after this 

date; 2) developed using NONROAD model inputs provided or approved by States; or 

3) reported by EPA in the preliminary 2002 NEI. As such, the QA steps were tailored to each of 

these types of submittals. Note that a Quality Assurance Plan was prepared prior to initiating 

work on Version 1 (MANE-VU, 2003). This plan was applied during development of all three 

versions of the MANE-VU inventory. 

a. Summary of QA checks for State emission submittals 

Nonroad emission submittals were accepted as part of the June 2004 CERR submittals to EPA or 

as direct submittals to MANE-VU. Upon receipt of an emissions submittal, Pechan prepared 

spreadsheets providing a unique list of errors identified by running the EPA NIF 3.0 QA 

software tool on the nonroad source inventory (EPA, 2004a). Notes were provided to identify 

the NIF 3.0 tables in which the errors appeared, as well as clarification as to where an error 

occurred (e.g., for what SCC and pollutant). For many of the errors, Pechan provided a potential 

correction, and States indicated whether they agreed with the correction, or provided their own 
80

instructions for correcting the error. These spreadsheets served to document each state's 

direction on how to correct errors and the state's representative authorizing the correction. 

The list of general QA checks include the following: 

• Duplicate records (i.e., only one record allowed for each unique county/SCC/ pollutant) 

• Invalid record type 

• Mandatory field is not populated 

• Invalid field length 

• Invalid data type (e.g., invalid SCCs or pollutants) 

• “Out-of-range” emission values 

• Referential integrity (i.e., the presence of widow or orphan records in the NIF 3.0 relational 

tables) 

 

Note that EPA’s NIF 3.0 QA software tool also checks for other specific QA issues by field not 

listed above. See EPA’s User Guide, Appendix A for a listing of all potential errors that are 

checked by the program, and EPA’s guidance for how they should be resolved. 

Pechan also performed other general QA procedures outside of EPA’s NIF 3.0 QA software tool, 

including pollutant augmentation, SCC reconciliation, and completeness and reasonableness 

checks. 

Pechan performed pollutant augmentation in cases where the complete set of CAPs and NH3 

were not provided by a State. For example, several States did not provide PM25-PRI, but did 

provide PM10-PRI, so that PM25-PRI was estimated using EPA-published particle-size 

multipliers. Where multipliers were not available from EPA documentation, Pechan used 

available pollutant emission estimates reported by all other MANE-VU States to develop 

“emission ratios” for a given SCC. These “emission ratios” were then used to multiply available 

pollutant estimates to estimate values for the missing pollutants. Specific values used for a given 

State and SCC are cited in the “State-Specific Methods” section below. 

In addition, SCC assignments were reviewed and reassigned after clarification from States as to 

what the specific SCC estimate represented. For example, a State may have reported all aircraft 

activity under one of the specific aircraft type SCCs (e.g., commercial or general aviation), when 

it should more accurately be reported under the general SCC 2275000000 (All Aircraft Types 

and Operations). 

Finally, completeness checks were performed on the inventory to determine that emissions for 

nonroad categories known to operate in a State or county were being reported. Note that 

emissions may not be reported for all NONROAD SCCs for all counties in the MANE-VU RPO, 

and will depend on the geographic allocation methods used by the model, or specific allocation 

data provided by a State. 

NONROAD model category estimates originally provided by States for the June 2004 submittal 

were replaced by emission estimates developed using NMIM/NONROAD 2005. As such, this 
81

TSD will not document corrections made by Pechan to these original NONROAD model 

estimates, since they were replaced for Version 3. 

b. Data input summary spreadsheets for State review 

As mentioned above for NONROAD model categories, Pechan prepared the MANE-VU 

emission estimates using EPA’s final NMIM/NONROAD2005 model. An important QA step in 

running NONROAD is to ensure that the inputs used for fuel specifications and temperatures for 

a given county and month in 2002 are representative. As such, Pechan compiled the RVP, 

percent oxygen, and gasoline sulfur inputs reported by NMIM2005 by county and month for 

States to review. If a State had previously submitted input data for the MANE-VU onroad 

inventory, these data were proposed in lieu of NMIM data. States either confirmed use of the 

default NMIM/onroad MANE-VU inputs, or provided alternate data in the specified format to 

replace the proposed inputs. Pechan updated the gasoline table in the NMIM county database to 

add in new gasoline profiles to reflect revised fuel input values provided by States. These 

profiles were then cross-referenced to the appropriate county and month in a separate table called 

countyyearmonth. Pechan performed QA checks of these NMIM county database tables for each 

State to ensure that the correct fuel data were input by county and by month as requested by the 

State. 

c. QA of final mass emissions 

After performing QA of the inputs, Pechan ran NMIM/NONROAD2005 at the county and 

monthly level for 2002 and generated the results in NIF 3.0. As a QA step, Pechan ran EPA’s 

NIF 3.0 QA software tool on the NIF 3.0 files. Errors identified were resolved and checked to 

ensure they were corrected in the final files. 

As part of final processing of the inventories, and to assist in tracking revisions and preparing 

emission summaries, Pechan added the following NIF plus fields to each table: 

TblCE : State FIPS, County FIPS, Data Source, Revision Date 

TblEM : State FIPS, County FIPS, Data Source, Revision Date, CAP/HAP, Year, 

Emission Ton Value, Emission Type Period 

TblEP : State FIPS, County FIPS, Data Source, Revision Date 

TblPE : State FIPS, County FIPS, Data Source, Revision Date 

TblTR : State FIPS, County FIPS, Revision Date 

Data source codes are included to document the origin of the emissions data, which assists in 

tracking and quality-assuring revisions made to the emission estimates. Table IV-3 provides a 

listing of the data source codes included in the MANE-VU nonroad inventories, as well as a 

definition of each code. State FIPS and County FIPS are separated out to assist in developing 

area-specific emission summaries, and the Emission Ton Value places all emissions on the same 

basis. The Emission Type Period describes the temporal basis of the estimates (in this case, they 

are all annual). Finally, the Revision Date tracks when record-specific changes are made. 
82

Table IV-3. Data Source Code Descriptions 

Data 

Source 

Code Description 

E-02-F E = EPA-generated data; -02 = year 2002; -F = emissions are carried forward for inclusion in 

the 2002 base year 

E-02-X E = EPA-generated data; -02 = year 2002; -F = emissions are not grown or carried forward 

P-02-X P = RPO-generated data; -02 = year 2002; -X = emissions are not grown or carried forward 

S-02-X S = State data; -02 = year 2002 data; -X = emissions are not grown or carried forward 

3. Version 3 Emission Summaries 

Table IV-4 presents a summary of the annual 2002 nonroad sector pollutant emissions for each 

MANE-VU State, as well as a regional total. These emissions include SCCs for all NONROAD 

model engines, as well as aircraft, commercial marine vessel, and locomotive categories, where 

applicable, for each State. Table IV-5 presents the emission results for NONROAD model 

equipment only, while Table IV-6 provides emission estimates for aircraft, commercial marine 

vessel, and locomotive categories separately. 

Table IV-4. Annual 2002 Nonroad Sector Emissions by MANE-VU State 

(Tons/Year) 

State CO NH3 NOx PM10-PRI PM25-PRI SO2 VOC 

Connecticut 276,773.0 16.6 25,460.2 1,952.1 1,793.9 2,087.4 33,880.2 

Delaware 68,782.0 5.2 16,226.5 1,021.4 925.6 3,983.3 8,010.1 

District of Columbia 18,844.7 2.4 3,571.3 310.2 298.7 375.4 2,072.5 

Maine 153,423.6 11.4 9,820.4 1,436.8 1,329.4 916.8 31,144.1 

Maryland 437,400.3 28.2 37,472.2 4,936.0 4,357.1 7,941.6 56,330.4 

Massachusetts 461,514.3 28.2 42,768.5 3,531.2 3,226.4 3,791.2 56,748.5 

New Hampshire 130,782.2 9.1 9,912.1 1,057.8 965.4 891.0 22,376.5 

New Jersey 704,396.4 43.0 63,479.0 5,495.1 4,997.2 15,686.0 83,918.9 

New York 1,233,968.3 79.3 109,878.3 9,605.3 8,820.9 12,919.7 157,611.7 

Pennsylvania 931,978.0 55.0 103,824.2 9,737.9 8,440.1 7,915.0 102,331.0 

Rhode Island 73,012.7 4.1 5,001.5 500.2 443.1 377.2 7,779.7 

Vermont 62,248.1 4.5 4,217.1 529.9 485.8 372.1 10,547.6 

Total MANE-VU 4,553,123.5 286.9 431,631.3 40,113.9 36,083.6 57,256.6 572,751.3 
83

Table IV-5. Annual 2002 NONROAD2005 Model Emissions by MANE-VU State 

(Tons/Year) 

State CO NH3 NOx PM10-PRI PM25-PRI SO2 VOC 

Connecticut 274,387.6 16.6 17,897.0 1,712.9 1,577.6 1,376.6 33,519.0

Delaware 65,954.1 4.9 5,798.3 570.4 525.1 513.0 7,530.5

District of Columbia 18,774.9 2.4 3,066.4 298.4 287.8 341.3 2,052.9

Maine 148,555.3 11.4 8,228.9 1,204.2 1,135.1 771.8 30,741.0

Maryland 424,776.8 28.2 27,789.1 3,118.7 2,870.4 2,569.2 53,035.0

Massachusetts 448,398.7 28.2 30,046.7 2,887.2 2,658.8 2,428.1 54,835.8

New Hampshire 128,571.5 9.1 8,149.5 946.8 871.7 672.7 22,237.8

New Jersey 692,547.9 43.0 43,515.2 4,285.4 3,950.5 3,524.9 81,900.4

New York 1,219,308.7 79.3 78,648.3 8,338.9 7,677.1 6,966.3 155,475.1

Pennsylvania 903,167.7 55.0 62,265.2 6,281.5 5,784.3 5,292.4 99,240.9

Rhode Island 71,573.1 4.1 4,563.9 402.8 371.1 335.5 7,698.7

Vermont 61,732.1 4.5 4,169.9 517.6 476.6 367.6 10,520.4

Total MANE-VU 4,457,748.6 286.6 294,138.2 30,564.8 28,186.1 25,159.4 558,787.4

Table IV-6. Annual 2002 Aircraft, Commercial Marine, and 

Locomotive Emissions by MANE-VU State 

(Tons/Year) 

State CO NH3 NOx PM10-PRI PM25-PRI SO2 VOC 

Connecticut 2,385.4 0.0 7,563.2 239.2 216.4 710.8 361.2

Delaware 2,827.9 0.3 10,428.2 451.1 400.5 3,470.3 479.6

District of Columbia 69.7 0.0 505.0 11.8 10.9 34.1 19.7

Maine 4,868.3 0.0 1,591.5 232.6 194.3 145.0 403.1

Maryland 12,623.5 0.0 9,683.2 1,817.3 1,486.7 5,372.3 3,295.4

Massachusetts 13,115.6 0.0 12,721.7 644.0 567.6 1,363.1 1,912.7

New Hampshire 2,210.7 0.0 1,762.5 111.0 93.7 218.3 138.6

New Jersey 11,848.5 0.0 19,963.9 1,209.7 1,046.7 12,161.1 2,018.6

New York 14,659.6 0.0 31,230.0 1,266.4 1,143.8 5,953.4 2,136.6

Pennsylvania 28,810.2 0.0 41,559.0 3,456.4 2,655.8 2,622.7 3,090.2

Rhode Island 1,439.6 0.0 437.6 97.4 72.1 41.7 81.0

Vermont 516.0 0.0 47.3 12.2 9.2 4.5 27.2

Total MANE-VU 95,374.9 0.3 137,493.1 9,549.1 7,897.4 32,097.3 13,963.9
84

B. State-Specific Methods 

The following sections describe the methods used and QA issues addressed for each MANE-VU 

State in developing Version 3.0 of MANE-VU’s nonroad sector inventory. 

1. Connecticut 

a. What Data Sources Were Used? 

Pechan ran EPA’s NMIM2005 to generate NONROAD model SCC emission estimates. Pechan 

incorporated Connecticut-supplied data for gasoline sulfur content and RVP into the NMIM 

database. Pechan used NMIM defaults for diesel sulfur content and for weight percent 

oxygenate values. The final input data by county and by month are summarized in Table B-1. 

Aircraft and commercial marine vessel emissions are based on the preliminary 2002 nonroad 

NEI. In March 2006, Connecticut provided county-level emission estimates for VOC, NOx, and 

CO for all line-haul and switchyard locomotive SCCs. 

b. What QA Issues were Identified and Addressed? 

For commercial aircraft (SCC 2275020000), PM10-PRI and PM25-PRI were not reported in the 

EPA’s NEI. For completeness, Pechan estimated PM10-PRI emissions by applying an average 

PM10-PRI/NOx emission ratio of 0.058 to available NOx emissions. Commercial aircraft PM25-

PRI emissions were estimated by multiplying PM10-PRI emissions by a particle size multiplier 

of 0.976 (ERG, 2004). 

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

Because EPA’s NEI does not include locomotive category emission estimates for Connecticut, 

and since Connecticut only provided emission estimates for VOC, NOx, and CO, estimates are 

still missing for PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI, and SO2. 

2. Delaware 

a. What Data Sources Were Used? 

Pechan used NMIM2005 to generate NONROAD model SCC emission estimates. Delaware 

approved of the fuel inputs used in NMIM2005. The final fuel input data by county and by 

month are summarized in Table B-1. Delaware provided updated files listed in Table IV-7 to 

replace the default files used in NMIM. These included county allocation files for five nonroad 

categories, and a revised equipment population file with updated populations for specific SCCs. 
85

Table IV-7. Delaware NONROAD External Data Files 

County NR File Name File Type 

10000air.alo County allocation for airport GSE 

10000gc.alo County allocation for golf carts 

10000hou.alo County allocation for lawn & garden 

10000log.alo County allocation for logging 

10000rvp.alo County allocation for land-based recreational 

10000.pop Equipment population 

Pechan used Delaware’s June 2004 CERR submittal as the basis for aircraft, locomotive and 

commercial marine vessel category estimates in the 2002 MANE-VU inventory. 

i. What Revisions Were Requested by State? 

In September 2004, Delaware provided corrections to the general aviation emissions (SCC 

227505000) for all pollutants for Kent County to add in general aviation activity at Dover Air 

Force Base. 

b. What QA Issues were Identified and Addressed? 

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

Delaware. Commercial aircraft (SCC 2275020000) included emission estimates for all 

pollutants except PM25-PRI. Pechan calculated commercial aircraft PM25-PRI emissions using 

the assumption that 97.6% of PM10-PRI is PM25-PRI (ERG, 2004). 

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

None identified by the State. 

3. District of Columbia 

a. What Data Sources Were Used? 

Pechan developed NONROAD Model SCC emissions for District of Columbia using 

NONROAD2005. NONROAD2005 was used directly instead of NMIM2005 to incorporate 

State-supplied weight percent oxygen data. The District of Columbia also requested changes to 

the default NMIM RVP and gasoline values for some months. The final fuel input data by 

county and by month are summarized in Table B-1. 

The 2002 minimum, maximum, and average hourly temperatures included in NMIM were used 

to calculate average monthly temperature inputs to NONROAD. Pechan developed monthly 

NONROAD2005 option files for the District of Columbia. Pechan ran the option files through 

NONROAD2005 to generate monthly emissions that were then summed to develop an annual 

2002 inventory. Pechan performed additional calculations using NMIM emission factors and 

NONROAD2005 fuel consumption to calculate NH3, since NONROAD does not calculate NH3

emissions. NMIM reports NH3 emission factors of 116 grams NH3 per gallon gasoline for 

gasoline engines, and 83 grams NH3 per gallon fuel for diesel engines. 
86

 

The District of Columbia provided locomotive emissions for their nonroad sector June 2004 

CERR submittal. 

b. What QA Issues were Identified and Addressed? 

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

District of Columbia. PM emissions in the inventory were not identified as either PM10 or PM2.5, 

nor were the emissions identified as primary or filterable. The District of Columbia authorized 

Pechan to change PM to PM10-PRI. Locomotive PM25-PRI emissions were estimated using the 

assumption that 90 percent of PM10 is PM2.5 (EPA, 2003b). Hydrocarbon (HC) pollutant 

emissions were also removed from the inventory, as this is not a valid pollutant code in NIF3.0. 

Pechan added commercial marine vessel emissions from the preliminary 2002 Nonroad NEI. 

There are no aircraft emission estimates in the NEI for the District of Columbia, since there are 

not airports located in the District of Columbia. 

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

None identified by the State. 

4. Maine 

a. What Data Sources Were Used? 

Pechan developed NONROAD model SCC emissions using NONROAD2005. For Maine, 

weight percent oxygen values were submitted based on actual fuel survey results by county and 

by month, but Maine had not tracked the corresponding oxygenate volume percent and market 

share. As such, Pechan used NONROAD2005 so that Maine’s values for weight percent oxygen 

could be reflected. Maine also provided revisions to the RVP and gasoline sulfur values reported 

in NMIM2005. Pechan developed NONROAD2005 monthly option files for two county groups 

in Maine that shared values for all three fuel inputs (see Appendix C, Table C-1). The 2002 

minimum, maximum, and average hourly temperatures included in NMIM were used to calculate 

average monthly temperature inputs to NONROAD. Pechan ran the option files through 

NONROAD2005 to generate monthly emissions that were then summed to develop an annual 

2002 inventory. Pechan performed additional calculations using NMIM emission factors and 

fuel consumption to calculate NH3, since NONROAD does not calculate NH3 emissions. NMIM 

reports NH3 emission factors of 116 grams NH3 per gallon gasoline for gasoline engines, and 83 

grams NH3 per gallon fuel for diesel engines. 
87

i. What Revisions Were Requested by State? 

In October 2004, Maine provided aircraft, commercial marine vessel, and locomotive SCC 

emissions to be added to their inventory. Commercial marine emissions submitted by Maine 

only represented in-port emissions. Diesel and residual commercial marine underway emissions 

(SCCs 2280002200 and 2280003200) were based on EPA’s 2002 preliminary NEI. 

b. What QA Issues were Identified and Addressed? 

PM25-PRI estimates were missing from all aircraft SCC records provided by Maine. Pechan 

estimated general aviation, military aircraft, and air taxi PM25-PRI emissions by multiplying 

PM10-PRI emissions by a particle size multiplier of 0.69 (EPA, 2003b). Commercial aircraft 

PM25-PRI emissions were estimated by multiplying PM10-PRI emissions by a particle size 

multiplier of 0.976 (ERG, 2004). In-port commercial marine emissions (SCC 2280002100) were 

missing estimates for PM10-PRI and PM25-PRI. Pechan estimated PM10-PRI emissions by 

applying a PM10-PRI/NOx emission ratio of 0.042 to available NOx emissions. PM25-PRI 

emissions were estimated by multiplying PM10-PRI emissions by a particle size multiplier of 

0.92 (EPA, 2003b). 

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

 

None identified by the State. 

5. Maryland 

a. What Data Sources Were Used? 

Pechan used NMIM2005 to prepare NONROAD model SCC emission estimates. Maryland 

reviewed the default NMIM inputs and provided revisions to the input values for RVP and 

weight percent oxygen for all months. Maryland requested that a value of 2.1 percent oxygen be 

used for all counties and months. This weight percent value was then converted to a volume 

percent of 11.8 percent for use in NMIM, assuming MTBE was the only oxygenate. In addition, 

gasoline sulfur content revisions were incorporated into NMIM for select counties for the months 

of April through September. The final fuel input data by county and by month are summarized 

in Table B-1. 

Maryland also provided updated files listed in Table IV-8 to replace the default files used in 

NMIM. These included county allocation files for several nonroad categories. 

Table IV-8. Maryland NONROAD External Data Files 

County NR File Name File Type 

24000pop.alo County allocation for several nonroad 

categories (population) 

24000con.alo County allocation for construction 

24000hou.alo County allocation for lawn & garden 
88

Pechan used Maryland’s nonroad sector CERR submittal as the basis for the MANE-VU 

inventory for the aircraft, locomotive and commercial marine vessel categories. 

i. What Revisions Were Requested by State? 

In September 2004, Maryland provided revised aircraft and commercial marine vessel emission 

estimates. Pechan replaced the aircraft and commercial marine vessel emissions from their 

CERR submittal with the revised emissions. 

b. What QA Issues were Identified and Addressed? 

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

Maryland. Maryland did not provide PM25-PRI aircraft emissions in their inventory. Pechan 

estimated general aviation, military aircraft, and air taxi PM25-PRI emissions by multiplying 

PM10-PRI emissions by a particle size multiplier of 0.69 (EPA, 2003b). Commercial aircraft 

PM25-PRI emissions were estimated by multiplying PM10-PRI emissions by a particle size 

multiplier of 0.976 (ERG, 2004). 

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

None identified by the State. 

6. Massachusetts 

a. What Data Sources Were Used? 

Pechan used NMIM2005 to generate NONROAD model SCC emission estimates. 

Massachusetts reviewed the NMIM inputs and approved of the fuel input values for RVP and 

gasoline sulfur content. NMIM2005 reported a weight percent oxygen of 2.1 percent for all 

months for all counties in Massachusetts, and the State requested a value of 1.5 percent be used 

for all counties from October through April. This weight percent value was then converted to a 

volume percent of 8.4 percent for use in NMIM, given that MTBE was the only oxygenate. 

Final fuel input data by county and by month are presented in Table B-1. 

Massachusetts provided annual emissions for aircraft, locomotive and commercial marine vessel 

categories for their nonroad sector CERR submittal. These inventories included all CAP. 

i. What Revisions Were Requested by State? 

Massachusetts requested that Pechan incorporate revisions supplied for annual emissions for inport diesel commercial marine (SCC 2280002010) for Dukes County (25007). 
89

b. What QA Issues were Identified and Addressed? 

Pechan changed the aircraft SCC “2275050000” to “2275000000,” since Massachusetts verified 

that this emission record represents all aircraft types, not just general aviation. 

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

None identified by the State. 

7. New Hampshire 

a. What Data Sources Were Used? 

Pechan used NMIM2005 to generate NONROAD model SCC emission estimates. New 

Hampshire reviewed and approved of the fuel inputs used in NMIM2005. See Table B-1 for a 

summary of the final fuel input data by county and month. 

Pechan used New Hampshire’s nonroad sector CERR submittal as the basis for the MANE-VU 

aircraft and locomotive inventory. Pechan added commercial marine vessel emissions from the 

preliminary 2002 Nonroad NEI. 

b. What QA Issues were Identified and Addressed? 

Pechan performed QA of the file, and revised the file to address QA issues as approved by New 

Hampshire. New Hampshire did not provide PM10 and PM2.5 aircraft emissions in their 

inventory. New Hampshire authorized Pechan to develop aircraft PM10 emissions for all aircraft 

types by applying an average PM10/NOx emission ratio to the aircraft NOx emissions in their 

inventory. The PM10/NOx ratios used were 3.819 for military and air taxi, 3.642 for general 

aviation, and 0.058 for commercial aircraft. Pechan estimated general aviation, military aircraft, 

and air taxi PM25-PRI emissions by multiplying PM10-PRI emissions by a particle size 

multiplier of 0.69 (EPA, 2003b). For commercial aircraft, Pechan estimated PM25-PRI 

emissions using the assumption that 97.6% of PM10 is PM2.5 (ERG, 2004). 

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

None identified by the State. 

8. New Jersey 

a. What Data Sources Were Used? 

Pechan used NMIM2005 to generate NONROAD model SCC emission estimates. New Jersey 

approved of the default fuel inputs used in NMIM2005. See Table B-1 for a summary of the 

final fuel input data by county and month. New Jersey provided an updated data input file 
90

containing revised equipment populations (34000.pop) for specific SCCs for the NMIM model 

runs. 

Pechan used New Jersey’s nonroad sector CERR submittal as the basis for the aircraft, 

locomotive and commercial marine vessel categories. These inventories included all CAPs. 

b. What QA Issues were Identified and Addressed? 

Pechan performed QA of the file, and revised the file to address QA issues as approved by New 

Jersey. The only QA issue identified was the inclusion of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the inventory, 

which is not a valid pollutant code in NIF3.0, so these records were removed. 

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

None identified by the State. 

9. New York 

a. What Data Sources Were Used? 

Pechan used NMIM2005 to generate NONROAD model SCC emission estimates. New York 

reviewed the default NMIM inputs and provided revisions to the input values for RVP and 

gasoline sulfur for all months. New York also requested revisions to weight percent oxygen 

values for all counties and months. These weight percent values were then converted to a 

volume percent for use in NMIM, based on MTBE as the only oxygenate for all counties, with 

the exception of four counties. These included Cattaraugus, Chautauqua, Erie, and Niagara 

counties, which use ETOH as the oxygenate. The final fuel input data by county and by month 

are summarized in Table B-1. 

For the aircraft and locomotive categories, Pechan used emissions reported in the preliminary 

2002 Nonroad NEI. 

i. What Revisions Were Requested by State? 

In October 2004, New York provided commercial marine vessel emissions to be added to their 

inventory. New York did not provide PM-2.5 commercial marine vessel emissions for some 

counties in their inventory. Pechan estimated the commercial marine vessel PM25-PRI 

emissions from PM10-PRI using the assumption that 92% of PM10 is PM2.5 (EPA, 2003b). 
91

b. What QA Issues were Identified and Addressed? 

Commercial aircraft (SCC 2275020000) emissions for PM10-PRI and PM25-PRI were not 

reported in the EPA’s preliminary 2002 NEI. Pechan estimated PM10-PRI emissions by 

applying a PM10-PRI/NOx emission ratio of 0.058 to available NOx emissions for this SCC. 

Commercial aircraft PM25-PRI emissions were estimated by multiplying PM10-PRI emissions 

by a particle size multiplier of 0.976 (ERG, 2004). 

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

None identified by the State. 

10. Pennsylvania 

a. What Data Sources Were Used? 

Pechan used NMIM2005 to generate NONROAD model SCC emission estimates. Pennsylvania 

approved of the fuel inputs provided, which were based on the onroad MOBILE6 inputs. Since 

these differed from the values in NMIM2005, Pechan updated the NMIM profiles accordingly. 

See Table B-1 for a summary of the final fuel input data by county and month. Pennsylvania 

provided one county allocation file for the lawn and garden category (42000hou.alo) to replace 

the default file used in NMIM. 

Pennsylvania submitted an aircraft, locomotive, and commercial marine vessel emissions 

inventory to MANE-VU after the CERR submittal date. 

i. What Revisions Were Requested by State? 

In August 2005, Pennsylvania provided Pechan with county-level updates to SCC 2285002006 

(Line Haul Locomotives: Class I Operations) emissions for all pollutants. Pechan updated all 

emission records for this SCC in Pennsylvania's inventory. 

b. What QA Issues were Identified and Addressed? 

Pennsylvania authorized Pechan to remove the CO2 emission records from their inventory. In 

addition, the following data augmentation was performed to add missing SCCs and pollutants. 

Pennsylvania did not provide commercial aircraft emissions in their inventory. Pechan added 

commercial aircraft emissions from the 2002 preliminary NEI to Pennsylvania’s inventory. 

Pennsylvania did not provide PM10-PRI and PM25-PRI aircraft emissions in their inventory. 

Pechan developed aircraft PM10 emissions for all aircraft types by applying an average PM10/ 

NOx emission ratio to Pennsylvania’s available aircraft NOx emissions. The PM10/NOx ratios 

used were 3.819 for military and air taxi, 3.642 for general aviation, and 0.058 for commercial 

aircraft. Pechan estimated general aviation, military aircraft, and air taxi PM25-PRI emissions 

by multiplying PM10-PRI emissions by a particle size multiplier of 0.69 (EPA, 2003b). For 

commercial aircraft, Pechan estimated PM25-PRI emissions using the assumption that 97.6% of 

PM10 is PM2.5 (ERG, 2004). 
92

Pennsylvania also did not provide SO2 general aviation and air taxi emissions in the inventory. 

Pechan estimated the SO2 emissions by applying a SO2/NOx emission ratio to the general 

aviation and air taxi NOx emissions, using ratios of 0.154 and 0.095, respectively. 

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

None identified by the State. 

11. Rhode Island 

a. What Data Sources Were Used? 

Pechan used NMIM2005 to generate NONROAD model SCC emission estimates. Rhode Island 

approved of the fuel inputs used in NMIM2005. See Table B-1 for a summary of the final fuel 

input data by county and month. Rhode Island provided a revised equipment population file 

(44000.pop) with updated populations for specific SCCs to replace the default file used in 

NMIM. 

Rhode Island provided emissions for aircraft, locomotive and commercial marine vessel 

categories for their nonroad sector CERR submittal. 

i. What Revisions Were Requested by State? 

Rhode Island provided updates in September 2004 to their county-level railroad equipment 

emissions. The new emissions fall under SCC 2285002005 and replace all line haul locomotive 

emissions provided in their CERR submittal. Emission estimates for yard locomotives were also 

provided (SCC 2285002010). 

b. What QA Issues were Identified and Addressed? 

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

Rhode Island. 

PM10 was not identified as either primary or filterable. Rhode Island authorized Pechan to 

change it to PM10-PRI. To avoid double counting, Pechan removed the following SCCs from 

Rhode Island’s inventory: 2275000000, 2280002000, 2280002020, 2280003000, and 

2280003020. These emissions are accounted for under more specific SCCs for aircraft, and 

more aggregate SCCs for commercial marine. 

Rhode Island did not provide PM10-PRI and PM25-PRI aircraft emissions in their inventory. 

Pechan developed aircraft PM10 emissions for all aircraft types by applying an average PM10/

NOx emission ratio to the aircraft NOx emissions in their inventory. The PM10/NOx ratios used 

were 3.819 for military and air taxi, 3.642 for general aviation, and 0.058 for commercial 

aircraft. Pechan estimated general aviation, military aircraft, and air taxi PM25-PRI emissions 

by multiplying PM10-PRI emissions by a particle size multiplier of 0.69 (EPA, 2003b). For 
93

commercial aircraft, Pechan estimated PM25-PRI emissions using the assumption that 97.6% of 

PM10 is PM2.5 (ERG, 2004). 

Rhode Island did not provide yard locomotive, and commercial marine vessel PM25-PRI 

emissions in their inventory. Pechan estimated the yard locomotive PM25-PRI emissions from 

PM10-PRI using the assumption that 90% of PM10 is PM25 (EPA, 2003b). Pechan estimated the 

commercial marine vessel PM25-PRI emissions from PM10-PRI using the assumption that 92% 

of PM10 is PM2.5 (EPA, 2003b). 

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

None identified by the State. 

12. Vermont 

a. What Data Sources Were Used? 

Pechan developed NONROAD model SCC emissions for Vermont using NMIM2005. Vermont 

approved of the default fuel input values used in NMIM2005 for weight percent oxygen, but 

requested that the RVP and gasoline sulfur values reflect values used for onroad mobile source 

emissions. 

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

b. What QA Issues were Identified and Addressed? 

Commercial aircraft (SCC 2275020000) emissions for PM10-PRI and PM25-PRI were not 

reported in the EPA’s preliminary 2002 NEI. Pechan estimated PM10-PRI emissions by 

applying an average PM10-PRI/NOx emission ratio of 0.058 to available NOx emissions. 

Commercial aircraft PM25-PRI emissions were estimated by multiplying PM10-PRI emissions 

by a particle size multiplier of 0.976 (ERG, 2004). 

 

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

Note that there are no locomotive or commercial marine vessel emissions in the NEI for 

Vermont. Where activity for any of these SCCs occurs in Vermont, these categories are not 

represented in the State’s inventory. 
94

CHAPTER V – ONROAD SOURCES 

A. General Methods for All States 

This section provides an overview of the data sources and QA steps used in preparing the 2002 

onroad sector inventory for the MANE-VU States and in preparing the corresponding modeling 

inputs for the MANE-VU Version 3 modeling inventory. The onroad sector is comprised of all 

motorized vehicles that travel on the public highways including passenger cars, light-duty trucks, 

minivans, sport utility vehicles, heavy-duty trucks, and buses. It should be noted that, unlike the 

other emission sectors, the modeling inventory inputs for the onroad sector do not include any 

emissions data. The primary modeling inputs for the onroad sector instead are the activity inputs 

(vehicle miles traveled (VMT)) and SMOKE-formatted MOBILE6 input files. The SMOKE 

model then generates full MOBILE6 input files using the MOBILE6 inputs, speed inputs, and 

meteorological inputs for the episode(s) to be modeled, runs the MOBILE6 emission factor 

model to calculate the appropriate emission factors, and calculates emissions using the supplied 

VMT and additional temporal allocation factors for the VMT. 

1. Data Sources 

a. Source of default model data 

The MANE-VU 2002 onroad emissions inventory was compiled from data supplied by the 

MANE-VU State agencies in the form of onroad emissions input data or emissions inventories 

either directly to MANE-VU or to EPA through their CERR submittal. States provided 

information in one or more of the following ways: (1) an onroad emission inventory submittal to 

EPA, (2) MOBILE6 inputs and VMT data in NMIM format to EPA, (3) portions of MOBILE6 

inputs or full MOBILE6 input files and supporting files plus VMT to EPA, or (4) portions of 

MOBILE6 inputs or full MOBILE6 input files and supporting files plus VMT to MANE-VU. 

Different procedures were followed in developing the MANE-VU 2002 onroad emission 

inventory depending upon how the data were submitted. 

As discussed above, the primary data needed in preparing the inputs for the onroad modeling 

files were the VMT data and MOBILE6 input files. All of the MANE-VU States provided VMT 

data, which were incorporated in the SMOKE modeling. The level of detail of the supplied 

VMT data and any additional processing of the VMT data are discussed individually by State, 

below, in Section B: State-Specific Methods. Therefore, no default data were needed for the 

VMT inputs. Default model inputs for the SMOKE MOBILE6 input files were needed in some 

cases. The source of default information to be included in these input files was the NMIM 

national county database, as this was also the default source of data for EPA in preparing the 

2002 NEI. This database includes information on monthly fuel data by county, control program 

information by county, such as inspection and maintenance (I/M) program inputs, and other fleet 

information, such as vehicle registration distributions, that may have been supplied by the States. 

Additionally, vehicle speed information is needed in the SMOKE modeling files. Some States 

supplied this information. In cases where no speed data were supplied, the default speeds used 

by EPA in calculating the NEI were used. These speeds differ by road class group and by 

vehicle class group. 
95

For the SMOKE modeling, Pechan did not provide any ambient data such as temperature or 

humidity. Instead, the SMOKE model needs meteorological input data specific to the episode(s) 

being modeled. Thus, although the SMOKE MOBILE6 input files do include temperature data 

and in some cases humidity data, these inputs will be replaced by the SMOKE model with the 

appropriate episode-specific data. 

b. Model inputs and revisions provided by States 

The model inputs and revisions provided by the States are discussed in detail in Section B, 

below. These inputs include VMT data, VMT temporal data, vehicle speeds, I/M program 

inputs, registrations distributions, and other MOBILE6 input data. 

c. Model inputs provided vs. model inputs used 

Pechan prepared the following model input files for Version 3 of the MANE-VU modeling 

inventory: 

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

• MANEVU_2002_mtpro_02022006.txt—contains VMT temporal profiles; 

• MANEVU_2002_mtref_02022006.txt—contains cross references between temporal 

profiles and county/SCC; 

• MANEVU_2002_vmtmix_02022006.txt—contains VMT vehicle mix fractions; 

• MANEVU_2002_mcref_02022006.txt—contains cross reference between MANE-VU 

counties and the SMOKE MOBILE6 input files; 

• MANEVU_2002_mvref_02022006.txt—contains general county-level information for 

SMOKE; 

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

• MANEVU_2002_spdref.txt—contains cross references between speed profiles and 

MANE-VU county/SCC; 

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

• MANEVU_SMOKE_M6Inputs_MA_NJ_02022006.zip—contains monthly SMOKEformatted MOBILE6 input files for Massachusetts and New Jersey, updated for Version 

3; 

• MANEVU_2002_SMOKE_M6_InputFiles032004.zip—contains monthly SMOKEformatted MOBILE6 input files for all MANE-VU States. Files for Massachusetts and 

New Jersey from this zip file should be replaced by the Version 3 files dated 02/02/2006. 

• MANEVU_2002_SMOKE_M6_ExternalFiles.zip—contains external data files called by 

the SMOKE MOBILE6 input files. 

2. What Quality Assurance Steps were Performed? 

This section provides a brief summary of the QA steps and processes that were performed in the 

development of the onroad sector modeling inputs for MANE-VU. The initial QA procedures 

were performed on the emissions and input data used to calculate the MANE-VU 2002 onroad 
96

emission inventory. Some of these QA procedures are also relevant here to the modeling 

inventory as many of the inputs are either the same or start with common information. 

For States submitting onroad emission inventories to EPA, Pechan performed QA checks on the 

State-provided emission inventory data to ensure completeness, referential integrity, and correct 

formatting of the data. Where necessary as a result of these QA checks, and with the approval of 

the affected State, Pechan revised the inventories to meet the necessary inventory standards. For 

the modeling inventory, the VMT checks included in these QA checks are relevant. Note that a 

Quality Assurance Plan was prepared prior to initiating work on Version 1 (MANE-VU, 2003). 

This plan was applied during development of all three versions of the MANE-VU inventory. 

a. Data input summary spreadsheets for State review 

In reviewing the data submitted for both the annual onroad inventory and the onroad modeling 

files, Pechan prepared a State QA report for each State. These reports were in the form of Excel 

spreadsheets. In each of the State QA reports, a page was included that summarized the 

modeling inputs. This included MOBILE6 input parameters, such as I/M data, registration data, 

and fuel data. Columns were included indicating the data file name, data coverage (e.g., 

statewide or for specific counties), data source, any comments regarding the data, an indication 

of whether any guidance was requested from the State agency before proceeding, and columns 

for State agency approval of the listed inputs. These reports were provided to each State agency 

and the State could either approve the inputs summarized or provide an alternate data source or 

calculation method. For States that had submitted emission inventories in NIF format, results of 

the NIF QA checks were also included in these State QA reports for the states to review and 

approve and provide alternate data or methods. This table also include information on the VMT 

data source and any proposed methodologies needed for processing the VMT. 

b. Responses from State Agencies 

The appropriate State agency staff reviewed the State QA reports and provided direction for 

correcting QA issues either in the QA Summary Report Excel file or via e-mail. The modeling 

inputs were then revised to incorporate responses from the agencies. 

3. Version 3 Emission Summaries 

Table V-1 presents a summary of the annual 2002 Version 3 MANE-VU onroad sector pollutant 

emissions for each MANE-VU State, as well as a regional total. Differences between these 

Version 3 annual emission totals and the Version 2 totals documented in the January 2005 

MANE-VU mobile sources inventory report are the result of updated data provided by New 

Jersey and Massachusetts. Emissions for the remaining states have not changed. It should be 

noted that these emission results are from the annual inventory modeling. These will differ from 

the results obtained by the SMOKE onroad modeling. Additionally, the emissions in this table 

do not reflect VMT updates from Vermont that were provided after the Version 2 MANE-VU 

annual inventory had been calculated, but were included in the SMOKE Version 2 and Version 3 

modeling inputs. 
97

Table V-1. Annual 2002 Onroad Sector Emissions by MANE-VU State 

(Tons/Year) 

State VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10-PRI PM25-PRI NH3

Connecticut 31,755.3 68,816.2 562,124.0 1,666.9 1,580.0 1,041.6 3,293.9

Delaware 10,563.8 21,340.5 160,760.4 583.9 581.1 414.9 902.8

District of Columbia 4,895.3 8,902.0 66,017.6 271.1 222.0 153.0 397.8

Maine 23,037.4 54,686.8 410,957.8 1,803.9 1,239.1 934.4 1,467.5

Maryland 61,846.7 122,210.0 1,000,762.8 4,057.6 3,168.3 2,200.4 5,594.3

Massachusetts 57,185.5 143,367.6 1,039,100.1 4,398.8 3,407.5 2,409.9 5,499.1

New Hampshire 16,762.3 33,283.0 306,792.5 776.9 814.3 561.8 1,447.0

New Jersey 89,752.9 152,076.1 1,273,513.1 3,648.6 3,725.3 2,469.0 7,382.0

New York 287,845.2 319,732.5 3,711,149.6 10,639.5 8,457.5 5,897.7 14,680.9

Pennsylvania 176,090.3 346,471.5 2,784,196.5 10,924.1 7,351.5 5,331.2 10,532.3

Rhode Island 12,537.8 16,677.2 186,196.8 425.3 345.1 210.5 852.6

Vermont 17,287.8 20,669.9 248,247.6 893.8 669.6 482.8 934.1

Total MANE-VU 789,560.3 1,308,233.3 11,749,818.8 40,090.5 31,561.3 22,107.2 52,984.3 

B. State-Specific Methods 

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

inputs were developed. 

1. Connecticut 

a. What Data Sources Were Used? 

Table V-2 summarizes the onroad SMOKE input files that were prepared containing information 

for the State of Connecticut. This table notes the level of detail of the data included as well as 

the source of the original information used to create these data files. 

The VMT inputs provided by Connecticut were in the form of three sets of data. This included a 

file with VMT by county and four road types (Expressway, Arterial/Collector, Local, and 

Ramp), a set of Statewide VMT mixes at the 16 vehicle type-level for each of the four 

Connecticut road types, and a Statewide hourly VMT distribution file. Additional data provided 

by Connecticut showing the correspondence between the four Connecticut road types and the 12 

Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) road types were used to first distribute the 

county VMT to the 12 road types. Average daily miles were converted to annual miles by 

multiplying the average daily miles by 365. Pechan then developed a simple MOBILE6 input 

file that used the Connecticut registration distribution and with a separate scenario for each of the 

VMT mixes provided at the 16 vehicle type level. Pechan used the resulting MOBILE6 output 

file to extract the 28 vehicle type VMT mix corresponding to each of the four Connecticut road 

types. The VMT data by county and 12 road types were then multiplied by the 28 vehicle type 

VMT fractions to obtain a VMT file at the 28 vehicle type level and 12 road type level by county 

(for use in calculating the annual emission inventory). VMT from these 28 vehicle types were 
98

then aggregated to the 12 vehicle types needed for the SMOKE MBINV input file. The VMT 

mix fractions by vehicle type for each county and road type were also calculated for inclusion in 

the SMOKE VMTMIX file. 

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

 Final MANE-VU Version 3 SMOKE Input File Level of Detail 

Data 

Source 

VMT MANEVU_2002_mbinv_02022006.txt County/SCC CT 

Speeds MANEVU_2002_mbinv_02022006.txt Road type/3 vehicle 

groups 

Default 

NEI 

Speed 

profiles 

MANEVU_2002_spdpro.txt and 

MANEVU_2002_spdref.txt 

County/hour/road 

type 

CT 

VMT mix MANEVU_2002_vmtmix_02022006.txt Statewide/road type CT 

SMOKE 

MOBILE6 file 

listing 

MANEVU_2002_mcref_02022006.txt County 

SMOKE 

MOBILE6 file 

listing 

MANEVU_2002_mvref_02022006.txt County 

For Connecticut, speed information is contained in both the MBINV SMOKE file as well as in 

the SMOKE speed profile (SPDPRO) and speed cross reference file (SPDREF) files. The speed 

information contained in the MBINV file is simply the default NEI speed data. The actual speed 

data to be used in the modeling inventory for Connecticut are contained in the SMOKE SPDPRO 

and SPDREF. The speed data from these two files should overwrite the default speed 

information contained in the MBINV file during the SMOKE modeling. The data used to 

develop the speed profiles were provided by Connecticut in the form of NMIM speed input files 

with the fraction of VMT occurring within each of 14 speed bins. These speed distributions 

differ by hour of day and by freeways versus arterials and collectors. Separate speed distribution 

files were provided by Connecticut for each county. Pechan then converted these speed data into 

the speed profile format needed for SMOKE—hourly average speeds by county and the two 

specified road types. 

Connecticut provided the following data that were incorporated into the monthly MOBILE6 

input files for the SMOKE modeling: 

• Statewide registration distribution; 

• Hourly VMT distributions; 

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

• RVP and fuel program data. 

The data submitted by Connecticut indicated that Federal Northern reformulated gasoline is in 

place in the State, with an ozone season RVP of 6.8 pounds per square inch (psi). Based on the 

NMIM modeling that was performed for the annual emission inventory, the reformulated 

gasoline program was modeled in the SMOKE MOBILE6 input files using the combination of 

the FUEL PROGRAM: 4 command (indicating user-supplied gasoline sulfur inputs), RVP 

command, and the OXYGENATED FUELS command. The monthly oxygenated fuel and 

gasoline sulfur inputs, and the non-ozone season monthly RVP values were obtained from the 
99

NMIM national county database for Connecticut. During the ozone season months, the RVP 

value submitted by Connecticut of 6.8 psi was modeled. The fuel data obtained from NMIM are 

the same for all counties in Connecticut, except Fairfield, which shows different fuel properties, 

but all represent reformulated gasoline. These values for both Fairfield and the remaining 

counties differed by season (i.e., the ozone season from May through September, transition 

months of March, April, October, and November, and the winter months of December, January, 

and February). Statewide diesel sulfur values modeled from NMIM were 367 ppm sulfur in the 

summer months (June, July, and August), 340 ppm sulfur in the winter months (December, 

January, and February), and 353 ppm sulfur in the spring and fall months. 

Data provided by Connecticut indicated that the State follows the OTC low emission vehicle 

(LEV) program vehicle implementation schedule. Therefore, the OTC-LEV program LEV 

implementation schedule was included in the MOBILE6 SMOKE input files, starting 

implementation in the 1999 model year followed by a full implementation of the National LEV 

program in the 2001 model year. 

b. What QA Issues were Identified and Addressed? 

No QA issues were identified for Connecticut. 

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

None identified by the State. 

2. Delaware 

a. What Data Sources Were Used? 

Table V-3 summarizes the onroad SMOKE input files that were prepared containing information 

for the State of Delaware. This table notes the level of detail of the data included as well as the 

source of the original information used to create these data files. 

Delaware provided VMT data in the form of the NEI NIF PE table as well as in the NMIM 

BaseYearVMT table format. Additionally, Delaware provided monthly VMT fractions 

developed from VMT counts on a variety of road types. These monthly VMT fractions were 

provided for each of the Delaware counties. Since the data in the NEI NIF PE table were at the 

level of detail needed for the SMOKE MBINV file, the format of the VMT data was simply 

converted from the NIF format to the SMOKE MBINV format. Similarly, the monthly VMT 

fractions were converted to the profile format needed in the SMOKE MTPRO file, with the 

appropriate cross references in the MTREF file. The average speeds provided by Delaware at 

the county/road type level were included in the SMOKE MBINV file. 
100

Table V-3. Delaware Onroad Data in SMOKE Input Files 

 Final MANE-VU Version 3 SMOKE Input File Level of Detail 

Data 

Source 

VMT MANEVU_2002_mbinv_02022006.txt County/SCC DE 

Speeds MANEVU_2002_mbinv_02022006.txt County/road type DE 

VMT mix MANEVU_2002_vmtmix_02022006.txt County/road type 

Temporal 

profiles 

MANEVU_2002_mtpro_02022006.txt and 

MANEVU_2002_mtref_02022006.txt 

Monthly by 

county/road type 

DE 

SMOKE 

MOBILE6 file 

listing 

MANEVU_2002_mcref_02022006.txt County 

SMOKE 

MOBILE6 file 

listing 

MANEVU_2002_mvref_02022006.txt County 

The fuel data submitted by Delaware was based on the NMIM defaults with the NMIM October 

data replaced by the NMIM November data. The reformulated gas fuel parameters were 

modeled in the SMOKE MOBILE6 input files by using the combination of the OXYGENATED 

FUELS, FUEL RVP, and FUEL PROGRAM (for gasoline sulfur contents) commands for each 

month. Statewide diesel sulfur values modeled from NMIM were 300 ppm sulfur in the summer 

months (June, July, and August), 280 ppm sulfur in the winter months (December, January, and 

February), and 290 ppm sulfur in the spring and fall months. 

Data provided by Delaware indicated that the State follows the OTC-LEV program vehicle 

implementation schedule. Therefore, the OTC-LEV program LEV implementation schedule was 

included in the MOBILE6 SMOKE input files, starting implementation in the 1999 model year 

followed by a full implementation of the National LEV program in the 2001 model year. 

b. What QA Issues were Identified and Addressed? 

No QA issues were identified for Delaware. 

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

None identified by the State. 

3. District of Columbia 

a. What Data Sources Were Used? 

Table V-4 summarizes the onroad SMOKE input files that were prepared containing information 

for the District of Columbia. This table notes the level of detail of the data included as well as 

the source of the original information used to create these data files. 
101

Table V-4. District of Columbia Onroad Data in SMOKE Input Files 

 Final MANE-VU Version 3 SMOKE Input File Level of Detail 

Data 

Source 

VMT MANEVU_2002_mbinv_02022006.txt County/SCC DC 

Speeds MANEVU_2002_mbinv_02022006.txt Road type DC 

VMT mix MANEVU_2002_vmtmix_02022006.txt Road type DC 

SMOKE 

MOBILE6 file 

listing 

MANEVU_2002_mcref_02022006.txt County 

SMOKE 

MOBILE6 file 

listing 

MANEVU_2002_mvref_02022006.txt County 

The District of Columbia provided 2002 VMT data in the form of the NMIM BaseYearVMT 

table. This table included VMT at the 28 vehicle type level for each of the six urban road types 

in the District of Columbia. VMT from these 28 vehicle types were then aggregated to the 12 

vehicle types needed for the SMOKE MBINV input file. The VMT mix fractions by vehicle 

type for each county and road type were also calculated for inclusion in the SMOKE VMTMIX 

file. The District also provided a spreadsheet including the daily average weighted speed by 

roadway class. These speeds were incorporated in the SMOKE MBINV file. The District of 

Columbia provided the following data that were incorporated into the monthly MOBILE6 input 

files for the SMOKE modeling: 

• District-wide registration distribution; 

• I/M program and ATP inputs; and 

• Weekday trip length distribution file. 

The District of Columbia specified that the NMIM fuel program default data for the District 

should be used for the MANE-VU modeling. This included reformulated gasoline district wide, 

modeled using the FUEL RVP, and FUEL PROGRAM (for gasoline sulfur contents) commands 

for each month. Statewide diesel sulfur values modeled from NMIM were 329 ppm sulfur in the 

summer months (June, July, and August), 324 ppm sulfur in the winter months (December, 

January, and February), and 326 ppm sulfur in the spring and fall months. 

Data provided by the District of Columbia indicated that the District follows the OTC-LEV 

program vehicle implementation schedule. Therefore, the OTC-LEV program LEV 

implementation schedule was included in the MOBILE6 SMOKE input files, starting 

implementation in the 1999 model year followed by a full implementation of the National LEV 

program in the 2001 model year. 

b. What QA Issues were Identified and Addressed? 

No QA issues were identified for the District of Columbia. 
102

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

The SMOKE MOBILE6 files for the District of Columbia should include the OXYGENATED 

FUELS command to fully model reformulated gasoline in the District of Columbia. This 

command was inadvertently left out of the SMOKE MOBILE6 files. 

4. Maine 

a. What Data Sources Were Used? 

Table V-5 summarizes the onroad SMOKE input files that were prepared containing information 

for the State of Maine. This table notes the level of detail of the data included as well as the 

source of the original information used to create these data files. 

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

 Final MANE-VU Version 3 SMOKE Input File Level of Detail 

Data 

Source 

VMT MANEVU_2002_mbinv_02022006.txt County/SCC ME 

Speeds MANEVU_2002_mbinv_02022006.txt County/road type ME 

VMT mix MANEVU_2002_vmtmix_02022006.txt Statewide/road type Default 

SMOKE 

MOBILE6 file 

listing 

MANEVU_2002_mcref_02022006.txt County 

SMOKE 

MOBILE6 file 

listing 

MANEVU_2002_mvref_02022006.txt County 

Maine provided 2002 average daily VMT by county and 12 roadway types. Maine had no 

information available on the distribution of VMT among vehicle types. Therefore, Pechan 

developed the VMT by county, roadway type, and vehicle type by using the default MOBILE6 

2002 VMT mix by vehicle type. These VMT data were converted to annual VMT by 

multiplying the average daily VMT by 365. The MOBILE6 VMT default mix fractions by 

vehicle type for 2002 were included for Maine in the SMOKE VMTMIX file. Maine also 

provided average speed data by county and roadway type. These data were included in the 

SMOKE MBINV file. 

Maine provided the following data that were incorporated into the monthly MOBILE6 input files 

for the SMOKE modeling: 

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

• Monthly average RVP data. 

Statewide diesel sulfur values were obtained from the NMIM defaults for Maine. A diesel sulfur 

value of 390 ppm sulfur was modeled in the summer months (June, July, and August), 338 ppm 

sulfur in the winter months (December, January, and February), and 364 ppm sulfur in the spring 

and fall months. 
103

Data provided by Maine indicated that the State follows the OTC-LEV program vehicle 

implementation schedule. Therefore, the OTC-LEV program LEV implementation schedule was 

included in the MOBILE6 SMOKE input files, starting implementation in the 1999 model year 

followed by a full implementation of the National LEV program in the 2001 model year. 

b. What QA Issues were Identified and Addressed? 

No QA issues were identified for Maine. 

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

None identified by the State. 

5. Maryland 

a. What Data Sources Were Used? 

Table V-6 summarizes the onroad SMOKE input files that were prepared containing information 

for the State of Maryland. This table notes the level of detail of the data included as well as the 

source of the original information used to create these data files. 

Maryland submitted annual VMT data in the form of a NIF tblMobilePE table. This included 

VMT by county, 12 vehicle types, and 12 road types. These VMT data were then converted to 

the format needed for the SMOKE MBINV file. Pechan calculated VMT mix fractions from the 

VMT data supplied by Maryland to obtain the VMT mixes by county and road type contained in 

the SMOKE VMTMIX file. In addition, Maryland provided monthly VMT distribution data by 

road type. Pechan converted these data to the format needed for the SMOKE MTPRO and 

MTREF files. The same set of monthly temporal profiles were applied to all counties in 

Maryland. Maryland also provided a spreadsheet showing the average speed Statewide for each 

of the 12 roadway types. These speed data were included in the SMOKE MBINV file. 

Maryland provided the following data that were incorporated into the monthly MOBILE6 input 

files for the SMOKE modeling: 

• County-specific registration distribution; 

• County-specific diesel sales fractions; 

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

• Statewide monthly diesel sulfur content data. 

Maryland indicated that the NMIM default fuel parameters for Maryland should be used in the 

MANE-VU modeling. This fuel data includes reformulated gasoline in 14 of the Maryland 

counties. The reformulated gasoline program was modeled using the FUEL RVP, and FUEL 

PROGRAM (for gasoline sulfur contents) commands for each month. Maryland provided 

monthly Statewide diesel sulfur values. These values ranged from 455 ppm sulfur to 500 ppm 
104

sulfur. These values were included in the corresponding monthly SMOKE MOBILE6 input 

files. 

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

 Final MANE-VU Version 3 SMOKE Input File Level of Detail 

Data 

Source 

VMT MANEVU_2002_mbinv_02022006.txt County/SCC MD 

Speeds MANEVU_2002_mbinv_02022006.txt County/road type MD 

VMT mix MANEVU_2002_vmtmix_02022006.txt County/road type MD 

Temporal 

profiles 

MANEVU_2002_mtpro_02022006.txt and 

MANEVU_2002_mtref_02022006.txt 

Statewide monthly by 

road type 

MD 

SMOKE 

MOBILE6 file 

listing 

MANEVU_2002_mcref_02022006.txt County 

SMOKE 

MOBILE6 file 

listing 

MANEVU_2002_mvref_02022006.txt County 

Data provided by Maryland indicated that the State follows the OTC-LEV program vehicle 

implementation schedule. Therefore, the OTC-LEV program LEV implementation schedule was 

included in the MOBILE6 SMOKE input files, starting implementation in the 1999 model year 

followed by a full implementation of the National LEV program in the 2001 model year. 

b. What QA Issues were Identified and Addressed? 

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

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

The SMOKE MOBILE6 files for Maryland should include the OXYGENATED FUELS 

command to fully model reformulated gasoline in the Maryland counties that implement the 

reformulated gasoline program. This command was inadvertently left out of the Maryland 

SMOKE MOBILE6 files. 
105

6. Massachusetts 

a. What Data Sources Were Used? 

Table V-7 summarizes the onroad SMOKE input files that were prepared containing information 

for the State of Massachusetts. This table notes the level of detail of the data included as well as 

the source of the original information used to create these data files. 

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

 Final MANE-VU Version 3 SMOKE Input File Level of Detail 

Data 

Source 

VMT MANEVU_2002_mbinv_02022006.txt County/SCC MA 

Speeds MANEVU_2002_mbinv_02022006.txt County/road type MA 

VMT mix MANEVU_2002_vmtmix_02022006.txt County/road type Default 

Temporal 

profiles 

MANEVU_2002_mtpro_02022006.txt and 

MANEVU_2002_mtref_02022006.txt 

Monthly by county MA 

SMOKE 

MOBILE6 file 

listing 

MANEVU_2002_mcref_02022006.txt County 

SMOKE 

MOBILE6 file 

listing 

MANEVU_2002_mvref_02022006.txt County 

The Version 3 MANE-VU onroad modeling for Massachusetts differed from the Version 2 

modeling, based on updates provided by Massachusetts in December 2005. The primary 

changes for Massachusetts from Version 3 is the use of updated 2002 VMT data and vehicle 

speed date. Massachusetts provided a spreadsheet containing revised VMT values and vehicle 

speeds for 2002 by county and SCC. Pechan prepared the revised Massachusetts VMT data and 

the speed data in the format of the SMOKE MBINV file. Using the revised VMT data by SCC, 

Pechan calculated the updated VMT mixes by vehicle type for each county and road type in 

Massachusetts and formatted the resulting data to be included in the SMOKE VMTMIX file. 

The original VMT data submitted by Massachusetts included VMT for each of the four seasons. 

Pechan used these data to develop monthly VMT temporal profiles. Seasonal VMT was 

assigned to the months in that season based on the ratio of the number of days in a specific 

month to the number of days in the season. Pechan then formatted the monthly temporal VMT 

allocation factors for inclusion in the SMOKE MTPRO and MTREF files. 
106

Massachusetts provided the following data that were incorporated into the monthly MOBILE6 

input files for the SMOKE modeling: 

• Statewide registration distribution; 

• Statewide I/M program inputs and ATP inputs; 

• RVP and fuel program data; 

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

• Massachusetts-specific LEV and Tier 2 implementation files. 

Northern reformulated gasoline was modeled statewide throughout the State, with a RVP value 

of 6.7 psi during the ozone season and 13.5 psi during the remaining months, based on inputs 

provided by Massachusetts. The section below on QA issues for Massachusetts discusses the 

fuel inputs modeled in the Version 3 SMOKE MOBILE6 input files in more detail. 

Massachusetts provided the necessary inputs to model the State’s LEV implementation schedule 

and Tier 2 data, which differ from the OTC-LEV program and from the default MOBILE6 Tier 2 

data. 

b. What QA Issues were Identified and Addressed? 

In addition to the VMT updates, Pechan revised the SMOKE MOBILE6 input files for 

Massachusetts for Version 3. This was done because Version 2 of the MANE-VU modeling 

inventory was prepared using the default setting of MOBILE6 to model reformulated gasoline 

(i.e., using the command line “FUEL PROGRAM : 2 N”). Since the time that the Version 2 

inventory was created, EPA found a bug with the sulfur content values used when the default 

reformulated gasoline command is used. To eliminate this problem, Pechan created revised 

SMOKE MOBILE6 input files for Massachusetts that model reformulated gasoline by explicitly 

setting the RVP, gasoline sulfur contents, and gasoline oxygen contents. The gasoline sulfur 

contents and gasoline oxygen contents were set according to the default parameters laid out in 

the MOBILE6 user’s guide. The summer (May through September) sulfur content is 129 ppm in 

2002 and the winter sulfur content is 279 ppm in 2002. The summer gasoline contains 2.1 

percent oxygen, with MTBE as the oxygenate. The winter gasoline contains 1.5 percent oxygen 

in 70 percent of the fuel having MTBE as the oxygenate, and 3.5 percent oxygen in 30 percent of 

the fuel having ETOH as the oxygenate. The RVP values were not changed from those modeled 

in Version 2 (6.7 psi in the summer and 13.5 psi in the winter). 

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

None identified by the State. 

7. New Hampshire 

a. What Data Sources Were Used? 

Table V-8 summarizes the onroad SMOKE input files that were prepared containing information 

for the State of New Hampshire. This table notes the level of detail of the data included as well 

as the source of the original information used to create these data files. 
107

Table V-8. New Hampshire Onroad Data in SMOKE Input Files 

 Final MANE-VU Version 3 SMOKE Input File Level of Detail 

Data 

Source 

VMT MANEVU_2002_mbinv_02022006.txt County/SCC NH 

Speeds MANEVU_2002_mbinv_02022006.txt County/road type NH 

VMT mix MANEVU_2002_vmtmix_02022006.txt Statewide NH 

SMOKE 

MOBILE6 file 

listing 

MANEVU_2002_mcref_02022006.txt County 

SMOKE 

MOBILE6 file 

listing 

MANEVU_2002_mvref_02022006.txt County 

The VMT inputs provided by New Hampshire were in the form of summer day VMT by county 

or nonattainment area and roadway type. In addition, New Hampshire provided a Statewide 

VMT mix distribution by 16 vehicle types in the MOBILE6 files provided by the State. Pechan 

then developed a simple MOBILE6 input file that used the New Hampshire Statewide 

registration distribution and the Statewide VMT mix by vehicle type. Pechan used the resulting 

MOBILE6 output file to extract the 28 vehicle type VMT mix to be applied Statewide to the 

county/roadway type VMT data. Summer day miles were converted to annual miles by using 

national data from the Federal Highway Administration’s Travel Volume Trends which provides 

2002 monthly VMT for groups of road categories. Additionally, the VMT data from the three 

New Hampshire nonattainment areas represented four counties. To allocate these VMT by 

county, Pechan first totaled the VMT data from these three nonattainment areas by roadway type. 

Then, using ratios developed from the preliminary 2002 NEI VMT, Pechan allocated the 

grouped VMT by county and roadway type. With VMT for the entire State at the 

county/roadway type level of detail, Pechan then multiplied the VMT data by the 28 vehicle type 

VMT fractions to obtain a VMT file at the 28 vehicle type level and 12 roadway type level by 

county for use in preparing the annual onroad emission inventory. VMT from these 28 vehicle 

types were then aggregated to the 12 vehicle types needed for the SMOKE MBINV input file. 

The VMT mix fractions by vehicle type for each county and road type were also calculated for 

inclusion in the SMOKE VMTMIX file. New Hampshire also provided a spreadsheet including 

the average speed by roadway class for each county or county group. These speeds were 

incorporated in the SMOKE MBINV file. 

New Hampshire provided the following data that were incorporated into the monthly MOBILE6 

input files for the SMOKE modeling: 

• Statewide registration distribution; and 

• Statewide ATP inputs. 

New Hampshire specified that the NMIM fuel program default data for New Hampshire should 

be used for the MANE-VU modeling. This included reformulated gasoline in four counties, 

modeled using the FUEL RVP, and FUEL PROGRAM (for gasoline sulfur contents) commands 

for each month. Statewide diesel sulfur values modeled from NMIM were 400 ppm sulfur in the 
108

summer months (June, July, and August), 340 ppm sulfur in the winter months (December, 

January, and February), and 370 ppm sulfur in the spring and fall months. 

Data provided by New Hampshire indicated that the State follows the OTC-LEV program 

vehicle implementation schedule. Therefore, the OTC-LEV program LEV implementation 

schedule was included in the MOBILE6 SMOKE input files, starting implementation in the 1999 

model year followed by a full implementation of the National LEV program in the 2001 model 

year. 

b. What QA Issues were Identified and Addressed? 

Through the State QA report process, New Hampshire provided updated inputs for VMT and 

speeds that were incorporated in the modeling inventory inputs. 

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

The SMOKE MOBILE6 files for the four New Hampshire that implement reformulated gasoline 

should include the OXYGENATED FUELS command to fully model the benefits reformulated 

gasoline. This command was inadvertently left out of the SMOKE MOBILE6 files. 

8. New Jersey 

a. What Data Sources Were Used? 

Table V-9 summarizes the onroad SMOKE input files that were prepared containing information 

for the State of New Jersey. This table notes the level of detail of the data included as well as the 

source of the original information used to create these data files. 

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

 Final MANE-VU Version 3 SMOKE Input File Level of Detail 

Data 

Source 

VMT MANEVU_2002_mbinv_02022006.txt County/SCC NJ 

Speeds MANEVU_2002_mbinv_02022006.txt Road type/3 vehicle 

groups 

Default 

NEI 

VMT mix MANEVU_2002_vmtmix_02022006.txt County/road type NJ 

Temporal 

profiles 

MANEVU_2002_mtpro_02022006.txt and 

MANEVU_2002_mtref_02022006.txt 

Monthly by 3 county 

groups and 

weekday/weekend 

NJ 

SMOKE 

MOBILE6 file 

listing 

MANEVU_2002_mcref_02022006.txt County 

SMOKE 

MOBILE6 file 

listing 

MANEVU_2002_mvref_02022006.txt County 

Updates were made to the Version 2 MOBILE6 SMOKE inputs for New Jersey in December 

2005 to create Version 3, based on revised data provided by the State. New Jersey provided the 

following files: 
109

• a set of SMOKE MOBILE6 input files by county and month; 

•NJ_2002_mbinv.txt file that contained revised VMT and speeds by county and SCC, 

generated by NJDEP in August 2005, in SMOKE format; 

• amptref.m3.manevu.vistascem.032805_NJVMT.txt—a SMOKE-formatted file containing 

county/SCC-level temporal profile cross-references; 

• amptro.m3.manevu.vistascem.032805_NJVMT.txt—a SMOKE-formatted file containing 

county-specific VMT temporal profiles prepared by NJDEP in August 2005; and 

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

After an initial review of these files, Pechan did not note any differences in the SMOKE 

MOBILE6 files from the Version 2 files. Pechan then confirmed with New Jersey that the only 

changes from the Version 2 date were in the VMT data. The VMT and speed data by county and 

SCC in the MBINV file provided by New Jersey were copied to the MANE-VU SMOKE 

MBINV file, replacing the VMT and speed data from the Version 2 SMOKE MBINV file for 

New Jersey. The speed data included by New Jersey are the default NEI speeds by road type and 

vehicle type. Using the new VMT data provided by New Jersey, Pechan calculated a revised set 

of VMT mix fractions by vehicle type and included these in the Version 3 SMOKE VMTMIX 

file. Pechan pasted the temporal profiles provided for New Jersey into the SMOKE MTPRO 

file. This included monthly temporal profiles and diurnal temporal profiles. The diurnal 

temporal profiles were applied to both weekdays and weekends. Similarly the temporal cross 

reference data included in the file provided by New Jersey was pasted into the SMOKE MTREF 

file for MANE-VU Version 3. 

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

SMOKE modeling: 

• Statewide registration distribution; 

• Statewide diesel sales fractions; 

• Statewide I/M program and ATP inputs; and 

• Diesel sulfur content data (340 ppm statewide). 

Northern reformulated gasoline was modeled statewide throughout the State, using NMIM fuel 

program input defaults for New Jersey. The section below on QA issues for New Jersey 

discusses the fuel inputs modeled in the Version 3 SMOKE MOBILE6 input files in more detail. 

Data provided by New Jersey indicated that the State follows the OTC-LEV program vehicle 

implementation schedule. Therefore, the OTC-LEV program LEV implementation schedule was 

included in the MOBILE6 SMOKE input files, starting implementation in the 1999 model year 

followed by a full implementation of the National LEV program in the 2001 model year. 

b. What QA Issues were Identified and Addressed? 

As discussed above for New Jersey, the Version 2 New Jersey SMOKE MOBILE6 input files 

modeled reformulated gasoline using the command line “FUEL PROGRAM : 2 N”, which is 

the default method for modeling reformulated gasoline with MOBILE6. To eliminate the effects 
110

of the MOBILE6 reformulated gasoline bug from the SMOKE MOBILE6 inputs, Pechan 

explicitly modeled the reformulated gasoline program in the New Jersey MOBILE6 input files 

by explicitly modeling the appropriate settings of the RVP, oxygenated fuel content commands, 

and gasoline sulfur commands. The values for oxygenated fuel settings and gasoline sulfur 

contents by month were extracted from the NMIM county-level database used in developing the 

annual emissions inventory for the MANE-VU Version 2 onroad emissions inventory. 

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

None identified by the State. 

9. New York 

a. What Data Sources Were Used? 

Table V-10 summarizes the onroad SMOKE input files that were prepared containing 

information for the State of New York. This table notes the level of detail of the data included as 

well as the source of the original information used to create these data files. 

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

 Final MANE-VU Version 3 SMOKE Input File Level of Detail 

Data 

Source 

VMT MANEVU_2002_mbinv_02022006.txt County/SCC NY 

Speeds MANEVU_2002_mbinv_02022006.txt Road type/3 vehicle 

groups 

Default 

NEI 

Speed 

profiles 

MANEVU_2002_spdpro.txt and 

MANEVU_2002_spdref.txt 

County/hour/road 

type 

NY 

VMT mix MANEVU_2002_vmtmix_02022006.txt County/road type NY 

Temporal 

profiles 

MANEVU_2002_mtpro_02022006.txt and 

MANEVU_2002_mtref_02022006.txt 

Monthly by 3 county 

groups 

NY 

SMOKE 

MOBILE6 file 

listing 

MANEVU_2002_mcref_02022006.txt County 

SMOKE 

MOBILE6 file 

listing 

MANEVU_2002_mvref_02022006.txt County 

VMT for New York was provided in the form of a NIF PE table. These VMT data were 

extracted and included in the SMOKE MBINV file. VMT mix fractions by vehicle type were 

calculated from these VMT data and included in the SMOKE VMTMIX file. 

New York provided a spreadsheet with average speeds in each of four daily time periods by 

county and road type. Pechan converted these speed data to the SMOKE SPDPRO format, 

assigning the speed for a given time period to all hours included in that time period. Pechan also 

prepared the SMOKE SPDREF file to appropriately cross reference each county and road type to 

the corresponding hourly speed profile. Because these more detailed speed files were provided 

for New York, the average speed by road type and county in the MBINV file was populated with 

default NEI speeds. 
111

New York also provided spreadsheets showing monthly VMT by county and roadtype. After 

processing these VMT values to develop monthly temporal factors, Pechan observed that there 

were only three unique monthly profiles in this data set. These three profiles were then added to 

the SMOKE MTPRO file. Pechan then matched each county and road type in the State to the 

corresponding monthly VMT profile in the SMOKE MTREF file. 

New York provided the following data that were incorporated into the monthly MOBILE6 input 

files for the SMOKE modeling: 

• Registration distributions—one for the New York metropolitan area and one for the 

rest of the State; 

• Diesel sales fractions—one for the New York metropolitan area and one for the rest 

of the State; 

• Statewide mileage accumulation rate input; 

• Monthly RVP data—one set for the New York metropolitan area and one for the rest 

of the State; 

• Reformulated gasoline program inputs for affected counties modeled with MOBILE6 

defaults (i.e., “FUEL PROGRAM : 2 N”); 

• I/M program inputs for affected counties; 

• Statewide ATP inputs; 

• Hourly VMT distributions by county group; 

• Start distributions by county; 

• Diesel sulfur content data (400 ppm statewide). 

New York also provided the necessary input files to model the State’s LEV program 

implementation schedule, which differs from the OTC LEV program. New York also provided 

MOBILE6 Tier 2 modeling files to be used along with the New York LEV program inputs. 

These inputs were included in the SMOKE MOBILE6 modeling. 

b. What QA Issues were Identified and Addressed? 

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

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

None identified by the State. 

10. Pennsylvania 

a. What Data Sources Were Used? 

Table V-11 summarizes the onroad SMOKE input files that were prepared containing 

information for the State of Pennsylvania. This table notes the level of detail of the data included 

as well as the source of the original information used to create these data files. 
112

Table V-11. Pennsylvania Onroad Data in SMOKE Input Files 

 Final MANE-VU Version 3 SMOKE Input File Level of Detail 

Data 

Source 

VMT MANEVU_2002_mbinv_02022006.txt County/SCC PA 

Speeds MANEVU_2002_mbinv_02022006.txt County/road type PA 

VMT mix MANEVU_2002_vmtmix_02022006.txt County/road type PA 

Temporal 

profiles 

MANEVU_2002_mtpro_02022006.txt and 

MANEVU_2002_mtref_02022006.txt 

Monthly by county PA 

SMOKE 

MOBILE6 file 

listing 

MANEVU_2002_mcref_02022006.txt County 

SMOKE 

MOBILE6 file 

listing 

MANEVU_2002_mvref_02022006.txt County 

Pennsylvania provided a database file (NEIANN02.dbf) that contained the VMT and speed data 

by county, roadway type, and vehicle type. This included the same VMT used in the calculation 

of the annual onroad inventory submitted by Pennsylvania for MANE-VU. Pechan converted 

the data from this database file into VMT and speed data in the format of the SMOKE MBINV 

file. From the VMT data, Pechan calculated VMT fractions by vehicle type by county and road 

type for inclusion in the SMOKE VMTMIX file. Pennsylvania also provided estimates of VMT 

by month for each county. Pechan converted these data to monthly allocation factors in the 

format needed by the SMOKE MTPRO and MTREF files. A separate monthly profile was 

developed for each county, but applied to all road types within that county. 

Pennsylvania provided the following data that were incorporated into the monthly MOBILE6 

input files for the SMOKE modeling: 

•Registration distributions for each individual county; 

•I/M program and ATP inputs for affected Philadelphia and Pittsburgh area counties 

(inputs differ for the two areas); 

•Monthly RVP data for all counties including 7.8 psi RVP program from May 

through September for Pittsburgh counties; 

•Reformulated gasoline for the 5-county Philadelphia area modeled with MOBILE6 

defaults (i.e., “FUEL PROGRAM : 2 N”); and 

•Diesel sulfur content data (500 ppm statewide). 

Data provided by Pennsylvania indicated that the State follows the OTC-LEV program vehicle 

implementation schedule. Therefore, the OTC-LEV program LEV implementation schedule was 

included in the MOBILE6 SMOKE input files, starting implementation in the 1999 model year 

followed by a full implementation of the National LEV program in the 2001 model year. 
113

b. What QA Issues were Identified and Addressed? 

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

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

None identified by the State. 

11. Rhode Island 

a. What Data Sources Were Used? 

Table V-12 summarizes the onroad SMOKE input files that were prepared containing 

information for the State of Rhode Island. This table notes the level of detail of the data included 

as well as the source of the original information used to create these data files. 

Table V-12. Rhode Island Onroad Data in SMOKE Input Files 

 Final MANE-VU Version 3 SMOKE Input File Level of Detail 

Data 

Source 

VMT MANEVU_2002_mbinv_02022006.txt County/SCC RI 

Speeds MANEVU_2002_mbinv_02022006.txt County group/road 

type 

RI 

VMT mix MANEVU_2002_vmtmix_02022006.txt Statewide RI 

SMOKE 

MOBILE6 file 

listing 

MANEVU_2002_mcref_02022006.txt County 

SMOKE 

MOBILE6 file 

listing 

MANEVU_2002_mvref_02022006.txt County 

Rhode Island provided a spreadsheet with the 2002 VMT as well as Statewide 2002 VMT 

fractions by 16 vehicle types. Pechan prepared a simple MOBILE6 input file including this 

Rhode Island 2002 VMT mix by vehicle type and the 2002 Rhode Island registration 

distribution. The VMT mix in the MOBILE6 output file at the 28 vehicle type level was then 

used to distribute the VMT by vehicle category. The 2002 daily VMT was at the State level, 

broken down by the 12 roadway types. To allocate these VMT data to the county/road type level 

of detail, Pechan summed the VMT from the preliminary version of EPA’s 2002 NEI for Rhode 

Island first by State and roadway type and then by county and roadway type. Pechan calculated 

county/roadway type VMT fractions by dividing the VMT at the county/roadway type level by 

the State/roadway type VMT for the same roadway type. These fractions were then multiplied 

by the VMT supplied by Rhode Island at the State/roadway type level of detail to obtain 

county/roadway type VMT data. These county/roadway type VMT data were then multiplied by 

the 28 vehicle type VMT fractions to obtain VMT at the level of detail needed to populate the 

NMIM BaseYearVMT table for calculating the annual inventory and were then summed to the 

16-vehicle type level of detail for use in the SMOKE MBINV file. The data were also converted 

from daily VMT to annual by multiplying the average daily VMT by 365. VMT mix fractions 
114

from this final data set were then formatted in the SMOKE VMTMIX format at the State level of 

detail. Statewide speeds by road type, as provided by Rhode Island, were included in the 

SMOKE MBINV file. 

Rhode Island provided the following data that were incorporated into the monthly MOBILE6 

input files for the SMOKE modeling: 

• Statewide registration distribution; and 

• Statewide I/M program inputs. 

Data for fuel parameters were obtained from the NMIM national county database for Rhode 

Island. This included reformulated gasoline Statewide, modeled using the FUEL RVP, and 

FUEL PROGRAM (for gasoline sulfur contents) commands for each month. These values 

differed by season, but were consistent Statewide. Statewide diesel sulfur values modeled from 

NMIM were 400 ppm sulfur in the summer months (June, July, and August), 340 ppm sulfur in 

the winter months (December, January, and February), and 370 ppm sulfur in the spring and fall 

months. 

The NMIM default LEV program for Rhode Island was modeled, which includes the OTC-LEV 

program LEV implementation schedule. 

b. What QA Issues were Identified and Addressed? 

No QA issues were identified for Rhode Island. 

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

The Rhode Island SMOKE MOBILE6 input files did not include the OXYGENATED FUELS 

command. This should have been used to fully characterize the parameters of reformulated 

gasoline that is used Statewide in Rhode Island. 

12. Vermont 

a. What Data Sources Were Used? 

Table V-13 summarizes the onroad SMOKE input files that were prepared containing 

information for the State of Vermont. This table notes the level of detail of the data included as 

well as the source of the original information used to create these data files. 
115

Table V-13. Vermont Onroad Data in SMOKE Input Files 

 Final MANE-VU Version 3 SMOKE Input File Level of Detail 

Data 

Source 

VMT MANEVU_2002_mbinv_02022006.txt County/SCC VT 

Speeds MANEVU_2002_mbinv_02022006.txt Road type/vehicle 

group (light-duty vs. 

heavy-duty) 

VT 

VMT mix MANEVU_2002_vmtmix_02022006.txt County/road type VT 

Temporal 

profiles 

MANEVU_2002_mtpro_02022006.txt and 

MANEVU_2002_mtref_02022006.txt 

Monthly statewide 

SMOKE 

MOBILE6 file 

listing 

MANEVU_2002_mcref_02022006.txt County 

SMOKE 

MOBILE6 file 

listing 

MANEVU_2002_mvref_02022006.txt County 

Vermont submitted VMT data in the format of the NIF PE table. Vermont then provided 

updated VMT data for three road classifications (rural minor collectors, rural local roads, and 

urban local roads) in December 2004, after the time that these changes could be included in the 

MANE-VU annual onroad emission inventory. However, the updated VMT were included in the 

MANE-VU Version 3 onroad SMOKE modeling files. This VMT change resulted in a 

Statewide decrease in VMT from about 9.5 billion miles to about 7.8 billion miles. As a result, 

the SMOKE modeling performed by MANE-VU will not match the MANE-VU emission 

inventory for Vermont. The VMT data were converted to the SMOKE MBINV file format. 

VMT mix fractions were calculated from the VMT data and included in the SMOKE VMTMIX 

file. Vermont also provided information on the temporal allocation of VMT. From these data, 

Pechan prepared a monthly VMT profile for Vermont and included the data in the SMOKE 

MTPRO and MTREF files. 

Vermont provided information on Statewide speeds by roadway type. These speeds differed for 

light-duty vehicles and heavy-duty vehicles. Pechan incorporated this speed information into the 

SMOKE MBINV file. 

Vermont provided the following data that were incorporated into the monthly MOBILE6 input 

files for the SMOKE modeling: 

• Statewide registration distribution; 

• Statewide I/M program inputs; and 

• RVP data. 

The RVP data provided by Vermont were based on data from a local gasoline tank farm and 

resulted in an RVP value of 8.5 psi during the ozone season months (May through September) 

and 9.47 psi for the remaining months. Data for fuel parameters other than RVP (e.g., diesel and 

gasoline fuel sulfur content) were obtained from the NMIM national county database for 

Vermont. These values differed by season, but were consistent Statewide. Statewide diesel 
116

sulfur values modeled from NMIM were 300 ppm sulfur in the summer months (June, July, and 

August), 290 ppm sulfur in the winter months (December, January, and February), and 295 ppm 

sulfur in the spring and fall months. 

The NMIM default LEV program for Vermont was modeled, which includes Vermont’s Statespecific LEV implementation schedule. 

b. What QA Issues were Identified and Addressed? 

Through the State QA report process, Vermont provided a missing registration data file, RVP 

data and revised VMT. 

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

None identified by the State. 
117

CHAPTER VI – BIOGENIC SOURCES 

A. General Methods for all States 

1. What Data Sources Were Used? 

Biogenic emissions for the time period from January 1, 2002 – December 31, 2002 were 

calculated by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) for all 

of the MANE-VU states using the Biogenic Emissions Inventory System (BEIS) version 3.12 

integrated within SMOKE2.1. The inventory was prepared at the state-level for CO, nitrous 

oxide (NO), and VOC. 

General information about BEIS is available at http://www.epa.gov/AMD/biogen.html while 

documentation about biogenic emissions processing within SMOKE2.1 is available at 

http://cf.unc.edu/cep/empd/products/smoke/version2.1/html/ch06s10.html and 

http://cf.unc.edu/cep/empd/products/smoke/version2.1/html/ch06s17.html. Note that the 

SMOKE documentation refers to BEIS3.09 and has not yet been updated for BEIS3.12. This 

affects the number of species modeled as well as the use of different speciation profiles. 

However, the general processing approach has not changed from BEIS3.09 to BEIS3.12. In 

short, this processing approach is as follows and was utilized by NYSDEC for its biogenic 

emission processing for MANE-VU and the OTC modeling: 

• Normbeis3 reads gridded land use data and emissions factors and produces gridded 

normalized biogenic emissions for 34 species/compounds. The gridded land use file 

utilized by NYSDEC includes the fractional coverage of 230 different land use types 

for each of the 172 * 172 12-km grid cells in the MANE-VU/OTC modeling domain. 

In a separate BEIS3.12 input file, both summer and winter emissions factors for each 

species/compound are provided for each of the 230 land use types. On output, 

Normbeis3 generates a file B3GRD which contains gridded summer and winter 

emission fluxes for the modeling domain that are normalized to 30 °C and a 

photosynthetic active radiation (PAR) of 1000 μmol/m2

s. In addition, gridded 

summer and winter leaf area indices (LAI) are also written to B3GRD. 

• Tmpbeis3 reads the gridded, normalized emissions file B3GRD and meteorological 

data from the MCIP-processed MM5 meteorological fields generated by the 

University of Maryland for MANE-VU/OTC modeling. Specifically, the following 

MM5/MCIP meteorological variables are used by Tmpbeis3 to compute hourspecific, gridded biogenic emissions from the normalized emission fluxed contained 

in B3GRD: layer-1 air temperature (“TA”), layer-1 pressure (“PRES”), total 

incoming solar radiation at the surface (“RGRND”), and convective (“RC”) and nonconvective (“RN”) rainfall. Additionally, the emissions for the 34 

species/compounds modeled by BEIS3.12 are converted to CO, NO, and the CB-IV 

VOC species utilized in CMAQ via the use of the BEIS3.12-CB-IV speciation 

profile. Furthermore, an external file, BIOSEASON, was utilized to decide whether 

to use summer or winter emissions factors for any given grid cell on any given day. 

This file was generated by the SMOKE2.1 utility Metscan based on MM5 layer-1 air 
118

temperatures to determine the date of the last spring frost and first fall frost at each 

grid cell. Summer emission factors are used by Tmpbeis3 for the time period 

between the day of the last spring frost and the day of the first fall frost at any given 

grid cell, and winter emission factors are used for the remaining time period. 

Documentation for the Metscan utility is available at http://cf.unc.edu/cep/empd/ 

products/smoke/version2.1/html/ch05s07.html. An animated GIF file showing the 

BIOSEASON file used by NYSDEC can be found at ftp://ftp.dec.state.ny.us/dar/ 

air_research/chogrefe/biog_reports/b3season_movie.gif. 

• For reporting purposes, the hourly, speciated, gridded emissions were aggregated to 

the county level for each day. For any given grid cell, emissions were distributed 

among the counties intersecting this grid cell in proportion to the area of each of these 

counties within the grid cell. The area gridding surrogates needed for this 

aggregation are based on a file obtained from EPA via http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ 

chief/emch/spatial/new/bgpro.2km_041604.us.gz, followed by windowing for the 

MANE-VU/OTC modeling domain. 

2. Version 3 Emissions Summary 

Table VI-1 presents a State-level summary of the annual biogenic source emissions in Version 3 

of the 2002 MANE-VU inventory. The annual emissions are based on the sum of the daily 

emissions prepared using the modeling approach previously discussed. 

Table VI-1. Version 3 2002 MANE-VU Biogenic Source 

Emissions by State (Tons/Year) 

State CO NO VOC* 

Connecticut 6,889 560 64,017 

Delaware 4,274 990 46,343 

District of Columbia 150 30 1,726 

Maine 64,936 2,018 600,205 

Maryland 18,351 2,934 210,104 

Massachusetts 11,594 1,257 113,958 

New Hampshire 14,306 482 141,894 

New Jersey 14,058 1,813 181,617 

New York 63,436 8,313 492,487 

Pennsylvania 59,946 8,646 585,272 

Rhode Island 1,764 211 19,233 

Vermont 14,745 1,142 118,377 

MANE-VU 274,451 28,396 2,575,232 

* VOC emissions were calculated by adding the emissions for the 

following pollutants: ALD2, ETH, FORM, ISOP, NR, OLE, PAR, TERB, 

TOL, XYL. 

B. State-Specific Methods 

No state-specific methods were used in Version 3 of the MANE-VU inventory for biogenic 

emissions. 
119

CHAPTER VII. TEMPORAL, SPECIATION, AND SPATIAL ALLOCATION 

PROFILES AND PREPARATION OF SMOKE (IDA) AND RPO DATA 

EXCHANGE PROTOCOL (NIF 3.0) FORMATS 

Table VII-1 provides a summary of the file names and documentation used for modeling inputs 

for Version 3 of MANE-VU’s 2002 inventory for point, area, nonroad, and onroad sources. The 

final input files used for temporal allocation, speciation, and spatial allocation of emissions were 

developed for Version 1 of the 2002 inventory and delivered to MARAMA during January 2005 

(MANE-VU, 2005). These files were developed starting with the latest model input files 

available from EPA and then revised to include updates needed for the MANE-VU region or to 

add SCCs and profile assignments not included in the initial EPA data sets. The files were 

revised between September 2004 and January 2005 to incorporate comments provided by 

MANE-VU. Files in Table VII-1 with a date that is later than January 2005 were prepared to 

support modeling for Version 3. The notes column in the table identifies the modifications made 

to the files if the files were changed after this date. Otherwise, files with a date later than 

January 2005 were either provided by a state agency or were obtained from EPA and used for 

modeling Version 3. 

The remainder of this chapter provides a brief summary of the revisions made to the EPA data 

sets prepared for Version 1 of the 2002 MANE-VU inventory and subsequently carried for the 

modeling for Version 3. Sections A, B, and C of this chapter discuss how the temporal 

allocation, speciation, and spatial allocation profiles, respectively, were developed. Section D of 

this chapter describes how the emissions inventory data were prepared in the SMOKE (IDA) and 

RPO Data Exchange Protocol (NIF 3.0) Formats. 

A. Temporal Profiles 

1. Point and Area Sources 

The most recent SMOKE temporal cross-reference files available from EPA during the summer 

of 2004 were used as the starting point for developing the cross-reference files for point and area 

sources. The following 3 classes of modifications were completed to improve the temporal 

allocation input files: 

• Update temporal cross-reference to assign an existing profile in the default SMOKE 

profiles for SCCs in the MANE-VU inventory 

• Create a new temporal cross-reference to an existing profile in the default SMOKE 

profiles for SCCs in the MANE-VU inventory; the cross-reference did not previously 

exist in the default SMOKE files but the profile did exist. 

• Create new temporal profiles and cross-references for SCCs in the MANE-VU 

inventory; neither the cross-reference nor profiles for the MANE-VU SCCs 

previously existed in the default SMOKE files. 
120

a. Point Sources 

A total of 30 point SCCs existed in the MANE-VU point source inventory that were not in the 

point source cross-reference file; therefore, the SCCs were added to the cross-reference file and 

assigned to existing profiles based on the assignment of similar SCCs already assigned to the 

profiles. Table II-2 lists the SCCs along with the state and county FIPS where they occurred in 

the MANE-VU inventory. Temporal profiles could not be identified for the SCCs listed in Table 

VII-3 due to either the SCC being shorter than 8-digits or the lack of information about the 

source categories for identifying an appropriate profile assignment. These SCCs were assigned 

the default profile by SMOKE. 

b. Area Sources 

For area sources, the improvements to the EPA cross-reference file included updates to existing 

profiles in the file based on MANE-VU-specific data (see Table VII-4), addition of SCCs that 

were assigned to existing profiles based on the assignment of similar SCCs already assigned to 

the profiles (see Table VII-5), and addition of new SCCs and profiles based on MANE-VU- or 

RPO-specific data (see Table VII-6). 

Additional cross-referencing information used to revise the temporal cross-reference file 

included MANE-VU county-level information for residential wood combustion, monthly 

temporal profiles developed for NH3 source categories using the Carnegie Mellon University 

(CMU) model, and a Delaware-specific cross-reference file associated with the Delaware 

inventory. The additions of new SCCs and new profiles shown in Table VII-6 mostly apply to 

the state of Delaware (State FIPS=10). For the FIPS column, the “-9” designation means the 

cross-reference is applied for all counties that do not have a county or state-specific SCC crossreference record. These changes to the temporal cross-reference file allowed for the assignment 

of a non-flat temporal profile (262= uniform monthly, 7=uniform weekly and 24=uniform 

diurnal) to 95% of the SCCs in the area inventory. 

2. Nonroad Sources 

Nonroad sources used the same temporal profile and cross-reference files as area sources. 

3. Onroad Sources 

For onroad sources, the following States provided their own data to update the default temporal 

profile files and the temporal cross reference files: Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, 

Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Vermont. Each of these States 

provided VMT information that could be used to develop monthly temporal profiles. The data 

were provided in a variety of formats, ranging from monthly or seasonal VMT to SMOKEformatted monthly VMT temporal profiles. Where necessary, the monthly or seasonal VMT 

data were converted into the SMOKE monthly temporal profile format. In addition, New Jersey 

provided information for diurnal temporal profiles. However, the level of detail or variability 

provided in these monthly profiles varied by State. Connecticut’s and Delaware’s profiles each 

varied by county and road type. Maryland’s profiles applied Statewide, with variability in the 
121

profiles by road type. Massachusetts’ profiles varied by county, road type, and vehicle type. 

Both New Jersey and New York provided information for three monthly temporal profiles, each 

used throughout one of the three county groups in each State. The Pennsylvania profiles varied 

by county, but not by road type. Vermont provided information for a single monthly temporal 

profile to be used throughout the State. 

B. Speciation Profiles 

1. Point and Area Sources 

The most recent SMOKE speciation cross-reference files available from EPA during the summer 

of 2004 were used as the starting point for developing the cross-reference files for point and area 

sources. These files were revised to complete SCC assignments for the Carbon Bond IV (CBIV) with PM mechanism for point and area sources. In addition, sulfur tagging species were 

added to the REMSAD7 CB-IV with PM mechanism (see Table VII-1). 

a. Point Sources 

Thirty-one SCCs in the MANE-VU point source inventory did not have chemical speciation 

profile assignments for the CB-IV with PM mechanism in the default SMOKE chemical crossreference file. For 10 of the SCCs, assignments for VOC and PM2.5 were added to the speciation 

cross-reference file based on the speciation profile codes assigned to similar SCCs. Table VII-7 

shows the SCCs where an SCC speciation cross-reference record was added, the VOC and PM2.5

speciation profile code assigned, and the method used to assign the profiles. Assignments were 

not completed for the remaining 21 point source SCCs because of a lack of information on the 

emission sources needed to complete the assignments (see Table VII-8 for the list of the SCCs). 

b. Area Sources 

Speciation profile assignments were completed for many area source SCCs for the CB-IV with 

PM mechanism and were documented in separate spreadsheet files provided to MARAMA 

during September 2004. Assignments for VOC and PM2.5 were added to the speciation crossreference file based on the speciation profile codes assigned to similar SCCs. Note that the 

transport fractions for fugitive dust were applied as a part of the modeling effort to adjust the 

mass emissions in Version 3 of the inventory. 

2. Nonroad Sources 

No updates to the speciation profiles or speciation assignments for nonroad sources were 

provided by the MANE-VU States. 

3. Onroad Sources 

No updates to the speciation profiles or speciation assignments for onroad sources were provided 

by the MANE-VU States. 
122

C. Spatial Allocation Profiles 

The most recent spatial profile data files available from EPA during the summer of 2004 were 

used as the starting point for developing the spatial profile file for point and area sources. A 

detailed description of this surrogate dataset was provided in a file named “surrogate_ 

documentation_workbook052804.xls” from EPA’s website at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ 

chief/emch/spatial/newsurrogate.html. Many SCCs in the MANE-VU inventory did not have 

surrogate assignments in the default SMOKE gridding cross-reference file. About 200 SCC 

assignments were added to the gridding cross-reference file. The assignments were based on 

matching surrogate descriptions from the EPA99 surrogate data with the SCC descriptions. 

No updates to the spatial allocation files for nonroad and onroad sources were provided by the 

MANE-VU States. 

D. Preparation of SMOKE (IDA) and RPO Data Exchange Protocol (NIF 3.0) 

Formats 

Table VII-9 identifies the mass emissions and SMOKE input files for Version 3 of the 

MANE-VU point, area, nonroad, and onroad inventories. 

The SMOKE input file format contains one field for storing daily emissions for each pollutant. 

The area source inventory contains summer day, winter day, and average day emissions 

depending on the state and source category. Thus, two sets of SMOKE input files were prepared 

for the area source inventory. One file contains annual, summer day, and average day emissions 

and the other file contains annual, winter day, and average day emissions. If summer day and 

average day emissions were provided for the same process and pollutant in the inventory, the 

summer day value was included in the SMOKE input file. If winter day and average day 

emissions were provided for the same process and pollutant in the inventory, the winter day 

value was included in the SMOKE input file. 

The point source inventory contains summer day and winter day emissions. Two sets of 

SMOKE input files were prepared for point sources as well (one file containing annual and 

summer day emissions and the other containing annual and winter day emissions). 

Table VII-10 provides the unique list of the start date, end date, and emission type combinations 

for daily emissions in the point and area source inventories that were used to define summer, 

winter, and average day emissions. This table also shows the names of the SMOKE input files in 

which the emissions are included. 

For onroad sources, daily emissions were calculated by SMOKE using the monthly MOBILE6 

input files included in the SMOKE input files. 

The nonroad IDA file only has annual total emissions. The values in the “typical day” column 

are zero. Annual total emissions were allocated for each hour using the monthly, weekly, and 

diurnal profiles described in Section A.2 of this chapter. 
C-123 

Table VII-1. Profiles, Cross-references, and Documentation for Model Inputs 

for Version 3 of 2002 MANE-VU Inventory 

Description File Name Format 

Date of 

File used 

for 

Version 3 

Size 

(Bytes) 

SCC descriptions file scc_desc_manevu.083104.txt SMOKE 8/31/2004 1,335,524 Temporal Allocation ProfilesTechnical memo on profile/cross-reference review for area sources 

MANE-VU_AreaEI_review_draft_090304.doc MS 

Word 

9/3/2004 760,320 

Technical memo on profile/cross-reference review for point sources 

MANE-VU_PointEI_review_draft_090304.doc MS 

Word 

9/3/2004 262,144 

Temporal profile crossreference file for point sources 

amptref.m3.manevu.vistascem.032805.txt SMOKE 3/28/2005 704,998 Based on "amptref.m3.

Version 1, but added Vthe state-specific 2002 (CEM)-derived point soby VISTAS for their Ba

Temporal profiles file for point sources 

amptpro.m3.us+can.manevu.vistascem.032805.txt SMOKE 3/28/2005 178,427 Based on "amptpro.m3

prepared for Version 1CEM-derived point souVISTAS for their BaseD 

Temporal profile crossreference file for area sources 

amptref.m3.manevu.012405.txt SMOKE 1/24/2005 687,196 

Temporal profiles file for area sources 

amptpro.m3.us+can.manevu.030205.txt SMOKE 3/2/2005 136,131 

Temporal crossreference file containing state-specific onroad mobile source data for Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Vermont 

MANEVU_2002_mtref_02022006_addCT.txt SMOKE 2/22/2006 2,522,013 Data for Connecticut w

was prepared for the o“_addCT” is included a
Table VII-1 (continued) 

124

Description File Name Format 

Date of 

File used 

for 

Version 3 

Size 

(Bytes) 

Temporal profiles file containing state-specific onroad mobile source data for Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Vermont 

MANEVU_2002_mtpro_02022006_addCT.txt SMOKE 2/22/2006 23,122 Data for Connecticut w

was prepared for the o“_addCT” is included a

Spatial/GriddingSpreadsheet summary generated for area source gridding review 

MANE-VU_agref_review.xls 8/31/2004 1,607,680 

Spatial profile crossreference file amgref.m3.us+can+mex.manevu.082404.txt SMOKE 8/31/2004 89,860 Gridding surrogate cross-reference file 

amgref_us_051704_manevu_added SMOKE 5/17/2004 35,825 Based on the surrogate 

from the EPA/CHIEF s

surrogates file. Howevadditions included in "amgref.m3.us+can+m1 were added to the grdownloaded from EPA

SCCs 2806010000, 282870000015, 2870000

Modeling grid (12-km) amgpro.12km_041604.otc12.us.txt SMOKE 4/16/2004 150,689,358 Based on downloaded 

windowed for the OTC 

Speciation ProfilesSpreadsheet summary generated for area source speciation review 

MANE-VU_asref_review.xls Excel 8/31/2004 5,626,880 

Speciation profiles file for CB-IV 

gspro.cmaq.cb4p25.txt SMOKE 142,255 

Speciation crossreference file for CB-IV gsref.cmaq.cb4p25.manevu.083104.txt SMOKE 8/31/2004 786,998 
Table VII-1 (continued) 

125

Description File Name Format 

Date of 

File used 

for 

Version 3 

Size 

(Bytes) 

Speciation profile crossreference assignment file 

gsref.cmaq.cb4p25.txt SMOKE 2/1/2005 754,302 This file is based on the 

"gsref.cmaq.cb4p25.maversion 1 of the MANEwas to change the PM2default 99999 to 35501 categories. This updatCENRAP or VISTAS in provided and the updatthan the MANE-VU fileappeared to be a refine

Speciation profiles for REMSAD7 

gspro.remsad7.cb4mpm.txt_tag SMOKE 5/1/2005 532,990 Based on "gspro.remsa

but added tagged spectagging. 

Speciation crossreference for REMSAD7 gsref.remsad7.cb4mpm.txt_tag SMOKE 5/1/2005 2,614,360 Based on "gsref.remsa

but added tagged specsulfur tagging. 

Transport fractions for fugitive dust 

gcntl.xportfrac.txt SMOKE 2/1/2004 124,495 File obtained from inpu

transport for modeling (CAIR). 
C-126 

Table VII-2. Point Source Temporal Cross-reference Additions 

Recommended profiles 

State FIPS SCC Monthly Weekly Diurnal Method of assignment 

SCC Description (Complete 

availab

VT 50005 10200908 262 7 24 Use SCC=102009XX profiles External Combustion Boilers;Ind

Waste;Wood-fired Boiler - Dry W

VT 50019 10200908 262 7 24 Use SCC=102009XX profiles External Combustion Boilers;Ind

Waste;Wood-fired Boiler - Dry W

VT 50021 10200908 262 7 24 Use SCC=102009XX profiles External Combustion Boilers;Ind

Waste;Wood-fired Boiler - Dry W

VT 50017 10300908 262 7 24 Use SCC=103009XX profiles External Combustion 

Boilers;Commercial/Institutional;fired Boiler - Dry Wood (<20% m

PA 42009 20200299 262 7 24 Use SCC=202002XX profiles Internal Combustion Engines;Ind

Gas;Unknown 

PA 42029 20200299 262 7 24 Use SCC=202002XX profiles Internal Combustion Engines;Ind

Gas;Unknown 

PA 42045 20200299 262 7 24 Use SCC=202002XX profiles Internal Combustion Engines;Ind

Gas;Unknown 

PA 42061 20200299 262 7 24 Use SCC=202002XX profiles Internal Combustion Engines;Ind

Gas;Unknown 

PA 42067 20200299 262 7 24 Use SCC=202002XX profiles Internal Combustion Engines;Ind

Gas;Unknown 

PA 42015 20300299 262 7 24 Use SCC=203002XX profiles Internal Combustion 

Engines;Commercial/Institutiona

PA 42029 20300299 262 7 24 Use SCC=203002XX profiles Internal Combustion 

Engines;Commercial/Institutiona

PA 42037 20300299 262 7 24 Use SCC=203002XX profiles Internal Combustion 

Engines;Commercial/Institutiona

PA 42071 20300299 262 7 24 Use SCC=203002XX profiles Internal Combustion 

Engines;Commercial/Institutiona

PA 42011 28888899 262 7 24 Use SCC=288888XX profiles Internal Combustion Engines;Fu

Classified;Specify in Comments 

PA 42123 28888899 262 7 24 Use SCC=288888XX profiles Internal Combustion Engines;Fu

Classified;Specify in Comments 

PA 42123 28888899 262 7 24 Use SCC=288888XX profiles Internal Combustion Engines;Fu

Classified;Specify in Comments 

PA 42129 28888899 262 7 24 Use SCC=288888XX profiles Internal Combustion Engines;Fu

Classified;Specify in Comments 

MD 24031 30500261 262 7 24 Use SCC=30500260 profile Industrial Processes;Mineral Pro

Concrete;Drum Mix Plant: RotarWaste/Drain/#6 Oil-Fired 
Table VII-2 (continued) 

127

Recommended profiles 

State FIPS SCC Monthly Weekly Diurnal Method of assignment 

SCC Description (Complete 

availab

NY 36055 31603001 262 7 24 Use SIC=3861 and SIC=2796 as 

guidance and evaluate specific sources 

Industrial Processes;PhotographManufacturing;Product ManufacPreparation;Extrusion Operation

NY 36055 31603002 262 7 24 Use SIC=3861 and SIC=2796 as 

guidance and evaluate specific sources 

Industrial Processes;PhotographManufacturing;Product ManufacPreparation;Film Support Opera

NY 36055 31604001 262 7 24 Use SIC=3861 and SIC=2796 as 

guidance and evaluate specific sources 

Industrial Processes;PhotographManufacturing;Product ManufacPreparation;Chemical Manufactu

NY 36055 31604002 262 7 24 Use SIC=3861 and SIC=2796 as 

guidance and evaluate specific sources 

Industrial Processes;PhotographManufacturing;Product ManufacPreparation;Emulsion Making O

NY 36055 31604003 262 7 24 Use SIC=3861 and SIC=2796 as 

guidance and evaluate specific sources 

Industrial Processes;PhotographManufacturing;Product ManufacPreparation;Chemical Mixing Op

NY 36055 31605001 262 7 24 Use SIC=3861 and SIC=2796 as 

guidance and evaluate specific sources 

Industrial Processes;PhotographManufacturing;Product ManufacTreatments;Surface Coating Op

NY 36055 31605002 262 7 24 Use SIC=3861 and SIC=2796 as 

guidance and evaluate specific sources 

Industrial Processes;PhotographManufacturing;Product ManufacTreatments;Grid Ionizers 

NY 36055 31605003 262 7 24 Use SIC=3861 and SIC=2796 as 

guidance and evaluate specific sources 

Industrial Processes;PhotographManufacturing;Product ManufacTreatments;Corona Discharge T

NY 36055 31606001 262 7 24 Use SIC=3861 and SIC=2796 as 

guidance and evaluate specific sources 

Industrial Processes;PhotographManufacturing;Product ManufacOperations;General Film Manufa

NY 36055 31606002 262 7 24 Use SIC=3861 and SIC=2796 as 

guidance and evaluate specific sources 

Industrial Processes;PhotographManufacturing;Product ManufacOperations;Cutting/Slitting Oper

PA 42101 31606002 262 7 24 Use SIC=3861 and SIC=2796 as 

guidance and evaluate specific sources 

Industrial Processes;PhotographManufacturing;Product ManufacOperations;Cutting/Slitting Oper

NY 36055 31612001 262 7 24 Use SIC=3861 and SIC=2796 as 

guidance and evaluate specific sources 

Industrial Processes;PhotographManufacturing;Support Activities Cleaning Operations 

NY 36055 31612002 262 7 24 Use SIC=3861 and SIC=2796 as 

guidance and evaluate specific sources 

Industrial Processes;PhotographManufacturing;Support Activities Operations;General Cleaning Op

NY 36055 31613002 262 7 24 Use SIC=3861 and SIC=2796 as 

guidance and evaluate specific sources 

Industrial Processes;PhotographManufacturing;Support Activities Operations;General Storage Op
Table VII-2 (continued) 

128

Recommended profiles 

State FIPS SCC Monthly Weekly Diurnal Method of assignment 

SCC Description (Complete 

availab

NY 36055 31614001 262 7 24 Use SIC=3861 and SIC=2796 as 

guidance and evaluate specific sources 

Industrial Processes;PhotographManufacturing;Support Activities Operations;Filling Operations (n

NY 36055 31614002 262 7 24 Use SIC=3861 and SIC=2796 as 

guidance and evaluate specific sources 

Industrial Processes;PhotographManufacturing;Support Activities Operations;Transfer of Chemica

NY 36055 31615001 262 7 24 Use SIC=3861 and SIC=2796 as 

guidance and evaluate specific sources 

Industrial Processes;PhotographManufacturing;Support Activities Processes;Recovery Operations 

NY 36055 31615003 262 7 24 Use SIC=3861 and SIC=2796 as 

guidance and evaluate specific sources 

Industrial Processes;PhotographManufacturing;Support Activities Processes;Distillation Operation

NY 36055 31616002 262 7 24 Use SIC=3861 and SIC=2796 as 

guidance and evaluate specific sources 

Industrial Processes;PhotographManufacturing;Support Activities Process Tank Operations 

NY 36055 31616003 262 7 24 Use SIC=3861 and SIC=2796 as 

guidance and evaluate specific sources 

Industrial Processes;PhotographManufacturing;Support Activities Operations;Miscellaneous Manu

NY 36055 31616004 262 7 24 Use SIC=3861 and SIC=2796 as 

guidance and evaluate specific sources 

Industrial Processes;PhotographManufacturing;Support Activities Spraying Operations 

NY 36055 31616006 262 7 24 Use SIC=3861 and SIC=2796 as 

guidance and evaluate specific sources 

Industrial Processes;PhotographManufacturing;Support Activities Operations;Chemical Weighing O

PA Numerous 

counties 

39000698 262 7 24 Use SCC=39000699 profile Industrial Processes;In-process 

Gas;Unknown 

NJ Numerous 

counties 

39999901 262 7 24 Use SCC=399999XX profiles Industrial Processes;Miscellaneo

Industries;Miscellaneous Industr

PA 42015 40202598 266 7 16 Use SCC=40202599 profile Petroleum and Solvent Evapora

Operations;Miscellaneous Metal 

PA 42017 40202598 266 7 16 Use SCC=40202599 profile Petroleum and Solvent Evapora

Operations;Miscellaneous Metal 

PA 42091 40202598 266 7 16 Use SCC=40202599 profile Petroleum and Solvent Evapora

Operations;Miscellaneous Metal 

PA 42095 40202598 266 7 16 Use SCC=40202599 profile Petroleum and Solvent Evapora

Operations;Miscellaneous Metal 

PA 42097 40202598 266 7 16 Use SCC=40202599 profile Petroleum and Solvent Evapora

Operations;Miscellaneous Metal 

PA 42013 40400299 262 7 24 Use SCC=404002XX profiles Petroleum and Solvent Evapora

Storage (non-Refinery);Bulk Pla

PA 42041 40400299 262 7 24 Use SCC=404002XX profiles Petroleum and Solvent Evapora

Storage (non-Refinery);Bulk Pla
Table VII-2 (continued) 

129

Recommended profiles 

State FIPS SCC Monthly Weekly Diurnal Method of assignment 

SCC Description (Complete 

availab

PA 42045 40400299 262 7 24 Use SCC=404002XX profiles Petroleum and Solvent Evapora

Storage (non-Refinery);Bulk Pla

PA 42071 40400299 262 7 24 Use SCC=404002XX profiles Petroleum and Solvent Evapora

Storage (non-Refinery);Bulk Pla
C-130 

Table VII-3. Unknown SCCs in the MANE-VU Point Source Inventory 

State FIPS SCC Description 

PA 42101 24950002 Need more info: Unknown SCC 

PA 42061 40500299 Need more info:Printing/Publishing; General 

PA 42091 40500299 Need more info:Printing/Publishing; General 

PA 42133 40500299 Need more info:Printing/Publishing; General 
C-131 

Table VII-4. Area Source Temporal Cross-Reference Updates 

SMOKE Default profile New 

SCC SCC description Monthly Weekly Diurnal Monthly 

30502713 Industrial Processes;Mineral Products;Industrial Sand 

and Gravel;Screening: Size Classification 

262 7 24 262 

30502760 Industrial Processes;Mineral Products;Industrial Sand 

and Gravel;Sand Handling, Transfer, and Storage 

262 7 24 262 

2302000000 Industrial Processes;Food and Kindred Products: SIC 

20;All Processes;Total 

262 7 26 262 

2302050000 Industrial Processes;Food and Kindred Products: SIC 

20;Bakery Products;Total 

262 7 26 262 

2305000000 Industrial Processes;Mineral Processes: SIC 32;All 

Processes;Total 

262 7 26 262 

2309100010 Industrial Processes;Fabricated Metals: SIC 34;Coating, 

Engraving, and Allied Services;Electroplating 

262 7 26 262 

2311010000 Industrial Processes;Construction: SIC 15 - 17;General 

Building Construction;Total 

262 7 26 262 

2311020000 Industrial Processes;Construction: SIC 15 - 17;Heavy 

Construction;Total 

262 7 26 262 

2311030000 Industrial Processes;Construction: SIC 15 - 17;Road 

Construction;Total 

262 7 26 262 

2325000000 Industrial Processes;Mining and Quarrying: SIC 14;All 

Processes;Total 

262 7 26 262 

2399000000 Industrial Processes;Industrial Processes: NEC;Industrial 

Processes: NEC;Total 

262 7 26 262 

2399010000 Industrial Processes; Industrial 

Refrigeration; Refrigerant Losses; All Processes 

262 7 26 262 

2401015000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;Factory Finished 

Wood: SIC 2426 thru 242;Total: All Solvent Types 

173 7 26 173 

2401020000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;Wood Furniture: SIC 

25;Total: All Solvent Types 

287 7 26 287 

2401025000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;Metal Furniture: SIC 

25;Total: All Solvent Types 

287 7 26 287 

2401030000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;Paper: SIC 26;Total: 

All Solvent Types 

257 7 26 257 

2401040000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;Metal Cans: SIC 

341;Total: All Solvent Types 

253 7 26 253 

2401045000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;Metal Coils: SIC 

3498;Total: All Solvent Types 

253 7 26 253 

2401050000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;Miscellaneous 

Finished Metals: SIC 34 - (341 + 3498);Total: All Solvent Types 

253 7 26 253 
Table VII-4 (continued) 

132

SMOKE Default profile New 

SCC SCC description Monthly Weekly Diurnal Monthly 

2401055000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;Machinery and 

Equipment: SIC 35;Total: All Solvent Types 

253 7 26 253 

2401060000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;Large Appliances: 

SIC 363;Total: All Solvent Types 

262 7 26 262 

2401065000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;Electronic and Other 

Electrical: SIC 36 - 363;Total: All Solvent Types 

253 7 26 253 

2401070000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;Motor Vehicles: SIC 

371;Total: All Solvent Types 

140 7 26 140 

2401075000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;Aircraft: SIC 

372;Total: All Solvent Types 

169 7 26 169 

2401080000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;Marine: SIC 

373;Total: All Solvent Types 

266 7 26 266 

2401085000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;Railroad: SIC 

374;Total: All Solvent Types 

169 7 26 169 

2401090000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;Miscellaneous 

Manufacturing;Total: All Solvent Types 

260 7 26 260 

2401090999 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;Miscellaneous 

Manufacturing;Solvents: NEC 

260 7 26 260 

2401200000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;Other Special 

Purpose Coatings;Total: All Solvent Types 

260 7 26 260 

2401990000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;All Surface Coating 

Categories;Total: All Solvent Types 

260 7 26 260 

2401990999 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;All Surface Coating 

Categories;Solvents: NEC 

260 7 26 260 

2415000000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;All Processes/All 

Industries;Total: All Solvent Types 

253 7 26 253 

2415020000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Fabricated Metal Products 

(SIC 34): All Processes;Total: All Solvent Types 

253 7 26 253 

2415025000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Industrial Machinery and 

Equipment (SIC 35): All Processes;Total: All Solvent Types 

253 7 26 253 

2415030000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Electronic and Other Elec. 

(SIC 36): All Processes;Total: All Solvent Types 

253 7 26 253 

2415035000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Transportation Equipment 

(SIC 37): All Processes;Total: All Solvent Types 

253 7 26 253 

2415045000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Miscellaneous 

Manufacturing (SIC 39): All Processes;Total: All Solvent Types 

253 7 26 253 

2415055000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Automotive Dealers (SIC 

55): All Processes;Total: All Solvent Types 

253 7 26 253 

2415060000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Miscellaneous Repair 

Services (SIC 76): All Processes;Total: All Solvent Types 

253 7 26 253 
Table VII-4 (continued) 

133

SMOKE Default profile New 

SCC SCC description Monthly Weekly Diurnal Monthly 

2415065000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Auto Repair Services (SIC 

75): All Processes;Total: All Solvent Types 

253 7 26 253 

2415100000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;All Industries: Open Top 

Degreasing;Total: All Solvent Types 

253 7 26 253 

2415105000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Furniture and Fixtures 

(SIC 25): Open Top Degreasing;Total: All Solvent Types 

253 7 26 253 

2415110000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Primary Metal Industries 

(SIC 33): Open Top Degreasing;Total: All Solvent Types 

253 7 26 253 

2415120000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Fabricated Metal Products 

(SIC 34): Open Top Degreasing;Total: All Solvent Types 

253 7 26 253 

2415125000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Industrial Machinery and 

Equipment (SIC 35): Open Top Degreasing;Total: All Solvent Types 

253 7 26 253 

2415130000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Electronic and Other Elec. 

(SIC 36): Open Top Degreasing;Total: All Solvent Types 

253 7 26 253 

2415135000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Transportation Equipment 

(SIC 37): Open Top Degreasing;Total: All Solvent Types 

253 7 26 253 

2415140000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Instruments and Related 

Products (SIC 38): Open Top Degreasing;Total: All Solvent Types 

253 7 26 253 

2415145000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Miscellaneous 

Manufacturing (SIC 39): Open Top Degreasing;Total: All Solvent Types 

253 7 26 253 

2415200000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;All Industries: 

Conveyerized Degreasing;Total: All Solvent Types 

253 7 26 253 

2415230000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Electronic and Other Elec. 

(SIC 36): Conveyerized Degreasing;Total: All Solvent Types 

253 7 26 253 

2415300000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;All Industries: Cold 

Cleaning;Total: All Solvent Types 

253 7 26 253 

2415305000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Furniture and Fixtures 

(SIC 25): Cold Cleaning;Total: All Solvent Types 

253 7 26 253 

2415310000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Primary Metal Industries 

(SIC 33): Cold Cleaning;Total: All Solvent Types 

253 7 26 253 

2415320000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Fabricated Metal Products 

(SIC 34): Cold Cleaning;Total: All Solvent Types 

253 7 26 253 

2415325000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Industrial Machinery and 

Equipment (SIC 35): Cold Cleaning;Total: All Solvent Types 

253 7 26 253 

2415330000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Electronic and Other Elec. 

(SIC 36): Cold Cleaning;Total: All Solvent Types 

253 7 26 253 
Table VII-4 (continued) 

134

SMOKE Default profile New 

SCC SCC description Monthly Weekly Diurnal Monthly 

2415335000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Transportation Equipment 

(SIC 37): Cold Cleaning;Total: All Solvent Types 

253 7 26 253 

2415340000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Instruments and Related 

Products (SIC 38): Cold Cleaning;Total: All Solvent Types 

253 7 26 253 

2415345000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Miscellaneous 

Manufacturing (SIC 39): Cold Cleaning;Total: All Solvent Types 

253 7 26 253 

2415355000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Automotive Dealers (SIC 

55): Cold Cleaning;Total: All Solvent Types 

253 7 26 253 

2415360000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Auto Repair Services (SIC 

75): Cold Cleaning;Total: All Solvent Types 

253 7 26 253 

2415365000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Miscellaneous Repair 

Services (SIC 76): Cold Cleaning;Total: All Solvent Types 

253 7 26 253 

2425000000 Solvent Utilization;Graphic Arts;All Processes;Total: All 

Solvent Types 

257 7 26 257 

2425010000 Solvent Utilization;Graphic Arts;Lithography;Total: All 

Solvent Types 

257 7 26 257 

2425020000 Solvent Utilization;Graphic Arts;Letterpress;Total: All 

Solvent Types 

257 7 26 257 

2425030000 Solvent Utilization;Graphic Arts;Rotogravure;Total: All 

Solvent Types 

262 7 26 262 

2425040000 Solvent Utilization;Graphic Arts;Flexography;Total: All 

Solvent Types 

257 7 26 257 

2430000000 Solvent Utilization;Rubber/Plastics;All Processes;Total: 

All Solvent Types 

200 7 26 200 

2601010000 Waste Disposal, Treatment, and Recovery;On-site 

Incineration;Industrial;Total 

262 7 26 262 

2601020000 Waste Disposal, Treatment, and Recovery;On-site 

Incineration;Commercial/Institutional;Total 

262 7 26 262 

2610010000 Waste Disposal, Treatment, and Recovery;Open 

Burning;Industrial;Total 

262 7 26 262 

2610020000 Waste Disposal, Treatment, and Recovery;Open 

Burning;Commercial/Institutional;Total 

262 7 26 262 

2805020000 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Livestock;Cattle and Calves Waste Emissions;Total 

489 7 26 1500 

2805025000 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Livestock;Hogs and Pigs Waste Emissions;Total 

489 7 26 1500 

2805030000 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Livestock;Poultry Waste Emissions;Total 

489 7 26 1500 
Table VII-4 (continued) 

135

SMOKE Default profile New 

SCC SCC description Monthly Weekly Diurnal Monthly 

2805035000 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Livestock;Horses and Ponies Waste Emissions;Total 

262 7 26 1500 

2805040000 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Livestock;Sheep and Lambs Waste Emissions;Total 

489 7 26 1500 

2805045001 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Livestock;Goats Waste Emissions;Total 

489 7 26 262 

2810015000 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Other 

Combustion;Prescribed Burning for Forest Management;Total 

14 7 24 3 
C-136 

Table VII-5. Area Source Temporal Cross-Reference Additions 

 SCC Description Month Week Diurnal 

2104008002 

Stationary Source Fuel 

Combustion;Residential;Wood;Fireplaces: Insert; 

non-EPA certified 

485 7 26 

2104008003 

Stationary Source Fuel 

Combustion;Residential;Wood;Fireplaces: Insert; 

EPA certified; non-catalytic 

485 7 26 

2104008004 

Stationary Source Fuel 

Combustion;Residential;Wood;Fireplaces: Insert; 

EPA certified; catalytic 

485 7 26 

2302002100 

Industrial Processes;Food and Kindred Products: SIC 

20;Commercial Charbroiling;Conveyorized 

Charbroiling 

262 7 26 

2302002200 Industrial Processes;Food and Kindred Products: SIC 

20;Commercial Charbroiling;Under-fired Charbroiling 262 7 26 

2302003000 Industrial Processes;Food and Kindred Products: SIC 

20;Commercial Deep Fat Frying;Total 262 7 26 

2302003100 Industrial Processes;Food and Kindred Products: SIC 

20;Commercial Deep Fat Frying;Flat Griddle Frying 262 7 26 

2302003200 

Industrial Processes;Food and Kindred Products: SIC 

20;Commercial Deep Fat Frying;Clamshell Griddle 

Frying 

262 7 26 

2302080002 

Industrial Processes;Food and Kindred Products: SIC 

20;Miscellaneous Food and Kindred 

Products;Refrigeration 

262 7 26 

2401002000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;Architectural 

Coatings - Solvent-based;Total: All Solvent Types 467 7 26 

2401003000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;Architectural 

Coatings - Water-based;Total: All Solvent Types 467 7 26 

2401102000 

Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;Industrial 

Maintenance Coatings-Solvent-based;Total: All 

Solvent Types 

500 5 26 

2401103000 

Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;Industrial 

Maintenance Coatings-Water-based;Total: All Solvent 

Types 

500 5 26 

2415270000 

Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;All Manufacturing 

(except SIC 36): Vapor and In-Line Cleaning;Total: All 

Solvent Types 

253 5 12 

2415280000 

Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Electronic and Other 

Elec. (SIC 36): Vapor and In-Line Cleaning;Total: All 

Solvent Types 

253 5 12 

2415370000 

Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Transportation 

Equipment Repair Services: Cold Cleaning;Total: All 

Solvent Types 

253 5 12 

2415380000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;All Manufacturing: 

Cold Cleaning;Total: All Solvent Types 253 5 12 

2610000400 

Waste Disposal, Treatment, and Recovery;Open 

Burning;All Categories;Yard Waste - Brush Species 

Unspecified 

262 7 26 

2610000500 

Waste Disposal, Treatment, and Recovery;Open 

Burning;All Categories;Land Clearing Debris (use 28-

10-005-000 for Logging Debris Burning) 

262 7 26 

2610040400 

Waste Disposal, Treatment, and Recovery;Open 

Burning;Municipal (collected from residences, 

parks,other for central burn);Yard Waste - Total 

262 7 26 

2630020010 

Waste Disposal, Treatment, and 

Recovery;Wastewater Treatment;Public 

Owned;Wastewater Treatment Processes Total 

262 7 24 
Table VII-5 (continued) 

137

SCC Description Month Week Diurnal 

2630020020 

Waste Disposal, Treatment, and 

Recovery;Wastewater Treatment;Public 

Owned;Biosolids Processes Total 

262 7 24 

2630020030 

Waste Disposal, Treatment, and 

Recovery;Wastewater Treatment;Public Owned;Land 

Application - Digested Sludge 

262 7 24 

2630050000 

Waste Disposal, Treatment, and 

Recovery;Wastewater Treatment;Public Owned;Land 

Application - Digested Sludge 

262 7 24 

2680001000 

Waste Disposal, Treatment, and 

Recovery;Composting;100% Biosolids (e.g., sewage 

sludge, manure, mixtures of these matls);All 

Processes 

262 7 26 

2680002000 

Waste Disposal, Treatment, and 

Recovery;Composting;Mixed Waste (e.g., a 50:50 

mixture of biosolids and green wastes);All Processes 

262 7 26 

2801700011 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Crops;Fertilizer Application;Calcium Ammonium 

Nitrate 

998 7 26 

2801700012 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Crops;Fertilizer Application;Potassium Nitrate 998 7 26 

2801700013 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Crops;Fertilizer Application;Diammonium Phosphate 998 7 26 

2801700014 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Crops;Fertilizer Application;Monoammonium 

Phosphate 

998 7 26 

2801700015 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Crops;Fertilizer Application;Liquid Ammonium 

Polyphosphate 

998 7 26 

2801700099 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Crops;Fertilizer Application;Miscellaneous Fertilizers 998 7 26 

2805001100 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Livestock;Beef cattle - finishing operations on 

feedlots (drylots);Confinement 

1500 7 26 

2805001200 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Livestock;Beef cattle - finishing operations on 

feedlots (drylots);Manure handling and storage 

1500 7 26 

2805001300 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Livestock;Beef cattle - finishing operations on 

feedlots (drylots);Land application of manure 

1500 7 26 

2805002000 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Livestock;Beef Cattle Composite; Not Elsewhere 

Classified 

1500 7 26 

2805003100 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Livestock;Beef cattle - finishing operations on 

pasture/range;Confinement 

1500 7 26 

2805007100 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Livestock;Poultry production - layers with dry manure 

management systems;Confinement 

1500 7 26 

2805007200 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - 

Livestock;Poultry Production - layers with dry manure 

management systems;Management 

1500 7 26 

2805007300 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Livestock;Poultry production - layers with dry manure 

management systems;Land application of manure 

262 7 24 

2805007330 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - 

Livestock;Poultry Production - layers with dry manure 

management systems; Land application 

1500 7 26 

2805007340 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - 

Livestock;Poultry Production - layers with dry manure 

management systems; Land application 

1500 7 26 
Table VII-5 (continued) 

138

SCC Description Month Week Diurnal 

2805008100 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Livestock;Poultry production - layers with wet manure 

management systems;Confinement 

1500 7 26 

2805008200 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Livestock;Poultry production - layers with wet manure 

management systems;Manure handling and storage 

1500 7 26 

2805008300 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Livestock;Poultry production - layers with wet manure 

management systems;Land application of manure 

1500 7 26 

2805009100 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Livestock;Poultry production - broilers;Confinement 1500 7 26 

2805009300 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Livestock;Poultry production - broilers;Land 

application of manure 

1500 7 26 

2805010100 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Livestock;Poultry production - turkeys;Confinement 262 7 24 

2805010200 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Livestock;Poultry production - turkeys;Manure 

handling and storage 

262 7 24 

2805010300 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Livestock;Poultry production - turkeys;Land 

application of manure 

1500 7 26 

2805018000 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Livestock;Dairy cattle composite; Not Elsewhere 

Classified 

1501 7 26 

2805019100 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Livestock;Dairy cattle - flush dairy;Confinement 1500 7 26 

2805019200 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Livestock;Dairy cattle - flush dairy;Manure handling 

and storage 

1500 7 26 

2805019300 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Livestock;Dairy cattle - flush dairy;Land application of 

manure 

1500 7 26 

2805020001 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Livestock;Cattle and Calves Waste Emissions;Milk 

Cows 

1500 7 26 

2805020002 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Livestock;Cattle and Calves Waste Emissions;Beef 

Cows 

1500 7 26 

2805020003 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Livestock;Cattle and Calves Waste Emissions;Heifers 

and Heifer Calves 

1500 7 26 

2805021300 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Livestock;Dairy cattle - scrape dairy;Land application 

of manure 

1500 7 26 

2805022100 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Livestock;Dairy cattle - deep pit dairy;Confinement 1500 7 26 

2805022200 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Livestock;Dairy cattle - deep pit dairy;Manure 

handling and storage 

1500 7 26 

2805022300 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Livestock;Dairy cattle - deep pit dairy;Land 

application of manure 

1500 7 26 

2805023300 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Livestock;Dairy cattle - drylot/pasture dairy;Land 

application of manure 

1500 7 26 

2805030001 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Livestock;Poultry Waste Emissions;Pullet Chicks and 

Pullets less than 13 weeks old 

1500 7 26 
Table VII-5 (continued) 

139

SCC Description Month Week Diurnal 

2805030002 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Livestock;Poultry Waste Emissions;Pullets 13 weeks 

old and older but less than 20 weeks 

1500 7 26 

2805030003 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Livestock;Poultry Waste Emissions;Layers 1500 7 26 

2805030004 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Livestock;Poultry Waste Emissions;Broilers 1500 7 26 

2805030008 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Livestock;Poultry Waste Emissions;Geese 1500 7 26 

2805039100 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Livestock;Swine production - operations with 

lagoons;Confinement 

1500 7 26 

2805039200 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Livestock;Swine production - operations with 

lagoons;Manure handling and storage 

1500 7 26 

2805039300 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Livestock;Swine production - operations with 

lagoons;Land application of manure 

1500 7 26 

2805045000 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Livestock;Goats Waste Emissions;Not Elsewhere 

Classified 

1500 7 26 

2805045002 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Livestock;Goats Waste Emissions;Angora Goats 1500 7 26 

2805045003 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Livestock;Goats Waste Emissions;Milk Goats 1500 7 26 

2805047100 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Livestock;Swine production - deep-pit house 

operations;Confinement 

1500 7 26 

2805047300 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Livestock;Swine production - deep-pit house 

operations;Land application of manure 

1500 7 26 

2805053100 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Livestock;Swine production - outdoor operations; 

Confinement 

1500 7 26 

2805054000 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - 

Livestock;"Mules; Donkeys; and Burros Waste 

Emissions";Not Elsewhere Classified 

262 7 24 

2806010000 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Domestic Animals 

Waste Emissions;Cats;Total 262 7 24 

2806015000 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Domestic Animals 

Waste Emissions;Dogs;Total 262 7 24 

2807020001 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Wild Animals Waste 

Emissions;Bears;Black Bears 262 7 26 

2807020002 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Wild Animals Waste 

Emissions;Bears;Grizzly Bears 262 7 26 

2807025000 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Wild Animals Waste 

Emissions;Elk;Total 262 7 26 

2807030000 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Wild Animals Waste 

Emissions;Deer;Total 262 7 26 

2807040000 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Wild Animals Waste 

Emissions;Birds;Total 262 7 26 

2810060100 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Other 

Combustion;Cremation;Humans 262 7 24 

2870000001 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Humans;Respiration 

and Perspiration;Total 262 7 24 

2870000002 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Humans;Infant Diapered 

Waste;Total 262 7 24 

2870000011 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Domestic 

Activity;Household Products;Total 262 7 24 
Table VII-5 (continued) 

140

SCC Description Month Week Diurnal 

2870000015 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Domestic Activity;Nonagricultural Fertilizers;Total 3 7 24 

2870000021 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Domestic 

Animals;Dogs;Total 262 7 24 

2870000022 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Domestic 

Animals;Cats;Total 262 7 24 

2870000031 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Wild Animals;Deer;Total 262 7 24 
C-141 

Table VII-6. Area Source Temporal Cross-Reference and Profile Additions 

for the MANE-VU Inventory 

SCC Description Month Week Diurnal FIPS 

2102002000 

Stationary Source Fuel 

Combustion;Industrial;Bituminous/Subbituminous Coal;Total: 

All Boiler Types 

1726 8 26 10000 

2102006000 Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Industrial;Natural 

Gas;Total: Boilers and IC Engines 

1727 8 26 10000 

2102007000 Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Industrial;Liquified 

Petroleum Gas (LPG);Total: All Boiler Types 

1727 8 26 10000 

2103001000 

Stationary Source Fuel 

Combustion;Commercial/Institutional;Anthracite Coal;Total: 

All Boiler Types 

1720 8 26 10000 

2103004000 

Stationary Source Fuel 

Combustion;Commercial/Institutional;Distillate Oil;Total: 

Boilers and IC Engines 

1721 8 26 10000 

2103006000 

Stationary Source Fuel 

Combustion;Commercial/Institutional;Natural Gas;Total: 

Boilers and IC Engines 

1722 8 26 10000 

2103007000 

Stationary Source Fuel 

Combustion;Commercial/Institutional;Liquified Petroleum 

Gas (LPG);Total: All Combustor Types 

1723 8 26 10000 

2104002000 

Stationary Source Fuel 

Combustion;Residential;Bituminous/Subbituminous 

Coal;Total: All Combustor Types 

1732 7 26 10000 

2104004000 Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Residential;Distillate 

Oil;Total: All Combustor Types 

1733 7 26 10000 

2104006000 Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Residential;Natural 

Gas;Total: All Combustor Types 

1734 7 26 10000 

2104007000 Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Residential;Liquified 

Petroleum Gas (LPG);Total: All Combustor Types 

1735 7 26 10000 

2104008000 Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Residential;Wood;Total: 

Woodstoves and Fireplaces 

1740 2007 2014 10001 

2104008000 Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Residential;Wood;Total: 

Woodstoves and Fireplaces 

1741 2008 2015 10003 

2104008000 Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Residential;Wood;Total: 

Woodstoves and Fireplaces 

1742 2009 2016 10005 

2104008000 Stationary Source Fuel Combustion;Residential;Wood;Total: 

Woodstoves and Fireplaces 

1742 2009 2016 10005 

2104008070 

Stationary Source Fuel 

Combustion;Residential;Wood;Outdoor Wood Burning 

Equipment; 

1743 2010 2017 10001 

2104008070 

Stationary Source Fuel 

Combustion;Residential;Wood;Outdoor Wood Burning 

Equipment; 

1744 2011 2017 10003 

2104008070 

Stationary Source Fuel 

Combustion;Residential;Wood;Outdoor Wood Burning 

Equipment; 

1745 2012 2017 10005 

2104011000 Stationary Source Fuel 

Combustion;Residential;Kerosene;Total: All Heater Types 

1736 7 26 10000 

2294000000 Mobile Sources;Paved Roads;All Paved Roads;Total: 

Fugitives 1729 7 26 10000 

2302002100 Industrial Processes;Food and Kindred Products: SIC 

20;Commercial Charbroiling;Conveyorized Charbroiling 

262 7 26 10000 

2302002100 Industrial Processes;Food and Kindred Products: SIC 

20;Commercial Charbroiling;Conveyorized Charbroiling 

262 7 26 10000 

2302002200 Industrial Processes;Food and Kindred Products: SIC 

20;Commercial Charbroiling;Under-fired Charbroiling 

262 7 26 10000 
Table VII-6 (continued) 

142

SCC Description Month Week Diurnal FIPS 

2302002200 Industrial Processes;Food and Kindred Products: SIC 

20;Commercial Charbroiling;Under-fired Charbroiling 

262 7 26 10000 

2302003000 Industrial Processes;Food and Kindred Products: SIC 

20;Commercial Deep Fat Frying;Total 

262 7 26 10000 

2302003000 Industrial Processes;Food and Kindred Products: SIC 

20;Commercial Deep Fat Frying;Total 

262 7 26 10000 

2302003100 Industrial Processes;Food and Kindred Products: SIC 

20;Commercial Deep Fat Frying;Flat Griddle Frying 

262 7 26 10000 

2302003100 Industrial Processes;Food and Kindred Products: SIC 

20;Commercial Deep Fat Frying;Flat Griddle Frying 

262 7 26 10000 

2302003200 Industrial Processes;Food and Kindred Products: SIC 

20;Commercial Deep Fat Frying;Clamshell Griddle Frying 

262 7 26 10000 

2302003200 Industrial Processes;Food and Kindred Products: SIC 

20;Commercial Deep Fat Frying;Clamshell Griddle Frying 

262 7 26 10000 

2311030000 Industrial Processes;Construction: SIC 15 - 17;Road 

Construction;Total 

262 7 9 10000 

2401002000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;Architectural Coatings - 

Solvent-based;Total: All Solvent Types 

467 7 26 -9 

2401002000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;Architectural Coatings - 

Solvent-based;Total: All Solvent Types 

500 20 27 10000 

2401003000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;Architectural Coatings - 

Water-based;Total: All Solvent Types 

467 7 26 -9 

2401003000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;Architectural Coatings - 

Water-based;Total: All Solvent Types 

500 20 27 10000 

2401005000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;Auto Refinishing: SIC 

7532;Total: All Solvent Types 

1702 5 27 10000 

2401005500 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;Auto Refinishing: SIC 

7532;Surface Preparation Solvents 

1702 5 27 10000 

2401005600 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;Auto Refinishing: SIC 

7532;Primers 

1702 5 27 10000 

2401005700 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;Auto Refinishing: SIC 

7532;Top Coats 

1702 5 27 10000 

2401005800 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;Auto Refinishing: SIC 

7532;Clean-up Solvents 

1702 5 27 10000 

2401005800 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;Auto Refinishing: SIC 

7532;Clean-up Solvents 

1702 5 27 10001 

2401008000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;Traffic Markings;Total: All 

Solvent Types 

1700 7 26 -9 

2401008000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;Traffic Markings;Total: All 

Solvent Types 

1700 5 26 10000 

2401008999 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;Traffic Markings;Solvents: 

NEC 

1700 7 26 -9 

2401102000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;Industrial Maintenance 

Coatings-Solvent-based;Total: All Solvent Types 

500 5 26 10000 

2401103000 Solvent Utilization;Surface Coating;Industrial Maintenance 

Coatings-Water-based;Total: All Solvent Types 

500 5 26 10000 

2415100000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;All Industries: Open Top 

Degreasing;Total: All Solvent Types 

262 6 5 10000 

2415130000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Electronic and Other Elec. 

(SIC 36): Open Top Degreasing;Total: All Solvent Types 

262 6 5 10000 

2415300000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;All Industries: Cold 

Cleaning;Total: All Solvent Types 

262 6 5 10000 

2415360000 Solvent Utilization;Degreasing;Auto Repair Services (SIC 

75): Cold Cleaning;Total: All Solvent Types 

262 5 5 10000 

2461021000 Solvent Utilization;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: 

Commercial;Cutback Asphalt;Total: All Solvent Types 

1712 7 26 10001 

2461021000 Solvent Utilization;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: 

Commercial;Cutback Asphalt;Total: All Solvent Types 

1714 7 26 10001 

2461021000 Solvent Utilization;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: 

Commercial;Cutback Asphalt;Total: All Solvent Types 

1713 7 26 10003 
Table VII-6 (continued) 

143

SCC Description Month Week Diurnal FIPS 

2461021000 Solvent Utilization;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: 

Commercial;Cutback Asphalt;Total: All Solvent Types 

1712 7 26 10003 

2461021000 Solvent Utilization;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: 

Commercial;Cutback Asphalt;Total: All Solvent Types 

1714 7 26 10005 

2461021000 Solvent Utilization;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: 

Commercial;Cutback Asphalt;Total: All Solvent Types 

1713 7 26 10005 

2461022000 Solvent Utilization;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: 

Commercial;Emulsified Asphalt;Total: All Solvent Types 

1709 7 26 10001 

2461022000 Solvent Utilization;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: 

Commercial;Emulsified Asphalt;Total: All Solvent Types 

1711 7 26 10001 

2461022000 Solvent Utilization;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: 

Commercial;Emulsified Asphalt;Total: All Solvent Types 

1710 7 26 10003 

2461022000 Solvent Utilization;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: 

Commercial;Emulsified Asphalt;Total: All Solvent Types 

1709 7 26 10003 

2461022000 Solvent Utilization;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: 

Commercial;Emulsified Asphalt;Total: All Solvent Types 

1711 7 26 10005 

2461022000 Solvent Utilization;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: 

Commercial;Emulsified Asphalt;Total: All Solvent Types 

1710 7 26 10005 

2461850001 

Solvent Utilization;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: 

Commercial;Pesticide Application: Agricultural;Herbicides, 

Corn 

536 7 26 10000 

2461850005 

Solvent Utilization;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: 

Commercial;Pesticide Application: Agricultural;Herbicides, 

Soy Beans 

536 7 26 10000 

2461850006 

Solvent Utilization;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: 

Commercial;Pesticide Application: Agricultural;Herbicides, 

Hay & Grains 

536 7 26 10000 

2461850051 

Solvent Utilization;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: 

Commercial;Pesticide Application: Agricultural;Other 

Pesticides, Corn 

536 7 26 10000 

2461850055 

Solvent Utilization;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: 

Commercial;Pesticide Application: Agricultural;Other 

Pesticides, Soy Beans 

536 7 26 10000 

2461850056 

Solvent Utilization;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: 

Commercial;Pesticide Application: Agricultural;Other 

Pesticides, Hay & Grains 

536 7 26 10000 

2501011010 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product 

Storage;Portable Containers: Residential;Vapor Losses 

1701 7 26 10000 

2501011010 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product 

Storage;Portable Containers: Residential;Vapor Losses 

1701 7 26 10000 

2501011011 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product 

Storage;Portable Containers: Residential;Permeation 

1701 7 26 10000 

2501011011 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product 

Storage;Portable Containers: Residential;Permeation 

1701 7 26 10000 

2501011012 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product 

Storage;Portable Containers: Residential;Diurnal 

1701 7 26 10000 

2501011012 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product 

Storage;Portable Containers: Residential;Diurnal 

1701 7 26 10000 

2501011015 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product 

Storage;Portable Containers: Residential;Spillage 

1701 7 26 10000 

2501011015 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product 

Storage;Portable Containers: Residential;Spillage 

1701 7 26 10000 

2501011016 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product 

Storage;Portable Containers: Residential;Transport 

1701 7 26 10000 

2501011016 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product 

Storage;Portable Containers: Residential;Transport 

1701 7 26 10000 

2501012010 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product 

Storage;Portable Containers: Commercial;Vapor Losses 

1701 7 26 10000 

2501012010 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product 

Storage;Portable Containers: Commercial;Vapor Losses 

1701 7 26 10000 
Table VII-6 (continued) 

144

SCC Description Month Week Diurnal FIPS 

2501012011 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product 

Storage;Portable Containers: Commercial;Permeation 

1701 7 26 10000 

2501012011 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product 

Storage;Portable Containers: Commercial;Permeation 

1701 7 26 10000 

2501012012 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product 

Storage;Portable Containers: Commercial;Diurnal 

1701 7 26 10000 

2501012012 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product 

Storage;Portable Containers: Commercial;Diurnal 

1701 7 26 10000 

2501012015 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product 

Storage;Portable Containers: Commercial;Spillage 

1701 7 26 10000 

2501012015 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product 

Storage;Portable Containers: Commercial;Spillage 

1701 7 26 10000 

2501012016 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product 

Storage;Portable Containers: Commercial;Transport 

1701 7 26 10000 

2501012016 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product 

Storage;Portable Containers: Commercial;Transport 

1701 7 26 10000 

2501060000 

Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product 

Storage;Gasoline Service Stations;Total: All Gasoline/All 

Processes 

1701 7 26 -9 

2501060050 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product 

Storage;Gasoline Service Stations;Stage 1: Total 

1701 7 26 -9 

2501060051 

Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product 

Storage;Gasoline Service Stations;Stage 1: Submerged 

Filling 

1701 7 26 -9 

2501060052 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product 

Storage;Gasoline Service Stations;Stage 1: Splash Filling 

1701 7 26 -9 

2501060053 

Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product 

Storage;Gasoline Service Stations;Stage 1: Balanced 

Submerged Filling 

1701 7 26 -9 

2501060100 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product 

Storage;Gasoline Service Stations;Stage 2: Total 

1701 7 26 -9 

2501060100 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product 

Storage;Gasoline Service Stations;Stage 2: Total 

1724 7 26 10000 

2501060101 

Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product 

Storage;Gasoline Service Stations;Stage 2: Displacement 

Loss/Uncontrolled 

1701 7 26 -9 

2501060102 

Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product 

Storage;Gasoline Service Stations;Stage 2: Displacement 

Loss/Controlled 

1701 7 26 -9 

2501060103 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product 

Storage;Gasoline Service Stations;Stage 2: Spillage 

1701 7 26 -9 

2501060201 

Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product 

Storage;Gasoline Service Stations;Underground Tank: 

Breathing and Emptying 

1701 7 26 -9 

2501060204 

Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product 

Storage;Gasoline Service Stations;Stage 2: Off-Highway 

Equipment Displacement Loss/Controlled 

1701 7 26 10000 

2501060205 

Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product 

Storage;Gasoline Service Stations;Stage 2: Off-Highway 

Equipment Spillage 

1701 7 26 10000 

2501080050 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product 

Storage;Airports : Aviation Gasoline;Stage 1: Total 

1701 7 26 10000 

2501080102 

Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product 

Storage;Airports: Aviation Gasoline;Stage 2: Displacement 

Loss 

1701 7 26 10000 

2501080103 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product 

Storage;Airports: Aviation Gasoline;Stage 2: Spillage 

1701 7 26 10000 

2501080201 

Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product 

Storage;Airports: Aviation Gasoline;Underground Tank: 

Breathing and Emptying 

1701 7 26 10000 
Table VII-6 (continued) 

145

SCC Description Month Week Diurnal FIPS 

2501090050 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product 

Storage;Airports: Jet A or JP-8;Stage 1: Total 

1701 7 26 10000 

2501090060 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product 

Storage;Airports: Jet A or JP-8;Stage 2: Total 

1701 7 26 10000 

2501090070 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product 

Storage;Airports: Jet Naphtha or JP-4;Stage 1: Total 

1701 7 26 10000 

2501090080 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product 

Storage;Airports: Jet Naphtha or JP-4;Stage 2: Total 

1701 7 26 10000 

2501090101 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product 

Storage;Airports: Jet A or JP-8;Stage 2: Total 

1701 7 26 10000 

2501090102 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product 

Storage;Marinas: Gasoline;Stage 2: Displacement Loss 

1701 7 26 10000 

2501090103 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product 

Storage;Marinas: Gasoline;Stage 2: Spillage 

1701 7 26 10000 

2501090201 

Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product 

Storage;Marinas: Gasoline;Underground Tank: Emptying and 

Breathing 

1701 7 26 10000 

2505000000 Storage and Transport;Petroleum and Petroleum Product 

Transport;All Transport Types;Total: All Products 

1701 7 26 -9 

2610010000 Waste Disposal, Treatment, and Recovery;Open 

Burning;Industrial;Total 

262 9 2013 10000 

2630020000 Waste Disposal, Treatment, and Recovery;Wastewater 

Treatment;Public Owned;Total Processed 

262 7 24 10000 

2630020010 

Waste Disposal, Treatment, and Recovery;Wastewater 

Treatment;Public Owned;Wastewater Treatment Processes 

Total 

262 7 24 10000 

2630020020 Waste Disposal, Treatment, and Recovery;Wastewater 

Treatment;Public Owned;Biosolids Processes Total 

262 7 24 10000 

2630020030 Waste Disposal, Treatment, and Recovery;Wastewater 

Treatment;Public Owned;Land Application - Digested Sludge 

262 7 24 10000 

2630050000 Waste Disposal, Treatment, and Recovery;Wastewater 

Treatment;Public Owned;Land Application - Digested Sludge 

262 7 24 10000 

2680001000 

Waste Disposal, Treatment, and 

Recovery;Composting;100% Biosolids (e.g., sewage sludge, 

manure, mixtures of these matls);All Processes 

262 7 26 10000 

2730100000 Natural Sources;Geogenic;Wind Erosion;Total 1704 7 26 10000 

2801001001 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Crops;Corn;Land preparation and cultivation 

1703 20 132 10000 

2801001005 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Crops;Wheat;Land preparation and cultivation 

1703 20 132 10000 

2801001009 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Crops;Barley;Land preparation and cultivation 

1703 20 132 10000 

2801001013 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Crops;Soybeans;Land preparation and cultivation 

1703 20 132 10000 

2801001017 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Crops;Hay/Alfalfa;Land preparation and cultivation 

1703 20 132 10000 

2801001021 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Crops;Vegetables;Land preparation and cultivation 

1703 20 132 10000 

2801002001 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Crops;Corn;Harvesting 

1703 20 132 10000 

2801002002 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Crops;Wheat;Harvesting 

1703 20 132 10000 

2801002003 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Crops;Barley;Harvesting 

1703 20 132 10000 

2801002004 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Crops;Soybeans;Harvesting 

1703 20 132 10000 

2801002005 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Crops;Hay/Alfalfa;Harvesting 

1703 20 132 10000 

2801002006 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Crops;Vegetables;Harvesting 

1703 20 132 10000 
Table VII-6 (continued) 

146

SCC Description Month Week Diurnal FIPS 

2801700020 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - 

Crops;Fertilizer Application;Corn 

1705 7 26 10000 

2801700021 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - 

Crops;Fertilizer Application;Sorghum 

1705 7 26 10000 

2801700022 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - 

Crops;Fertilizer Application;Wheat 

1705 7 26 10000 

2801700023 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - 

Crops;Fertilizer Application;Barley 

1705 7 26 10000 

2801700024 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - 

Crops;Fertilizer Application;Soybeans 

1705 7 26 10000 

2801700025 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - 

Crops;Fertilizer Application;Hay/Alfalfa 

1705 7 26 10000 

2801700026 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - 

Crops;Fertilizer Application;Vegetables 

1705 7 26 10000 

2805001100 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Livestock;Beef cattle - finishing operations on feedlots 

(drylots);Confinement 

1706 7 24 10000 

2805001200 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Livestock;Beef cattle - finishing operations on feedlots 

(drylots);Manure handling 

1706 7 24 10000 

2805001300 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Livestock;Beef cattle - finishing operations on feedlots 

(drylots);Land application of 

1706 7 24 10000 

2805001310 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - 

Livestock;Beef Cattle - finishing operations on feedlots 

(drylots);Land Appl 

1706 7 24 10000 

2805001320 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - 

Livestock;Beef Cattle - finishing operations on feedlots 

(drylots);Land Appl 

1706 7 24 10000 

2805001330 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - 

Livestock;Beef Cattle - finishing operations on feedlots 

(drylots);Land Appl 

1706 7 24 10000 

2805001340 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - 

Livestock;Beef Cattle - finishing operations on feedlots 

(drylots);Land Appl 

1706 7 24 10000 

2805002000 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Livestock;Beef Cattle Composite; Total 

1706 7 24 10000 

2805007100 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Livestock;Poultry production - layers with dry manure 

management systems;Confinement 

262 7 24 10000 

2805007200 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - 

Livestock;Poultry Production - layers with dry manure 

management systems;Man 

262 7 24 10000 

2805007300 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Livestock;Poultry production - layers with dry manure 

management systems;Land applicati 

262 7 24 10000 

2805007340 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - 

Livestock;Poultry Production - layers with dry manure 

management systems;Lan 

262 7 24 10000 

2805008100 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Livestock;Poultry production - layers with wet manure 

management systems;Confinement 

262 7 24 10000 

2805008200 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Livestock;Poultry production - layers with wet manure 

management systems;Manure handlin 

262 7 24 10000 

2805008310 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - 

Livestock;Poultry Production - layers with wet manure 

management systems;Lan 

1708 7 24 10000 

2805008320 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - 

Livestock;Poultry Production - layers with wet manure 

management systems;Lan 

1708 7 24 10000 
Table VII-6 (continued) 

147

SCC Description Month Week Diurnal FIPS 

2805009100 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Livestock;Poultry production - broilers;Confinement 

262 7 24 10000 

2805009200 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Livestock;Poultry production - broilers;Manure handling and 

storage 

262 7 24 10000 

2805009330 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - 

Livestock;Poultry Production - broilers;Land Application of 

solid manure wit 

1708 7 24 10000 

2805009340 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - 

Livestock;Poultry Production - broilers;Land Application of 

solid manure wit 

1708 7 24 10000 

2805010100 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Livestock;Poultry production - turkeys;Confinement 

262 7 24 10000 

2805010200 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Livestock;Poultry production - turkeys;Manure handling and 

storage 

262 7 24 10000 

2805010330 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - 

Livestock;Poultry Production - turkeys;Land Application of 

solid manure with 

1708 7 24 10000 

2805010340 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - 

Livestock;Poultry Production - turkeys;Land Application of 

solid manure with 

1708 7 24 10000 

2805019100 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Livestock;Dairy cattle - flush dairy;Confinement 

1706 7 24 10000 

2805019200 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Livestock;Dairy cattle - flush dairy;Manure handling and 

storage 

1706 7 24 10000 

2805019300 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Livestock;Dairy cattle - flush dairy;Land application of 

manure 

1706 7 24 10000 

2805019310 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - 

Livestock;Dairy Cattle - flush dairy;Land Application of liquid 

manure with 

1706 7 24 10000 

2805019320 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - 

Livestock;Dairy Cattle - flush dairy;Land Application of liquid 

manure witho 

1706 7 24 10000 

2805019330 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - 

Livestock;Dairy Cattle - flush dairy;Land Application of solid 

manure with i 

1706 7 24 10000 

2805019340 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - 

Livestock;Dairy Cattle - flush dairy;Land Application of solid 

manure withou 

1706 7 24 10000 

2805021100 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Livestock;Dairy cattle - scrape dairy;Confinement 

1706 7 24 10000 

2805021200 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Livestock;Dairy cattle - scrape dairy;Manure handling and 

storage 

1706 7 24 10000 

2805021310 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - 

Livestock;Dairy Cattle - scrape dairy;Land Application of 

liquid manure with 

1706 7 24 10000 

2805021320 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - 

Livestock;Dairy Cattle - scrape dairy;Land Application of 

liquid manure with 

1706 7 24 10000 

2805021330 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - 

Livestock;Dairy Cattle - scrape dairy;Land Application of solid 

manure with 

1706 7 24 10000 

2805021340 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - 

Livestock;Dairy Cattle - scrape dairy;Land Application of solid 

manure witho 

1706 7 24 10000 

2805023100 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Livestock;Dairy cattle - drylot/pasture dairy;Confinement 

1706 7 24 10000 
Table VII-6 (continued) 

148

SCC Description Month Week Diurnal FIPS 

2805023200 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Livestock;Dairy cattle - drylot/pasture dairy;Manure handling 

and storage 

1706 7 24 10000 

2805023310 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - 

Livestock;Dairy Cattle - drylot/pasture dairy;Land Application 

of liquid man 

1706 7 24 10000 

2805023320 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - 

Livestock;Dairy Cattle - drylot/pasture dairy;Land Application 

of liquid man 

1706 7 24 10000 

2805023330 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - 

Livestock;Dairy Cattle - drylot/pasture dairy;Land Application 

of solid manu 

1706 7 24 10000 

2805023340 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - 

Livestock;Dairy Cattle - drylot/pasture dairy;Land Application 

of solid manu 

1706 7 24 10000 

2805035000 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Livestock;Horses and Ponies Waste Emissions;Total 

262 7 24 10000 

2805038100 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Livestock;Swine production - operations with lagoons 

(unspecified animal age);Confineme 

1707 7 24 10000 

2805038200 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Livestock;Swine production - operations with lagoons 

(unspecified animal age);Manure ha 

1707 7 24 10000 

2805038300 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Livestock;Swine production - operations with lagoons 

(unspecified animal age);Land appl 

1707 7 24 10000 

2805039100 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Livestock;Swine production - operations with 

lagoons;Confinement 

1707 7 24 10000 

2805039200 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Livestock;Swine production - operations with lagoons;Manure 

handling and storage 

1707 7 24 10000 

2805039310 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - 

Livestock;Swine Production - operations with lagoon 

(unspecified animal age) 

1707 7 24 10000 

2805039320 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - 

Livestock;Swine Production - operations with lagoon 

(unspecified animal age) 

1707 7 24 10000 

2805039330 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - 

Livestock;Swine Production - operations with lagoon 

(unspecified animal age) 

1707 7 24 10000 

2805039340 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - 

Livestock;Swine Production - operations with lagoon 

(unspecified animal age) 

1707 7 24 10000 

2805040000 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Livestock;Sheep and Lambs Waste Emissions;Total 

262 7 24 10000 

2805045001 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Livestock;Goats Waste Emissions;Total 

262 7 24 10000 

2805046100 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Livestock;Swine production - deep-pit house operations 

(unspecified animal age);Confine 

1707 7 24 10000 

2805046300 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Livestock;Swine production - deep-pit house operations 

(unspecified animal age);Land ap 

1707 7 24 10000 

2805047100 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Livestock;Swine production - deep-pit house 

operations;Confinement 

1707 7 24 10000 

2805047200 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - 

Livestock;Swine Production - deep pit house operations 

(unspecified animal a 

1707 7 24 10000 
Table VII-6 (continued) 

149

SCC Description Month Week Diurnal FIPS 

2805047310 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - 

Livestock;Swine Production - deep pit house operations 

(unspecified animal a 

1707 7 24 10000 

2805047320 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - 

Livestock;Swine Production - deep pit house operations 

(unspecified animal a 

1707 7 24 10000 

2805047330 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - 

Livestock;Swine Production - deep pit house operations 

(unspecified animal a 

1707 7 24 10000 

2805047340 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - 

Livestock;Swine Production - deep pit house operations 

(unspecified animal a 

1707 7 24 10000 

2805052100 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Livestock;Swine production - outdoor operations (unspecified 

animal age);Confinement 

1707 7 24 10000 

2805053100 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agriculture Production - 

Livestock;Swine production - outdoor operations; 

Confinement 

1707 7 24 10000 

2805053200 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - 

Livestock;Swine Production - outdoor operations (unspecified 

animal age);Man 

1707 7 24 10000 

2805053310 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - 

Livestock;Swine Production - outdoor operations (unspecified 

animal age);Lan 

1707 7 24 10000 

2805053320 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - 

Livestock;Swine Production - outdoor operations (unspecified 

animal age);Lan 

1707 7 24 10000 

2805053330 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - 

Livestock;Swine Production - outdoor operations (unspecified 

animal age);Lan 

1707 7 24 10000 

2805053340 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - 

Livestock;Swine Production - outdoor operations (unspecified 

animal age);Lan 

1707 7 24 10000 

2805054000 

Miscellaneous Area Sources;Agricultural Production - 

Livestock;"Mules; Donkeys; and Burros Waste 

Emissions";Not Elsewhere Classif 

262 7 24 10000 

2806010000 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Domestic Animals Waste 

Emissions;Cats;Total 

262 7 24 10000 

2806015000 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Domestic Animals Waste 

Emissions;Dogs;Total 

262 7 24 10000 

2807030000 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Wild Animals Waste 

Emissions;Deer;Total 

262 7 24 10000 

2807040000 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Wild Animals Waste 

Emissions;Birds;Total 

262 7 24 10000 

2810010000 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Other Combustion;Human 

Perspiration and Respiration;Total 

1739 2006 24 10000 

2810015000 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Other Combustion;Prescribed 

Burning for Forest Management;Total 

1731 7 24 10000 

2810030000 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Other Combustion;Structure 

Fires;Total 

1715 7 24 10000 

2810035000 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Other Combustion;Firefighting 

Training;Total 

1716 2004 24 10000 

2870000001 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Humans;Respiration and 

Perspiration;Total 

262 7 24 10000 

2870000002 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Humans;Infant Diapered 

Waste;Total 

262 7 24 10000 

2870000011 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Domestic Activity;Household 

Products;Total 

262 7 24 10000 

2870000015 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Domestic Activity;Nonagricultural Fertilizers;Total 

3 7 24 10000 
Table VII-6 (continued) 

150

SCC Description Month Week Diurnal FIPS 

2870000021 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Domestic Animals;Dogs;Total 262 7 24 10000 

2870000022 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Domestic Animals;Cats;Total 262 7 24 10000 

2870000031 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Wild Animals;Deer;Total 262 7 24 10000 

2870000032 Miscellaneous Area Sources;Wild Animals;Birds;Total 1728 7 24 10000 
C-151 

Table VII-7. Point Source Speciation Profiles Added to Speciation Crossreference File for CB-IV with PM Mechanism 

Recommended 

Profiles 

State FIPS SCC VOC PM2.5

Method of 

Assignment 

SCC Description 

(Complete description not always available) 

VT 50005 10200908 1084 NWWAS Use SCC=102009XX 

profiles 

External Combustion Boilers;Industrial;Wood/Bark 

Waste;Wood-fired Boiler - Dry Wood (<20% moisture) 

VT 50019 10200908 1084 NWWAS Use SCC=102009XX 

profiles 

External Combustion Boilers;Industrial;Wood/Bark 

Waste;Wood-fired Boiler - Dry Wood (<20% moisture) 

VT 50021 10200908 1084 NWWAS Use SCC=102009XX 

profiles 

External Combustion Boilers;Industrial;Wood/Bark 

Waste;Wood-fired Boiler - Dry Wood (<20% moisture) 

VT 50017 10300908 1084 NWWAS Use SCC=103009XX 

profiles 

External Combustion 

Boilers;Commercial/Institutional;Wood/Bark Waste;Wood-fired 

Boiler - Dry Wood (<20% moisture) 

PA 42009 20200299 0007 22004 Use SCC=202002XX 

profiles 

Internal Combustion Engines;Industrial;Natural Gas;Unknown 

PA 42029 20200299 0007 22004 Use SCC=202002XX 

profiles 

Internal Combustion Engines;Industrial;Natural Gas;Unknown 

PA 42045 20200299 0007 22004 Use SCC=202002XX 

profiles 

Internal Combustion Engines;Industrial;Natural Gas;Unknown 

PA 42061 20200299 0007 22004 Use SCC=202002XX 

profiles 

Internal Combustion Engines;Industrial;Natural Gas;Unknown 

PA 42067 20200299 0007 22004 Use SCC=202002XX 

profiles 

Internal Combustion Engines;Industrial;Natural Gas;Unknown 

PA 42015 20300299 0007 22004 Use SCC=203002XX 

profiles 

Internal Combustion Engines;Commercial/Institutional;Natural 

Gas;Unknown 

PA 42029 20300299 0007 22004 Use SCC=203002XX 

profiles 

Internal Combustion Engines;Commercial/Institutional;Natural 

Gas;Unknown 

PA 42037 20300299 0007 22004 Use SCC=203002XX 

profiles 

Internal Combustion Engines;Commercial/Institutional;Natural 

Gas;Unknown 

PA 42071 20300299 0007 22004 Use SCC=203002XX 

profiles 

Internal Combustion Engines;Commercial/Institutional;Natural 

Gas;Unknown 

PA 42011 28888899 9002 35602 Use SCC=288888XX 

profiles 

Internal Combustion Engines;Fugitive Emissions;Other Not 

Classified;Specify in Comments 

PA 42123 28888899 9002 35602 Use SCC=288888XX 

profiles 

Internal Combustion Engines;Fugitive Emissions;Other Not 

Classified;Specify in Comments 

PA 42123 28888899 9002 35602 Use SCC=288888XX 

profiles 

Internal Combustion Engines;Fugitive Emissions;Other Not 

Classified;Specify in Comments 

PA 42129 28888899 9002 35602 Use SCC=288888XX 

profiles 

Internal Combustion Engines;Fugitive Emissions;Other Not 

Classified;Specify in Comments 

MD 24031 30500261 0025 22035 Use SCC=30500260 

profile 

Industrial Processes;Mineral Products;Asphalt Concrete;Drum 

Mix Plant: Rotary Drum Dryer/Mixer, Waste/Drain/#6 Oil-Fired 

PA Numerous 

counties 

39000698 0000 22004 Use SCC=39000699 

profile 

Industrial Processes;In-process Fuel Use;Natural 

Gas;Unknown 

NJ Numerous 

counties 

39999901 9003 22054 Use SCC=399999XX 

profiles 

Industrial Processes;Miscellaneous Manufacturing 

Industries;Miscellaneous Industrial Processes;Unknown 

PA 42015 40202598 1003 99999 Use SCC=40202599 

profile 

Petroleum and Solvent Evaporation;Surface Coating 

Operations;Miscellaneous Metal Parts;Unknown 

PA 42017 40202598 1003 99999 Use SCC=40202599 

profile 

Petroleum and Solvent Evaporation;Surface Coating 

Operations;Miscellaneous Metal Parts;Unknown 

PA 42091 40202598 1003 99999 Use SCC=40202599 

profile 

Petroleum and Solvent Evaporation;Surface Coating 

Operations;Miscellaneous Metal Parts;Unknown 

PA 42095 40202598 1003 99999 Use SCC=40202599 

profile 

Petroleum and Solvent Evaporation;Surface Coating 

Operations;Miscellaneous Metal Parts;Unknown 

PA 42097 40202598 1003 99999 Use SCC=40202599 

profile 

Petroleum and Solvent Evaporation;Surface Coating 

Operations;Miscellaneous Metal Parts;Unknown 

PA 42013 40400299 1014 22042 Use SCC=404002XX 

profiles 

Petroleum and Solvent Evaporation;Petroleum Liquids Storage 

(non-Refinery);Bulk Plants;Unknown 

PA 42041 40400299 1014 22042 Use SCC=404002XX 

profiles 

Petroleum and Solvent Evaporation;Petroleum Liquids Storage 

(non-Refinery);Bulk Plants;Unknown 

PA 42045 40400299 1014 22042 Use SCC=404002XX 

profiles 

Petroleum and Solvent Evaporation;Petroleum Liquids Storage 

(non-Refinery);Bulk Plants;Unknown 

PA 42071 40400299 1014 22042 Use SCC=404002XX 

profiles 

Petroleum and Solvent Evaporation;Petroleum Liquids Storage 

(non-Refinery);Bulk Plants;Unknown 
C-152 

Table VII-8. Point Source SCCs Lacking Speciation Profile Assignments for CB-IV 

with PM Mechanism 

State FIPS SCC Description 

NY 36055 31603001 Industrial Processes;Photographic Film Manufacturing;Product Manufacturing - Substrate 

Preparation;Extrusion Operations 

NY 36055 31603002 Industrial Processes;Photographic Film Manufacturing;Product Manufacturing - Substrate 

Preparation;Film Support Operations 

NY 36055 31604001 Industrial Processes;Photographic Film Manufacturing;Product Manufacturing - Chemical 

Preparation;Chemical Manufacturing 

NY 36055 31604002 Industrial Processes;Photographic Film Manufacturing;Product Manufacturing - Chemical 

Preparation;Emulsion Making Operations 

NY 36055 31604003 Industrial Processes;Photographic Film Manufacturing;Product Manufacturing - Chemical 

Preparation;Chemical Mixing Operations 

NY 36055 31605001 Industrial Processes;Photographic Film Manufacturing;Product Manufacturing - Surface 

Treatments;Surface Coating Operations 

NY 36055 31605002 Industrial Processes;Photographic Film Manufacturing;Product Manufacturing - Surface 

Treatments;Grid Ionizers 

NY 36055 31605003 Industrial Processes;Photographic Film Manufacturing;Product Manufacturing - Surface 

Treatments;Corona Discharge Treatment 

NY 36055 31606001 Industrial Processes;Photographic Film Manufacturing;Product Manufacturing - Finishing 

Operations;General Film Manufacturing 

NY 36055 31606002 Industrial Processes;Photographic Film Manufacturing;Product Manufacturing - Finishing 

Operations;Cutting/Slitting Operations 

PA 42101 31606002 Industrial Processes;Photographic Film Manufacturing;Product Manufacturing - Finishing 

Operations;Cutting/Slitting Operations 

NY 36055 31612001 Industrial Processes;Photographic Film Manufacturing;Support Activities - Cleaning 

Operations;Tank Cleaning Operations 

NY 36055 31612002 Industrial Processes;Photographic Film Manufacturing;Support Activities - Cleaning 

Operations;General Cleaning Operations 

NY 36055 31613002 Industrial Processes;Photographic Film Manufacturing;Support Activities - Storage 

Operations;General Storage Operations 

NY 36055 31614001 Industrial Processes;Photographic Film Manufacturing;Support Activities - Material 

Transfer Operations;Filling Operations (non petroleum) 

NY 36055 31614002 Industrial Processes;Photographic Film Manufacturing;Support Activities - Material 

Transfer Operations;Transfer of Chemicals 

NY 36055 31615001 Industrial Processes;Photographic Film Manufacturing;Support Activities - Separation 

Processes;Recovery Operations 

NY 36055 31615003 Industrial Processes;Photographic Film Manufacturing;Support Activities - Separation 

Processes;Distillation Operations 

NY 36055 31616002 Industrial Processes;Photographic Film Manufacturing;Support Activities - Other 

Operations;General Process Tank Operations 

NY 36055 31616003 Industrial Processes;Photographic Film Manufacturing;Support Activities - Other 

Operations;Miscellaneous Manufacturing Operations 

NY 36055 31616004 Industrial Processes;Photographic Film Manufacturing;Support Activities - Other 

Operations;Paint Spraying Operations 

NY 36055 31616006 Industrial Processes;Photographic Film Manufacturing;Support Activities - Other 

Operations;Chemical Weighing Operations 
153

Table VII-9. Summary of Version 3 Mass Emissions and SMOKE Input Files 

S/L Agencies Included 

in Files 

NIF 3.0 File Name 

Containing Mass 

Emissions Inventory 

(Access 2000 Database 

Files) 

Temporal Period of 

Mass Emissions 

Inventory SMOKE Input File Name 

Temporal Period of 

Emissions in 

SMOKE/IDA File 

Point Source Inventory 

CT, DC, DE, MA, MD, 

ME, NH, NJ, NY, PA 

(state and Philadelphia, 

and Allegheny Counties), 

RI, VT 

MANEVU_2002_Pt_Versi

on 3_040706.mdb 

Annual, Summer Day, 

and Winter Day 

MANEVU_Point_SMOKE_IN

PUT_ANNUAL_SUMMERD

AY_042706.txt 

Annual and Summer Day

“ “ “ MANEVU_Point_SMOKE_IN

PUT_ANNUAL_WINTERDA

Y_042706.txt 

Annual and Winter Day 

Area Source Inventory 

CT, DC, DE, MA, MD, 

ME, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, 

VT 

MANEVU_2002_Area_04

0606.mdb 

Annual, Summer Day, 

Winter Day, and 

Average Day 

MANEVU_AREA_SMOKE_I

NPUT_ANNUAL_SUMMER

DAY_040606.txt 

Annual, Summer Day, 

and Average Day 

“ “ “ MANEVU_AREA_SMOKE_I

NPUT_ANNUAL_WINTERD

AY_040606.txt 

Annual, Winter Day, and 

Average Day 

Nonroad Source Inventory

CT, DC, DE, MA, MD, 

ME, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, 

VT 

MANEVU_NRD2002_NIF

_030306.mdb 

Annual MANEVU_NRD2002_SMOK

E_030306.ida 

Annual 

Onroad Source Inventory

CT CT2002MANEVUORCAP

_122004.mdb 

Annual 

DE DE2002MANEVUORCAP

_072004.mdb 

Annual 

DC DC2002MANEVUORCAP

_072004.mdb 

Annual 

ME ME2002MANEVUORCAP

_072004.mdb 

Annual 

MD MD2002MANEVUORCA

P_072004.mdb 

Annual 

MA MA2002MANEVUORCAP

_022006_Access2000.md

b 

MA2002MANEVUORCAP

_022006_Access97.mdb

Annual 

NH NH2002MANEVUORCAP

_072004.mdb 

Annual 

NJ NJ2002MANEVUORCAP

_022006_Access2000.md

b 

NJ2002MANEVUORCAP

_022006_Access97.mdb

Annual 

NY NY2002MANEVUORCAP

_072004.mdb 

Annual 

PA PA2002MANEVUORCAP

_072004.mdb 

Annual 

RI DRI2002MANEVUORCA

P_072004.mdb 

Annual 

VT VT2002MANEVUORCAP

_122004.mdb 

Annual 

CT, DC, DE, MA, MD, 

ME, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, 

VT 

 MANEVU_2002_mbinv_020

22006.txt 

CT, DC, DE, MA, MD, 

ME, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, 

VT 

 MANEVU_2002_mcref_0202

2006.txt 
154

S/L Agencies Included 

in Files 

NIF 3.0 File Name 

Containing Mass 

Emissions Inventory 

(Access 2000 Database 

Files) 

Temporal Period of 

Mass Emissions 

Inventory SMOKE Input File Name 

Temporal Period of 

Emissions in 

SMOKE/IDA File 

DE, MA, MD, NJ, NY, PA, 

VT 

 MANEVU_2002_mtpro_0202

2006.txt 

DE, MA, MD, NJ, NY, PA, 

VT 

 MANEVU_2002_mtref_0202

2006.txt 

CT, DC, DE, MA, MD, 

ME, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, 

VT 

 MANEVU_2002_mvref_0202

2006.txt 

CT, DC, DE, MA, MD, 

ME, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, 

VT 

 MANEVU_2002_vmtmix_02

022006.txt 

 MANEVU_2002_mcodes.txt 

CT, NY MANEVU_2002_spdpro.txt 

CT, NY MANEVU_2002_spdref.txt 

CT, DC, DE, MA, MD, 

ME, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, 

VT 

 SMOKE MOBILE6 input 

files—too numerous to list 

individually 

Table VII-10. Unique List of Start Date, End Date, and Emission Type 

Combinations for Daily Emissions in the MANE-VU 2002 Point and Area Source 

Inventories, Version 3 

Start 

Date End Date 

Emission 

Type 

Emission 

Type Period 

Season 

Designation SMOKE File 

Point Source Inventory 

20011201 20020228 27 NONANNUAL Winter MANEVU_Point_SMOKE_INPUT_ANNUAL_WINTERDAY_042706.txt 

20011201 20020228 29 NONANNUAL Winter MANEVU_Point_SMOKE_INPUT_ANNUAL_WINTERDAY_042706.txt 

20020101 20020331 27 NONANNUAL Winter MANEVU_Point_SMOKE_INPUT_ANNUAL_WINTERDAY_042706.txt 

20020101 20021231 29 NONANNUAL MD-Winter MANEVU_Point_SMOKE_INPUT_ANNUAL_WINTERDAY_042706.txt 

 VT-Summer MANEVU_Point_SMOKE_INPUT_ANNUAL_SUMMERDAY_042706.txt 

20020501 20020930 29 NONANNUAL Summer MANEVU_Point_SMOKE_INPUT_ANNUAL_SUMMERDAY_042706.txt 

20020601 20020831 27 NONANNUAL Summer MANEVU_Point_SMOKE_INPUT_ANNUAL_SUMMERDAY_042706.txt 

20020601 20020831 29 NONANNUAL Summer MANEVU_Point_SMOKE_INPUT_ANNUAL_SUMMERDAY_042706.txt 

20020601 20020831 30 NONANNUAL Summer MANEVU_Point_SMOKE_INPUT_ANNUAL_SUMMERDAY_042706.txt 

Area Source Inventory 

20020101 20020831 27 Daily Average Day 

MANEVU_AREA_SMOKE_INPUT_ANNUAL_SUMMERDAY_040606.txt 

and 

MANEVU_AREA_SMOKE_INPUT_ANNUAL_WINTERDAY_040606.txt 

20020101 20021231 29 Daily Average Day 

MANEVU_AREA_SMOKE_INPUT_ANNUAL_SUMMERDAY_040606.txt 

and 

MANEVU_AREA_SMOKE_INPUT_ANNUAL_WINTERDAY_040606.txt 

 

20020401 20020930 29 Daily Summer Day MANEVU_AREA_SMOKE_INPUT_ANNUAL_SUMMERDAY_040606.txt 

20020401 20021031 29 Daily Summer Day MANEVU_AREA_SMOKE_INPUT_ANNUAL_SUMMERDAY_040606.txt 

20020512 20020512 27 Daily Summer Day MANEVU_AREA_SMOKE_INPUT_ANNUAL_SUMMERDAY_040606.txt 

20020601 20020831 27 Daily Summer Day MANEVU_AREA_SMOKE_INPUT_ANNUAL_SUMMERDAY_040606.txt 

20020601 20020831 29 Daily Summer Day MANEVU_AREA_SMOKE_INPUT_ANNUAL_SUMMERDAY_040606.txt 

20020601 20020929 29 Daily Summer Day MANEVU_AREA_SMOKE_INPUT_ANNUAL_SUMMERDAY_040606.txt 

20020629 20020629 27 Daily Summer Day MANEVU_AREA_SMOKE_INPUT_ANNUAL_SUMMERDAY_040606.txt 

 

20011201 20020228 27 Daily Winter Day MANEVU_AREA_SMOKE_INPUT_ANNUAL_WINTERDAY_040606.txt 

20011201 20020228 29 Daily Winter Day MANEVU_AREA_SMOKE_INPUT_ANNUAL_WINTERDAY_040606.txt 

20021029 20021029 27 Daily Winter Day MANEVU_AREA_SMOKE_INPUT_ANNUAL_WINTERDAY_040606.txt 

20021104 20021104 27 Daily Winter Day MANEVU_AREA_SMOKE_INPUT_ANNUAL_WINTERDAY_040606.txt 

20021205 20021205 27 Daily Winter Day MANEVU_AREA_SMOKE_INPUT_ANNUAL_WINTERDAY_040606.txt 
155

CHAPTER VIII. METHODS FOR AREAS OUTSIDE OF THE MANE-VU REGION 

Figure VIII-1 shows the geographic area for which the 12-kilometer (km) CMAQ modeling 

domain was used to support air quality modeling for the MANE-VU region. The 36-km domain 

definition was used for geographical areas outside of the area shown in Figure VIII-1. 

Table VIII-1 identifies the geographic region as well as the types of emissions inventory and 

ancillary data used to in modeling for the MANE-VU region. The geographic areas for which 

data were obtained include the Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the 

Southeast (VISTAS), Central Regional Air Planning Organization (CENRAP), and WRAP 

RPOs, the Midwest RPO, Canada, and Mexico. 

 

Figure VIII-1. MANE-VU 12-Kilometer CMAQ Modeling Domain 
156

Table VIII-1. Description of Non-MANE-VU Region Inventory Data Used for MANE-VU Bas

* Only utilized for 2002 BaseA 36-km modeling to generate boundary conditions for BaseA/BaseA1/BaseB current and future year 12-km 

Geographical 

Region/RPO Raw Data 

Time Period and Version 

Number 

Raw Data 

Format Source of Data Source of Ancillary Data 

Date 

Obtaine

VISTAS Point, area, 

nonroad, and mobile 

2002 BaseG SMOKE IDA Gregory Stella, Alpine 

Geophysics 

Gregory Stella, Alpine Geophysics 

MRPO Point, area, 

nonroad, and mobile 

2002 BaseK SMOKE IDA NIF files provided by Mark 

Janssen, MRPO, and converted to IDA format by Gregory Stella, Alpine Geophysics 

Part of VISTAS 2002 BaseD provided by Gregory Stella, Alpine Geophysics 

CENRAP Point, area, 

nonroad, and mobile 

2002 BaseB SMOKE IDA CENRAP ftp site 

Lee Warden, Oklahoma DEQ 

CENRAP ftp site Lee Warden, Oklahoma DEQ 

WRAP * Point, area, 

nonroad, and mobile 

Part of 

VISTAS 

2002 BaseD

SMOKE IDA Part of VISTAS 2002 BaseD 

provided by Gregory Stella, Alpine Geophysics 

Part of VISTAS 2002 BaseD provided by Gregory Stella, Alpine Geophysics 

Area, nonroad and mobile 

2000 SMOKE IDA ftp://ftp.epa.gov/EmisInventory

/canada_2000inventory 

Canada SMOKE 2.1 defaults 

Point 2002 SMOKE IDA 

created by NYSDEC from Canadian NPRI database 

http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/npri/npri_home_e.cfm 

SMOKE 2.1 defaults 

Mexico * Point, area, 

nonroad and mobile 

1999 SMOKE IDA EPA CAIR NODA SMOKE 2.1 defaults 
157

CHAPTER IX. REFERENCES 

CAMD, 2004: 2002 Continuous Emissions Monitoring Data Files downloaded on July 8, 2004 

from the EPA’s Clean Air Markets Division’s website (www.epa.gov/ airmarkets). [Note: 

The files can be found by clicking on Data and Maps on the left panel of the screen, then on 

Data Sets and Published Reports, and then on the first item on the list, Emissions Data 

Prepackaged Datasets (http://cfpub.epa.gov/gdm/index.cfm?fuseaction= 

prepackaged.select). Year 2002 data for the quarterly time period was selected and then 

“Display List” that provides 48 data sets (comma delimited text format) that were 

downloaded one by one and combined into a single dataset.] 

EPA, 2002: Final Summary of the Development and Results of a Methodology for Calculating 

Area Source Emissions from Residential Fuel Combustion, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Emission Factor and Inventory Group, Emissions Monitoring and Analysis 

Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park, North 

Carolina. September 2002. 

(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eiip/techreport/volume03/index.html). 

EPA, 2003a: Enhanced Particulate Matter Controlled Emissions Calculator, User’s Manual, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Emission Factor and Inventory Group, Emissions 

Monitoring and Analysis Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. September 2003. 

EPA, 2003b: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, Documentation for Aircraft, Commercial Marine, Locomotive, and Other 

Nonroad Components of the National Emissions Inventory, prepared by Eastern Research 

Group, Morrisville, NC, for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, September 2003. 

EPA, 2004a: Basic Format & Content Checker 3.0 (Formerly known as the Quality Assurance / 

Quality Control Software 3.0) - March 2004; Extended Quality Control Tool - Updated 

May 18, 2004. Available at the following EPA website: 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/nif/index.html#nei. 

EPA, 2004b: NEI Quality Assurance and Data Augmentation for Point Sources, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Emissions Monitoring and Analysis Division, Emission 

Factor and Inventory Group, May 26, 2004. 

EPA, 2004c: Factor Information and REtrieval (FIRE) Data System, Version 6.24, located on 

the Technology Transfer Network Clearinghouse for Inventories & Emission Factors Web 

Site at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/software/fire/index.html. March 2004. 

EPA, 2005a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Final NONROAD2005 [computer 

software], Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Ann Arbor, MI. Available December 

2005 at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/nonroadmdl.htm. 
158

EPA, 2005b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Mobile Inventory Model, 

NMIM2005 [computer software], Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Ann Arbor, 

MI. Available December 2005 at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/nmim.htm. 

ERG, 2004: Environmental Research Group, Documentation for Aircraft, Commercial Marine, 

Locomotive, and Other Nonroad Components of the National Emissions Inventory, 

technical memorandum prepared by Eastern Research Group, Morrisville, NC, for the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, September 2004. 

MANE-VU, 2003: Quality Assurance Plan for Development of a 2002 Mobile Source 

Emissions Inventory for the MANE-VU States, Final. Prepared by E.H. Pechan & 

Associates, Inc. for the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU). January 

31, 2003. 

MANE-VU, 2004a: Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for Area and Point Source 

Emissions Modeling Inventory Project, Final. Prepared by E.H. Pechan & 

Associates, Inc. and Carolina Environmental Program for the MidAtlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU). August 3, 2004. 

MANE-VU, 2004b: Summary of Approaches Available for Fugitive Dust Sources, 

Final. Prepared by E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc. for the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast 

Visibility Union (MANE-VU). July 15, 2004. 

MANE-VU, 2004c: Summary of Approaches Available for Wildfires, Prescribed 

Burning, Slash Burning, and Agricultural Field Burning, Draft. Prepared by E.H. 

Pechan & Associates, Inc. for the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union 

(MANE-VU). July 24, 2004. 

MANE-VU, 2005: Area and Point Source Emissions Modeling Inventory Project, Prepared by 

E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc. for the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANEVU). January 31, 2005. 

Thompson, 2002: Thompson, Rhonda L., “A Demonstration of the Quality Assurance (QA) 

software specifically developed for the National Emission Inventory (NEI),” presented at 

the International Emission Inventory Conference “Emission Inventories - Partnering for 

the Future,” Atlanta, GA, April 15-18, 2002, (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/conference/ 

ei11/qa/thompson.pdf). 

WRAP, 2005: Western Governors’ Association, Western Regional Air Partnership, “Analysis of 

the Fine Fraction of Particulate Matter in Fugitive Dust,” Final Report, October 12, 2005 

(http://www.wrapair.org/forums/dejf/index.html). 
A-1

APPENDIX A 

POINT SOURCE INVENTORY, VERSION 3: 

DATA SOURCES BY SCC, EMISSION TYPE PERIOD, AND POLLUTANT 

[NOTE: The Appendix A table for each State is provided in a separate MS Word file because of 

the large size of each table. The Word files are provided in the zip file named “Appendix A.zip”; 

this zip file also includes an Excel Workbook file that contains the spreadsheet from which the 

Word file was created for each State.]
B-1

APPENDIX B 

AREA SOURCE INVENTORY, VERSION 3: 

DATA SOURCES BY SCC, EMISSION TYPE PERIOD, AND POLLUTANT 

[NOTE: The Appendix B table for each State is provided in a separate MS Word file because of 

the large size of each table. The Word files are provided in the zip file named “Appendix B.zip”; 

this zip file also includes an Excel Workbook file that contains the spreadsheet from which the 

Word file was created for each State.]
C-1 

APPENDIX C 

NONROAD SOURCE INVENTORY, VERSION 3: 

FINAL COUNTY, MONTHLY NATIONAL 

MOBILE INVENTORY MODEL (NMIM) INPUTS 

CONTENTS 

CONNECTICUT ........................................................................................................................ C-2 

DELAWARE .............................................................................................................................. C-2 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ...................................................................................................... C-3 

MAINE ....................................................................................................................................... C-3 

MARYLAND ............................................................................................................................. C-4 

MASSACHUSETTS................................................................................................................... C-6 

NEW HAMPSHIRE ................................................................................................................... C-7 

NEW JERSEY ............................................................................................................................ C-7 

NEW YORK ............................................................................................................................... C-9 

PENNSYLVANIA.................................................................................................................... C-13 

RHODE ISLAND ..................................................................................................................... C-17 

VERMONT............................................................................................................................... C-18 
C-2 

Table C-1. MANE-VU County, Monthly NMIM/NONROAD Inputs 

FIPS_State State FIPS_County County JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL A

09 CONNECTICUT 

RVP, psi 

 001 Fairfield County 12.5 12.5 10.1 10.1 6.8 6.8 6.8  003 Hartford County 12.3 12.3 10.0 10.0 6.9 6.9 6.9  005 Litchfield County 12.3 12.3 10.0 10.0 6.9 6.9 6.9  007 Middlesex County 12.3 12.3 10.0 10.0 6.9 6.9 6.9  009 New Haven County 12.3 12.3 10.0 10.0 6.9 6.9 6.9  011 New London County 12.3 12.3 10.0 10.0 6.9 6.9 6.9  013 Tolland County 12.3 12.3 10.0 10.0 6.9 6.9 6.9  015 Windham County 12.3 12.3 10.0 10.0 6.9 6.9 6.9 

Oxygen Weight Percent 

 001 Fairfield County 1.7172 1.7172 1.7660 1.7660 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.8 003 Hartford County 1.5667 1.5667 1.6068 1.6068 1.6596 1.6596 1.6596 1.6 005 Litchfield County 1.5667 1.5667 1.6068 1.6068 1.6596 1.6596 1.6596 1.6 007 Middlesex County 1.5667 1.5667 1.6068 1.6068 1.6596 1.6596 1.6596 1.6 009 New Haven County 1.5667 1.5667 1.6068 1.6068 1.6596 1.6596 1.6596 1.6 011 New London County 1.5667 1.5667 1.6068 1.6068 1.6596 1.6596 1.6596 1.6 013 Tolland County 1.5667 1.5667 1.6068 1.6068 1.6596 1.6596 1.6596 1.6 015 Windham County 1.5667 1.5667 1.6068 1.6068 1.6596 1.6596 1.6596 1.6

Gasoline Sulfur, ppm 

 001 Fairfield County 135.0 135.0 135.0 135.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 10 003 Hartford County 135.0 135.0 135.0 135.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 10 005 Litchfield County 135.0 135.0 135.0 135.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 10 007 Middlesex County 135.0 135.0 135.0 135.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 10 009 New Haven County 135.0 135.0 135.0 135.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 10 011 New London County 135.0 135.0 135.0 135.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 10 013 Tolland County 135.0 135.0 135.0 135.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 10 015 Windham County 135.0 135.0 135.0 135.0 106.0 106.0 106.0 10

10 DELAWARE 

RVP, psi  001 Kent County 13.4 13.4 10.6 10.6 6.8 6.8 6.8 

 003 New Castle County 13.4 13.4 10.6 10.6 6.8 6.8 6.8  005 Sussex County 13.4 13.4 10.4 10.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 

Oxygen Weight Percent 

 001 Kent County 1.8442 1.8442 1.9457 1.9457 2.0896 2.0896 2.0896 2.0 003 New Castle County 1.8442 1.8442 1.9457 1.9457 2.0896 2.0896 2.0896 2.0 005 Sussex County 1.4645 1.4645 1.5538 1.5538 1.6431 1.6431 1.6431 1.6

Gasoline Sulfur, ppm 

 001 Kent County 174.0 174.0 155.1 155.1 130.0 130.0 130.0 13 003 New Castle County 174.0 174.0 155.1 155.1 130.0 130.0 130.0 13 005 Sussex County 225.0 225.0 186.0 186.0 134.0 134.0 134.0 13
Table C-1 (continued) 

C-3 

FIPS_State State FIPS_County County JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL A

11 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

RVP, psi  001 District of Columbia 13.1 13.1 10.4 10.4 6.8 6.8 6.8 

Oxygen Weight Percent 

 001 District of Columbia 1.7681 1.7681 1.8217 1.8217 1.8932 1.8932 1.8932 1.8

Gasoline Sulfur, ppm 

 001 District of Columbia 230.0 230.0 199.6 199.6 159.0 159.0 159.0 15

23 MAINE 

RVP, psi  001 Androscoggin County 12.3 11.1 11.2 8.4 7.5 7.5 7.7 

 003 Aroostook County 12.3 11.1 11.2 8.4 8.6 8.6 8.4  005 Cumberland County 12.3 11.1 11.2 8.4 7.5 7.5 7.7  007 Franklin County 12.3 11.1 11.2 8.4 8.6 8.6 8.4  009 Hancock County 12.3 11.1 11.2 8.4 8.6 8.6 8.4  011 Kennebec County 12.3 11.1 11.2 8.4 7.5 7.5 7.7  013 Knox County 12.3 11.1 11.2 8.4 7.5 7.5 7.7  015 Lincoln County 12.3 11.1 11.2 8.4 7.5 7.5 7.7  017 Oxford County 12.3 11.1 11.2 8.4 8.6 8.6 8.4  019 Penobscot County 12.3 11.1 11.2 8.4 8.6 8.6 8.4  021 Piscataquis County 12.3 11.1 11.2 8.4 8.6 8.6 8.4  023 Sagadahoc County 12.3 11.1 11.2 8.4 7.5 7.5 7.7  025 Somerset County 12.3 11.1 11.2 8.4 8.6 8.6 8.4  027 Waldo County 12.3 11.1 11.2 8.4 8.6 8.6 8.4  029 Washington County 12.3 11.1 11.2 8.4 8.6 8.6 8.4  031 York County 12.3 11.1 11.2 8.4 7.5 7.5 7.7 

Oxygen Weight Percent 

 001 Androscoggin County 0.4334 0.6510 0.5390 0.3235 0.2420 0.1753 0.7061 0.6 003 Aroostook County 0.4334 0.6510 0.5390 0.3235 0.3786 0.5845 0.8545 0.5 005 Cumberland County 0.4334 0.6510 0.5390 0.3235 0.2420 0.1753 0.7061 0.6 007 Franklin County 0.4334 0.6510 0.5390 0.3235 0.3786 0.5845 0.8545 0.5 009 Hancock County 0.4334 0.6510 0.5390 0.3235 0.3786 0.5845 0.8545 0.5 011 Kennebec County 0.4334 0.6510 0.5390 0.3235 0.2420 0.1753 0.7061 0.6 013 Knox County 0.4334 0.6510 0.5390 0.3235 0.2420 0.1753 0.7061 0.6 015 Lincoln County 0.4334 0.6510 0.5390 0.3235 0.2420 0.1753 0.7061 0.6 017 Oxford County 0.4334 0.6510 0.5390 0.3235 0.3786 0.5845 0.8545 0.5 019 Penobscot County 0.4334 0.6510 0.5390 0.3235 0.3786 0.5845 0.8545 0.5 021 Piscataquis County 0.4334 0.6510 0.5390 0.3235 0.3786 0.5845 0.8545 0.5 023 Sagadahoc County 0.4334 0.6510 0.5390 0.3235 0.2420 0.1753 0.7061 0.6 025 Somerset County 0.4334 0.6510 0.5390 0.3235 0.3786 0.5845 0.8545 0.5 027 Waldo County 0.4334 0.6510 0.5390 0.3235 0.3786 0.5845 0.8545 0.5 029 Washington County 0.4334 0.6510 0.5390 0.3235 0.3786 0.5845 0.8545 0.5 031 York County 0.4334 0.6510 0.5390 0.3235 0.2420 0.1753 0.7061 0.6

Gasoline Sulfur, ppm 

 001 Androscoggin County 151.5 236.1 221.1 145.4 319.7 268.1 101.1 8 003 Aroostook County 151.5 236.1 221.1 145.4 170.1 290.9 128.6 29 005 Cumberland County 151.5 236.1 221.1 145.4 319.7 268.1 101.1 8 007 Franklin County 151.5 236.1 221.1 145.4 170.1 290.9 128.6 29
Table C-1 (continued) 

C-4 

FIPS_State State FIPS_County County JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL A

 009 Hancock County 151.5 236.1 221.1 145.4 170.1 290.9 128.6 29

23 MAINE (cont’d) 011 Kennebec County 151.5 236.1 221.1 145.4 319.7 268.1 101.1 8

 013 Knox County 151.5 236.1 221.1 145.4 319.7 268.1 101.1 8 015 Lincoln County 151.5 236.1 221.1 145.4 319.7 268.1 101.1 8 017 Oxford County 151.5 236.1 221.1 145.4 170.1 290.9 128.6 29 019 Penobscot County 151.5 236.1 221.1 145.4 170.1 290.9 128.6 29 021 Piscataquis County 151.5 236.1 221.1 145.4 170.1 290.9 128.6 29 023 Sagadahoc County 151.5 236.1 221.1 145.4 319.7 268.1 101.1 8 025 Somerset County 151.5 236.1 221.1 145.4 170.1 290.9 128.6 29 027 Waldo County 151.5 236.1 221.1 145.4 170.1 290.9 128.6 29 029 Washington County 151.5 236.1 221.1 145.4 170.1 290.9 128.6 29 031 York County 151.5 236.1 221.1 145.4 319.7 268.1 101.1 8

24 MARYLAND 

RVP, psi  003 Anne Arundel County 12.6 12.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 6.6 6.6 

 005 Baltimore County 12.6 12.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 6.6 6.6  009 Calvert County 12.6 12.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 6.6 6.6  011 Caroline County 12.6 12.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 8.2 8.2  013 Carroll County 12.6 12.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 6.6 6.6  015 Cecil County 12.6 12.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 6.6 6.6  017 Charles County 12.6 12.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 6.6 6.6  019 Dorchester County 12.6 12.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 8.2 8.2  021 Frederick County 12.6 12.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 6.6 6.6  023 Garrett County 12.6 12.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 8.2 8.2  025 Harford County 12.6 12.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 6.6 6.6  027 Howard County 12.6 12.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 6.6 6.6  029 Kent County 12.6 12.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 6.6 6.6  031 Montgomery County 12.6 12.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 6.6 6.6  033 Prince George's County 12.6 12.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 6.6 6.6  035 Queen Anne's County 12.6 12.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 6.6 6.6  037 St. Mary's County 12.6 12.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 8.2 8.2  039 Somerset County 12.6 12.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 8.2 8.2  041 Talbot County 12.6 12.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 8.2 8.2  043 Washington County 12.6 12.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 8.2 8.2  045 Wicomico County 12.6 12.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 8.2 8.2  047 Worcester County 12.6 12.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 8.2 8.2  510 Baltimore city 12.6 12.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 6.6 6.6 

Oxygen Weight Percent 

 001 Allegany County 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2. 003 Anne Arundel County 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2. 005 Baltimore County 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2. 009 Calvert County 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2. 011 Caroline County 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2. 013 Carroll County 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2. 015 Cecil County 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2. 017 Charles County 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2. 019 Dorchester County 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2. 021 Frederick County 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.
Table C-1 (continued) 

C-5 

FIPS_State State FIPS_County County JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL A

 023 Garrett County 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.

24 MARYLAND (cont’d) 025 Harford County 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.

 027 Howard County 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2. 029 Kent County 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2. 031 Montgomery County 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2. 033 Prince George's County 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2. 035 Queen Anne's County 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2. 037 St. Mary's County 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2. 039 Somerset County 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2. 041 Talbot County 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2. 043 Washington County 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2. 045 Wicomico County 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2. 047 Worcester County 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2. 510 Baltimore city 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.

Gasoline Sulfur, ppm 

 001 Allegany County 207.9 207.9 191.9 191.9 170.5 170.5 170.5 17 003 Anne Arundel County 211.0 211.0 184.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 12 005 Baltimore County 211.0 211.0 184.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 12 009 Calvert County 230.0 230.0 199.6 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 12 011 Caroline County 207.9 207.9 191.9 191.9 170.5 170.5 170.5 17 013 Carroll County 211.0 211.0 184.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 12 015 Cecil County 174.0 174.0 155.1 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 12 017 Charles County 230.0 230.0 199.6 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 12 019 Dorchester County 207.9 207.9 191.9 191.9 170.5 170.5 170.5 17 021 Frederick County 230.0 230.0 199.6 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 12 023 Garrett County 207.9 207.9 191.9 191.9 170.5 170.5 170.5 17 025 Harford County 211.0 211.0 184.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 12 027 Howard County 211.0 211.0 184.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 12 029 Kent County 174.0 174.0 155.1 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 12 031 Montgomery County 230.0 230.0 199.6 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 12 033 Prince George's County 230.0 230.0 199.6 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 12 035 Queen Anne's County 174.0 174.0 155.1 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 12 037 St. Mary's County 207.9 207.9 191.9 191.9 170.5 170.5 170.5 17 039 Somerset County 207.9 207.9 191.9 191.9 170.5 170.5 170.5 17 041 Talbot County 207.9 207.9 191.9 191.9 170.5 170.5 170.5 17 043 Washington County 207.9 207.9 191.9 191.9 170.5 170.5 170.5 17 045 Wicomico County 207.9 207.9 191.9 191.9 170.5 170.5 170.5 17 047 Worcester County 207.9 207.9 191.9 191.9 170.5 170.5 170.5 17 510 Baltimore city 211.0 211.0 184.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 12
Table C-1 (continued) 

C-6 

FIPS_State State FIPS_County County JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL A

25 MASSACHUSETTS 

RVP, psi  001 Barnstable County 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 6.7 6.7 6.7 

 003 Berkshire County 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 6.7 6.7 6.7  005 Bristol County 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 6.7 6.7 6.7  007 Dukes County 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 6.7 6.7 6.7  009 Essex County 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 6.7 6.7 6.7  011 Franklin County 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 6.7 6.7 6.7  013 Hampden County 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 6.7 6.7 6.7  015 Hampshire County 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 6.7 6.7 6.7  017 Middlesex County 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 6.7 6.7 6.7  019 Nantucket County 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 6.7 6.7 6.7  021 Norfolk County 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 6.7 6.7 6.7  023 Plymouth County 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 6.7 6.7 6.7  025 Suffolk County 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 6.7 6.7 6.7  027 Worcester County 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 6.7 6.7 6.7 

Oxygen Weight Percent 

 001 Barnstable County 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2. 003 Berkshire County 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2. 005 Bristol County 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2. 007 Dukes County 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1 009 Essex County 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1 011 Franklin County 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2. 013 Hampden County 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2. 015 Hampshire County 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2. 017 Middlesex County 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2. 019 Nantucket County 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1 021 Norfolk County 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2. 023 Plymouth County 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2. 025 Suffolk County 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2. 027 Worcester County 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 1.5002 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.

Gasoline Sulfur, ppm 

 001 Barnstable County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 12 003 Berkshire County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 12 005 Bristol County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 12 007 Dukes County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 12 009 Essex County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 12 011 Franklin County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 12 013 Hampden County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 12 015 Hampshire County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 12 017 Middlesex County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 12 019 Nantucket County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 12 021 Norfolk County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 12 023 Plymouth County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 12 025 Suffolk County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 12 027 Worcester County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 12
Table C-1 (continued) 

C-7 

FIPS_State State FIPS_County County JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL A

33 NEW HAMPSHIRE 

RVP, psi  001 Belknap County 13.6 13.6 11.2 11.2 7.9 7.9 7.9 

 003 Carroll County 13.6 13.6 11.2 11.2 7.9 7.9 7.9  005 Cheshire County 13.6 13.6 11.2 11.2 7.9 7.9 7.9  007 Coos County 13.6 13.6 11.2 11.2 7.9 7.9 7.9  009 Grafton County 13.6 13.6 11.2 11.2 7.9 7.9 7.9  011 Hillsborough County 12.9 12.9 10.2 10.2 6.7 6.7 6.7  013 Merrimack County 12.9 12.9 10.2 10.2 6.7 6.7 6.7  015 Rockingham County 12.9 12.9 10.2 10.2 6.7 6.7 6.7  017 Strafford County 12.9 12.9 10.2 10.2 6.7 6.7 6.7  019 Sullivan County 13.6 13.6 11.2 11.2 7.9 7.9 7.9 

Oxygen Weight Percent 

 001 Belknap County 0.1786 0.1786 0.2322 0.2322 0.2858 0.2858 0.2858 0.2 003 Carroll County 0.1786 0.1786 0.2322 0.2322 0.2858 0.2858 0.2858 0.2 005 Cheshire County 0.1786 0.1786 0.2322 0.2322 0.2858 0.2858 0.2858 0.2 007 Coos County 0.1786 0.1786 0.2322 0.2322 0.2858 0.2858 0.2858 0.2 009 Grafton County 0.1786 0.1786 0.2322 0.2322 0.2858 0.2858 0.2858 0.2 011 Hillsborough County 1.8217 1.8217 1.9110 1.9110 2.0182 2.0182 2.0182 2.0 013 Merrimack County 1.8217 1.8217 1.9110 1.9110 2.0182 2.0182 2.0182 2.0 015 Rockingham County 1.9825 1.9825 2.0539 2.0539 2.1432 2.1432 2.1432 2. 017 Strafford County 1.9825 1.9825 2.0539 2.0539 2.1432 2.1432 2.1432 2. 019 Sullivan County 0.1786 0.1786 0.2322 0.2322 0.2858 0.2858 0.2858 0.2

Gasoline Sulfur, ppm 

 001 Belknap County 228.1 228.1 208.6 208.6 182.5 182.5 182.5 18 003 Carroll County 228.1 228.1 208.6 208.6 182.5 182.5 182.5 18 005 Cheshire County 228.1 228.1 208.6 208.6 182.5 182.5 182.5 18 007 Coos County 228.1 228.1 208.6 208.6 182.5 182.5 182.5 18 009 Grafton County 228.1 228.1 208.6 208.6 182.5 182.5 182.5 18 011 Hillsborough County 121.0 121.0 101.3 101.3 75.0 75.0 75.0 7 013 Merrimack County 121.0 121.0 101.3 101.3 75.0 75.0 75.0 7 015 Rockingham County 148.0 148.0 121.0 121.0 85.0 85.0 85.0 8 017 Strafford County 148.0 148.0 121.0 121.0 85.0 85.0 85.0 8 019 Sullivan County 228.1 228.1 208.6 208.6 182.5 182.5 182.5 18

34 NEW JERSEY 

RVP, psi  001 Atlantic County 13.4 13.4 10.6 10.6 6.8 6.8 6.8 

 003 Bergen County 12.5 12.5 10.1 10.1 6.8 6.8 6.8  005 Burlington County 13.4 13.4 10.6 10.6 6.8 6.8 6.8  007 Camden County 13.4 13.4 10.6 10.6 6.8 6.8 6.8  009 Cape May County 13.4 13.4 10.6 10.6 6.8 6.8 6.8  011 Cumberland County 13.4 13.4 10.6 10.6 6.8 6.8 6.8  013 Essex County 12.5 12.5 10.1 10.1 6.8 6.8 6.8  015 Gloucester County 13.4 13.4 10.6 10.6 6.8 6.8 6.8  017 Hudson County 12.5 12.5 10.1 10.1 6.8 6.8 6.8  019 Hunterdon County 12.5 12.5 10.1 10.1 6.8 6.8 6.8  021 Mercer County 13.4 13.4 10.6 10.6 6.8 6.8 6.8  023 Middlesex County 12.5 12.5 10.1 10.1 6.8 6.8 6.8 
Table C-1 (continued) 

C-8 

FIPS_State State FIPS_County County JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL A

34 NEW JERSEY 025 Monmouth County 12.5 12.5 10.1 10.1 6.8 6.8 6.8 

(cont’d) 027 Morris County 12.5 12.5 10.1 10.1 6.8 6.8 6.8 

 029 Ocean County 12.5 12.5 10.1 10.1 6.8 6.8 6.8  031 Passaic County 12.5 12.5 10.1 10.1 6.8 6.8 6.8  033 Salem County 13.4 13.4 10.6 10.6 6.8 6.8 6.8  035 Somerset County 12.5 12.5 10.1 10.1 6.8 6.8 6.8  037 Sussex County 12.5 12.5 10.1 10.1 6.8 6.8 6.8  039 Union County 12.5 12.5 10.1 10.1 6.8 6.8 6.8  041 Warren County 13.4 13.4 10.6 10.6 6.8 6.8 6.8 

Oxygen Weight Percent 

 001 Atlantic County 1.6922 1.6922 1.8499 1.8499 2.0718 2.0718 2.0718 2.0 003 Bergen County 1.7172 1.7172 1.7660 1.7660 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.8 005 Burlington County 1.8442 1.8442 1.9457 1.9457 2.0896 2.0896 2.0896 2.0 007 Camden County 1.8442 1.8442 1.9457 1.9457 2.0896 2.0896 2.0896 2.0 009 Cape May County 1.6922 1.6922 1.8499 1.8499 2.0718 2.0718 2.0718 2.0 011 Cumberland County 1.8442 1.8442 1.9457 1.9457 2.0896 2.0896 2.0896 2.0 013 Essex County 1.7172 1.7172 1.7660 1.7660 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.8 015 Gloucester County 1.8442 1.8442 1.9457 1.9457 2.0896 2.0896 2.0896 2.0 017 Hudson County 1.7172 1.7172 1.7660 1.7660 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.8 019 Hunterdon County 1.7172 1.7172 1.7660 1.7660 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.8 021 Mercer County 1.8442 1.8442 1.9457 1.9457 2.0896 2.0896 2.0896 2.0 023 Middlesex County 1.7172 1.7172 1.7660 1.7660 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.8 025 Monmouth County 1.7172 1.7172 1.7660 1.7660 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.8 027 Morris County 1.7172 1.7172 1.7660 1.7660 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.8 029 Ocean County 1.7172 1.7172 1.7660 1.7660 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.8 031 Passaic County 1.7172 1.7172 1.7660 1.7660 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.8 033 Salem County 1.8442 1.8442 1.9457 1.9457 2.0896 2.0896 2.0896 2.0 035 Somerset County 1.7172 1.7172 1.7660 1.7660 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.8 037 Sussex County 1.7172 1.7172 1.7660 1.7660 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.8 039 Union County 1.7172 1.7172 1.7660 1.7660 1.8234 1.8234 1.8234 1.8 041 Warren County 1.8753 1.8753 1.9110 1.9110 1.9825 1.9825 1.9825 1.9

Gasoline Sulfur, ppm 

 001 Atlantic County 207.0 207.0 174.0 174.0 130.0 130.0 130.0 13 003 Bergen County 141.0 141.0 129.4 129.4 114.0 114.0 114.0 11 005 Burlington County 174.0 174.0 155.1 155.1 130.0 130.0 130.0 13 007 Camden County 174.0 174.0 155.1 155.1 130.0 130.0 130.0 13 009 Cape May County 207.0 207.0 174.0 174.0 130.0 130.0 130.0 13 011 Cumberland County 174.0 174.0 155.1 155.1 130.0 130.0 130.0 13 013 Essex County 141.0 141.0 129.4 129.4 114.0 114.0 114.0 11 015 Gloucester County 174.0 174.0 155.1 155.1 130.0 130.0 130.0 13 017 Hudson County 141.0 141.0 129.4 129.4 114.0 114.0 114.0 11 019 Hunterdon County 141.0 141.0 129.4 129.4 114.0 114.0 114.0 11 021 Mercer County 174.0 174.0 155.1 155.1 130.0 130.0 130.0 13 023 Middlesex County 141.0 141.0 129.4 129.4 114.0 114.0 114.0 11 025 Monmouth County 141.0 141.0 129.4 129.4 114.0 114.0 114.0 11 027 Morris County 141.0 141.0 129.4 129.4 114.0 114.0 114.0 11 029 Ocean County 141.0 141.0 129.4 129.4 114.0 114.0 114.0 11 031 Passaic County 141.0 141.0 129.4 129.4 114.0 114.0 114.0 11
Table C-1 (continued) 

C-9 

FIPS_State State FIPS_County County JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL A

34 NEW JERSEY 033 Salem County 174.0 174.0 155.1 155.1 130.0 130.0 130.0 13

(cont’d) 035 Somerset County 141.0 141.0 129.4 129.4 114.0 114.0 114.0 11

037 Sussex County 141.0 141.0 129.4 129.4 114.0 114.0 114.0 11

 039 Union County 141.0 141.0 129.4 129.4 114.0 114.0 114.0 11 041 Warren County 125.0 125.0 123.7 123.7 122.0 122.0 122.0 12

36 NEW YORK 

RVP, psi  001 Albany County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 

 003 Allegany County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3  005 Bronx County 12.8 12.6 12.1 9.0 6.8 6.7 6.6  007 Broome County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3  009 Cattaraugus County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3  011 Cayuga County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3  013 Chautauqua County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3  015 Chemung County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3  017 Chenango County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3  019 Clinton County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3  021 Columbia County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3  023 Cortland County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3  025 Delaware County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3  027 Dutchess County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3  029 Erie County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3  031 Essex County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3  033 Franklin County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3  035 Fulton County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3  037 Genesee County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3  039 Greene County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3  041 Hamilton County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3  043 Herkimer County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3  045 Jefferson County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3  047 Kings County 12.8 12.6 12.1 9.0 6.8 6.7 6.6  049 Lewis County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3  051 Livingston County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3  053 Madison County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3  055 Monroe County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3  057 Montgomery County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3  059 Nassau County 12.8 12.6 12.1 9.0 6.8 6.7 6.6  061 New York County 12.8 12.6 12.1 9.0 6.8 6.7 6.6  063 Niagara County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3  065 Oneida County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3  067 Onondaga County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3  069 Ontario County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3  071 Orange County 12.8 12.6 12.1 9.0 6.8 6.7 6.6  073 Orleans County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3  075 Oswego County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3  077 Otsego County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3  079 Putnam County 12.8 12.6 12.1 9.0 6.8 6.7 6.6  081 Queens County 12.8 12.6 12.1 9.0 6.8 6.7 6.6 
Table C-1 (continued) 

C-10 

FIPS_State State FIPS_County County JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL A

36 NEW YORK 083 Rensselaer County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 

(cont’d) 085 Richmond County 12.8 12.6 12.1 9.0 6.8 6.7 6.6 

 087 Rockland County 12.8 12.6 12.1 9.0 6.8 6.7 6.6  089 St. Lawrence County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3  091 Saratoga County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3  093 Schenectady County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3  095 Schoharie County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3  097 Schuyler County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3  099 Seneca County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3  101 Steuben County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3  103 Suffolk County 12.8 12.6 12.1 9.0 6.8 6.7 6.6  105 Sullivan County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 

 107 Tioga County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3  109 Tompkins County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3  111 Ulster County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3  113 Warren County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3  115 Washington County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3  117 Wayne County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3  119 Westchester County 12.8 12.6 12.1 9.0 6.8 6.7 6.6  121 Wyoming County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3  123 Yates County 12.7 12.7 12.6 10.9 8.6 8.3 8.3 

Oxygen Weight Percent 

 001 Albany County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9 003 Allegany County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9 005 Bronx County 1.8932 1.9467 1.8932 1.8753 1.9646 1.9467 1.9646 1.8 007 Broome County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9 009 Cattaraugus County 0.8965 1.0344 0.8275 0.6551 0.8965 0.5862 0.8275 0.9 011 Cayuga County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9 013 Chautauqua County 0.8965 1.0344 0.8275 0.6551 0.8965 0.5862 0.8275 0.9 015 Chemung County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9 017 Chenango County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9 019 Clinton County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9 021 Columbia County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9 023 Cortland County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9 025 Delaware County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9 027 Dutchess County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9 029 Erie County 0.8965 1.0344 0.8275 0.6551 0.8965 0.5862 0.8275 0.9 031 Essex County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9 033 Franklin County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9 035 Fulton County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9 037 Genesee County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9 039 Greene County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9 041 Hamilton County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9 043 Herkimer County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9 045 Jefferson County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9 047 Kings County 1.8932 1.9467 1.8932 1.8753 1.9646 1.9467 1.9646 1.8 049 Lewis County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9 051 Livingston County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9 053 Madison County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9
Table C-1 (continued) 

C-11 

FIPS_State State FIPS_County County JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL A

36 NEW YORK 055 Monroe County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9

(cont’d) 057 Montgomery County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9

 059 Nassau County 1.8932 1.9467 1.8932 1.8753 1.9646 1.9467 1.9646 1.8 061 New York County 1.8932 1.9467 1.8932 1.8753 1.9646 1.9467 1.9646 1.8 063 Niagara County 0.8965 1.0344 0.8275 0.6551 0.8965 0.5862 0.8275 0.9 065 Oneida County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9 067 Onondaga County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9 069 Ontario County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9 071 Orange County 1.8932 1.9467 1.8932 1.8753 1.9646 1.9467 1.9646 1.8 073 Orleans County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9 075 Oswego County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9 077 Otsego County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9 079 Putnam County 1.8932 1.9467 1.8932 1.8753 1.9646 1.9467 1.9646 1.8 081 Queens County 1.8932 1.9467 1.8932 1.8753 1.9646 1.9467 1.9646 1.8 083 Rensselaer County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9 085 Richmond County 1.8932 1.9467 1.8932 1.8753 1.9646 1.9467 1.9646 1.8 087 Rockland County 1.8932 1.9467 1.8932 1.8753 1.9646 1.9467 1.9646 1.8 089 St. Lawrence County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9 091 Saratoga County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9 093 Schenectady County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9 095 Schoharie County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9 097 Schuyler County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9 099 Seneca County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9 101 Steuben County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9 103 Suffolk County 1.8932 1.9467 1.8932 1.8753 1.9646 1.9467 1.9646 1.8 105 Sullivan County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9

 107 Tioga County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9 109 Tompkins County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9 111 Ulster County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9 113 Warren County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9 115 Washington County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9 117 Wayne County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9 119 Westchester County 1.8932 1.9467 1.8932 1.8753 1.9646 1.9467 1.9646 1.8 121 Wyoming County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9 123 Yates County 0.8751 1.0180 0.8216 0.6430 0.8930 0.5894 0.8216 0.9

Gasoline Sulfur, ppm 

 001 Albany County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 29 003 Allegany County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 29 005 Bronx County 210.0 220.0 180.0 200.0 220.0 210.0 220.0 19 007 Broome County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 29 009 Cattaraugus County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 29 011 Cayuga County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 29 013 Chautauqua County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 29 015 Chemung County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 29 017 Chenango County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 29 019 Clinton County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 29 021 Columbia County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 29 023 Cortland County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 29 025 Delaware County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 29
Table C-1 (continued) 

C-12 

FIPS_State State FIPS_County County JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL A

36 NEW YORK 027 Dutchess County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 29

(cont’d) 029 Erie County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 29

 031 Essex County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 29 033 Franklin County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 29 035 Fulton County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 29 037 Genesee County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 29 039 Greene County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 29 041 Hamilton County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 29 043 Herkimer County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 29 045 Jefferson County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 29 047 Kings County 210.0 220.0 180.0 200.0 220.0 210.0 220.0 19 049 Lewis County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 29 051 Livingston County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 29 053 Madison County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 29 055 Monroe County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 29 057 Montgomery County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 29 059 Nassau County 210.0 220.0 180.0 200.0 220.0 210.0 220.0 19 061 New York County 210.0 220.0 180.0 200.0 220.0 210.0 220.0 19 063 Niagara County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 29 065 Oneida County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 29 067 Onondaga County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 29 069 Ontario County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 29 071 Orange County 210.0 220.0 180.0 200.0 220.0 210.0 220.0 19 073 Orleans County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 29 075 Oswego County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 29 077 Otsego County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 29 079 Putnam County 210.0 220.0 180.0 200.0 220.0 210.0 220.0 19 081 Queens County 210.0 220.0 180.0 200.0 220.0 210.0 220.0 19 083 Rensselaer County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 29 085 Richmond County 210.0 220.0 180.0 200.0 220.0 210.0 220.0 19 087 Rockland County 210.0 220.0 180.0 200.0 220.0 210.0 220.0 19 089 St. Lawrence County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 29 091 Saratoga County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 29 093 Schenectady County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 29 095 Schoharie County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 29 097 Schuyler County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 29 099 Seneca County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 29 101 Steuben County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 29 103 Suffolk County 210.0 220.0 180.0 200.0 220.0 210.0 220.0 19 105 Sullivan County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 29 107 Tioga County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 29 109 Tompkins County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 29 111 Ulster County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 29 113 Warren County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 29 115 Washington County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 29 117 Wayne County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 29 119 Westchester County 210.0 220.0 180.0 200.0 220.0 210.0 220.0 19 121 Wyoming County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 29 123 Yates County 260.0 250.0 250.0 230.0 310.0 320.0 340.0 29
Table C-1 (continued) 

C-13 

FIPS_State State FIPS_County County JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL A

42 PENNSYLVANIA 

RVP, psi  001 Adams County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 

 003 Allegheny County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 7.8 7.8 7.8  005 Armstrong County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 7.8 7.8 7.8  007 Beaver County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 7.8 7.8 7.8  009 Bedford County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7  011 Berks County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7  013 Blair County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7  015 Bradford County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7  017 Bucks County 13.5 13.5 10.6 10.6 6.7 6.7 6.7  019 Butler County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 7.8 7.8 7.8  021 Cambria County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7  023 Cameron County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7  025 Carbon County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7  027 Centre County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7  029 Chester County 13.5 13.5 10.6 10.6 6.7 6.7 6.7  031 Clarion County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7  033 Clearfield County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7  035 Clinton County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7  037 Columbia County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7  039 Crawford County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7  041 Cumberland County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7  043 Dauphin County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7  045 Delaware County 13.5 13.5 10.6 10.6 6.7 6.7 6.7  047 Elk County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7  049 Erie County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7  051 Fayette County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 7.8 7.8 7.8  053 Forest County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7  055 Franklin County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7  057 Fulton County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7  059 Greene County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7  061 Huntingdon County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7  063 Indiana County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7  065 Jefferson County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7  067 Juniata County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7  069 Lackawanna County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7  071 Lancaster County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7  073 Lawrence County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7  075 Lebanon County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7  077 Lehigh County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7  079 Luzerne County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7  081 Lycoming County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7  083 McKean County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7  085 Mercer County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7  087 Mifflin County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7  089 Monroe County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7  091 Montgomery County 13.5 13.5 10.6 10.6 6.7 6.7 6.7  093 Montour County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 
Table C-1 (continued) 

C-14 

FIPS_State State FIPS_County County JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL A

42 PENNSYLVANIA 095 Northampton County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 

(cont’d) 097 Northumberland County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 

 099 Perry County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7  101 Philadelphia County 13.5 13.5 10.6 10.6 6.7 6.7 6.7  103 Pike County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7  105 Potter County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7  107 Schuylkill County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 

 109 Snyder County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7  111 Somerset County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7  113 Sullivan County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7  115 Susquehanna County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7  117 Tioga County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7  119 Union County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7  121 Venango County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7  123 Warren County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7  125 Washington County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 7.8 7.8 7.8  127 Wayne County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7  129 Westmoreland County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 7.8 7.8 7.8  131 Wyoming County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7  133 York County 13.5 13.5 11.0 11.0 8.7 8.7 8.7 

Oxygen Weight Percent 

 001 Adams County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2 003 Allegheny County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2 005 Armstrong County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2 007 Beaver County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2 009 Bedford County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2 011 Berks County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2 013 Blair County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2 015 Bradford County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2 017 Bucks County 2.5303 2.5303 2.5303 2.5303 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1 019 Butler County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2 021 Cambria County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2 023 Cameron County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2 025 Carbon County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2 027 Centre County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2 029 Chester County 2.5303 2.5303 2.5303 2.5303 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2.1 031 Clarion County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2 033 Clearfield County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2 035 Clinton County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2 037 Columbia County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2 039 Crawford County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2 041 Cumberland County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2 043 Dauphin County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2 045 Delaware County 2.5303 2.5303 2.5303 2.5303 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2. 047 Elk County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2 049 Erie County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2 051 Fayette County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2 053 Forest County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2 055 Franklin County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2
Table C-1 (continued) 

C-15 

FIPS_State State FIPS_County County JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL A

42 PENNSYLVANIA 057 Fulton County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2

(cont’d) 059 Greene County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2

 061 Huntingdon County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2 063 Indiana County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2 065 Jefferson County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2 067 Juniata County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2 069 Lackawanna County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2 071 Lancaster County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2 073 Lawrence County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2 075 Lebanon County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2 077 Lehigh County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2 079 Luzerne County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2 081 Lycoming County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2 083 McKean County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2 085 Mercer County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2 087 Mifflin County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2 089 Monroe County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2 091 Montgomery County 2.5303 2.5303 2.5303 2.5303 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2. 093 Montour County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2 095 Northampton County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2 097 Northumberland County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2 099 Perry County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2 101 Philadelphia County 2.5303 2.5303 2.5303 2.5303 2.1075 2.1075 2.1075 2. 103 Pike County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2 105 Potter County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2 107 Schuylkill County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2

 109 Snyder County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2 111 Somerset County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2 113 Sullivan County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2

 115 Susquehanna County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2 117 Tioga County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2 119 Union County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2 121 Venango County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2 123 Warren County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2 125 Washington County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2 127 Wayne County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2 129 Westmoreland County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2 131 Wyoming County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2 133 York County 0.1965 0.1965 0.2322 0.2322 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2

Gasoline Sulfur, ppm 

 001 Adams County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 27 003 Allegheny County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 27 005 Armstrong County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 27 007 Beaver County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 27 009 Bedford County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 27 011 Berks County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 27 013 Blair County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 27 015 Bradford County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 27 017 Bucks County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 12
Table C-1 (continued) 

C-16 

FIPS_State State FIPS_County County JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL A

42 PENNSYLVANIA 019 Butler County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 27

(cont’d) 021 Cambria County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 27

 023 Cameron County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 27 025 Carbon County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 27 027 Centre County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 27 029 Chester County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 12 031 Clarion County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 27 033 Clearfield County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 27 035 Clinton County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 27 037 Columbia County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 27 039 Crawford County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 27 041 Cumberland County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 27 043 Dauphin County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 27 045 Delaware County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 12 047 Elk County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 27 049 Erie County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 27 051 Fayette County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 27 053 Forest County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 27 055 Franklin County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 27 057 Fulton County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 27 059 Greene County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 27 061 Huntingdon County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 27 063 Indiana County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 27 065 Jefferson County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 27 067 Juniata County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 27 069 Lackawanna County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 27 071 Lancaster County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 27 073 Lawrence County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 27 075 Lebanon County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 27 077 Lehigh County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 27 079 Luzerne County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 27 081 Lycoming County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 27 083 McKean County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 27 085 Mercer County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 27 087 Mifflin County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 27 089 Monroe County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 27 091 Montgomery County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 12 093 Montour County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 27 095 Northampton County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 27 097 Northumberland County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 27 099 Perry County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 27 101 Philadelphia County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 129.0 129.0 129.0 12 103 Pike County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 27 105 Potter County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 27 107 Schuylkill County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 27

 109 Snyder County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 27 111 Somerset County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 27 113 Sullivan County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 27 115 Susquehanna County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 27
Table C-1 (continued) 

C-17 

FIPS_State State FIPS_County County JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL A

42 PENNSYLVANIA 117 Tioga County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 27

(cont’d) 119 Union County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 27

 121 Venango County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 27 123 Warren County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 27 125 Washington County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 27 127 Wayne County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 27 129 Westmoreland County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 27 131 Wyoming County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 27 133 York County 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 279.0 27

44 RHODE ISLAND 

RVP, psi  001 Bristol County 12.5 12.5 10.1 10.1 6.9 6.9 6.9 

 003 Kent County 12.5 12.5 10.1 10.1 6.9 6.9 6.9  005 Newport County 12.5 12.5 10.1 10.1 6.9 6.9 6.9  007 Providence County 12.5 12.5 10.1 10.1 6.9 6.9 6.9  009 Washington County 12.5 12.5 10.1 10.1 6.9 6.9 6.9 

Oxygen Weight Percent 

 001 Bristol County 1.7110 1.7110 1.6801 1.6801 1.6745 1.6745 1.6745 1.6 003 Kent County 1.7110 1.7110 1.6801 1.6801 1.6745 1.6745 1.6745 1.6 005 Newport County 1.7110 1.7110 1.6801 1.6801 1.6745 1.6745 1.6745 1.6 007 Providence County 1.7110 1.7110 1.6801 1.6801 1.6745 1.6745 1.6745 1.6 009 Washington County 1.7110 1.7110 1.6801 1.6801 1.6745 1.6745 1.6745 1.6

Gasoline Sulfur, ppm 

 001 Bristol County 193.0 193.0 166.4 166.4 131.0 131.0 131.0 13 003 Kent County 193.0 193.0 166.4 166.4 131.0 131.0 131.0 13 005 Newport County 193.0 193.0 166.4 166.4 131.0 131.0 131.0 13 007 Providence County 193.0 193.0 166.4 166.4 131.0 131.0 131.0 13 009 Washington County 193.0 193.0 166.4 166.4 131.0 131.0 131.0 13
Table C-1 (continued) 

C-18 

FIPS_State State FIPS_County County JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL A

50 VERMONT 

RVP, psi  001 Addison County 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 

 003 Bennington County 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 8.5 8.5 8.5  005 Caledonia County 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 8.5 8.5 8.5  007 Chittenden County 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 8.5 8.5 8.5  009 Essex County 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 8.5 8.5 8.5  011 Franklin County 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 8.5 8.5 8.5  013 Grand Isle County 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 8.5 8.5 8.5  015 Lamoille County 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 8.5 8.5 8.5  017 Orange County 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 8.5 8.5 8.5  019 Orleans County 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 8.5 8.5 8.5  021 Rutland County 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 8.5 8.5 8.5  023 Washington County 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 8.5 8.5 8.5  025 Windham County 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 8.5 8.5 8.5  027 Windsor County 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 

Oxygen Weight Percent 

 001 Addison County 0.1786 0.1786 0.2143 0.2143 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2 003 Bennington County 0.1786 0.1786 0.2143 0.2143 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2 005 Caledonia County 0.1786 0.1786 0.2143 0.2143 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2 007 Chittenden County 0.1786 0.1786 0.2143 0.2143 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2 009 Essex County 0.1786 0.1786 0.2143 0.2143 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2 011 Franklin County 0.1786 0.1786 0.2143 0.2143 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2 013 Grand Isle County 0.1786 0.1786 0.2143 0.2143 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2 015 Lamoille County 0.1786 0.1786 0.2143 0.2143 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2 017 Orange County 0.1786 0.1786 0.2143 0.2143 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2 019 Orleans County 0.1786 0.1786 0.2143 0.2143 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2 021 Rutland County 0.1786 0.1786 0.2143 0.2143 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2 023 Washington County 0.1786 0.1786 0.2143 0.2143 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2 025 Windham County 0.1786 0.1786 0.2143 0.2143 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2 027 Windsor County 0.1786 0.1786 0.2143 0.2143 0.2679 0.2679 0.2679 0.2

Gasoline Sulfur, ppm 

 001 Addison County 209.3 209.3 209.3 209.3 183.1 183.1 183.1 18 003 Bennington County 209.3 209.3 209.3 209.3 183.1 183.1 183.1 18 005 Caledonia County 209.3 209.3 209.3 209.3 183.1 183.1 183.1 18 007 Chittenden County 209.3 209.3 209.3 209.3 183.1 183.1 183.1 18 009 Essex County 209.3 209.3 209.3 209.3 183.1 183.1 183.1 18 011 Franklin County 209.3 209.3 209.3 209.3 183.1 183.1 183.1 18 013 Grand Isle County 209.3 209.3 209.3 209.3 183.1 183.1 183.1 18 015 Lamoille County 209.3 209.3 209.3 209.3 183.1 183.1 183.1 18

 017 Orange County 209.3 209.3 209.3 209.3 183.1 183.1 183.1 18 019 Orleans County 209.3 209.3 209.3 209.3 183.1 183.1 183.1 18 021 Rutland County 209.3 209.3 209.3 209.3 183.1 183.1 183.1 18 023 Washington County 209.3 209.3 209.3 209.3 183.1 183.1 183.1 18 025 Windham County 209.3 209.3 209.3 209.3 183.1 183.1 183.1 18 027 Windsor County 209.3 209.3 209.3 209.3 183.1 183.1 183.1 18
MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT

AIR AND RADIATION MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATION

State Implementation Plan 

2002 Base Year 

State Implementation Plan 

Emissions Inventory and 

Methodologies for 

Regional Haze

Prepared for: 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Prepared By: 

Maryland Department of the Environment 
Maryland Department of the Environment 

2002 Base Year State Implementation Plan Emissions Inventory and 

Methodologies for Regional Haze 

© Maryland Department of the Environment 

Air and Radiation Management Administration 

1800 Washington Boulevard, Suite 730 

Baltimore, Maryland 21230 

Phone 410.537.3240 • Fax 410.631.3202 
Table of Contents 

1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................5

1.1 OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND ............................................................................................5 

1.2 GEOGRAPHIC AREA...................................................................................................................6 

1.3 TEMPORAL RESOLUTION.........................................................................................................6 

1.4 QUALITY ASSURANCE POLICY AND OBJECTIVES.............................................................6 

1.5 PLAN INFORMATION SOURCES ..............................................................................................7 

1.6 INVENTORY DEVELOPMENT AND QUALITY CONTROL PROCEDURES........................7 

1.7 ESTIMATION METHODS AND DATA GATHERING..............................................................8 

1.7.1 COMBINED APPROACH FOR O3, PM10 and CO BASE YEAR EMISSIONS ....................... 8 

1.8 MISSING DATA............................................................................................................................8 

1.9 APPLICATION OF RULE EFFECTIVE AND RULE PENETRATION......................................8 

1.10 CORRECTIVE ACTION ...............................................................................................................9 

2.0 POINT SOURCES......................................................................................................................10

2.1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................10 

2.2 COMPILING THE POINT SOURCE LIST.................................................................................10 

2.2.1 EMISSION CALCULATIONS................................................................................................... 11 

2.2.1.1 Seasonal Adjustments...............................................................................................................12 

2.2.2 CONSOLIDATED EMISSIONS REPORTING RULE (CERR)............................................... 12 

3.0 QUASI - POINT SOURCES......................................................................................................13

3.1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................13 

3.2 ABERDEEN PROVING GROUNDS ..........................................................................................13 

3.3 ANDREWS AIR FORCE BASE..................................................................................................20 

3.4 BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (BWI)....................................25 

4.0 AREAS SOURCES.....................................................................................................................29

4.1 EMISSION ESTIMATION METHOD BY CATEGORY ...........................................................29 

4.1.1 PETROLEUM DISTRIBUTION LOSSES................................................................................. 29 

4.1.1.1 Tank Truck Unloading .............................................................................................................30 

4.1.1.2 Stage II Refueling.....................................................................................................................35 

4.1.1.3 Underground Tank Breathing...................................................................................................37 

4.1.1.4 Gasoline Tank Trucks in Transit ..............................................................................................40 

4.1.1.5 Aircraft Refueling.....................................................................................................................43 

4.1.1.6 Petroleum Vessel Unloading Losses........................................................................................45 

4.1.1.7 Portable Fuel Containers ..........................................................................................................50 
4.1.2 STATIONARY SOURCE SOLVENT APPLICATION ............................................................ 56 

4.1.2.1 Dry Cleaners.............................................................................................................................56 

4.1.2.2 Surface Cleaning (Cold Cleaning Degreasing) ........................................................................56 

4.1.2.3 Architectural Surface Coating ..................................................................................................60 

4.1.2.4 Auto Refinishing ......................................................................................................................67 

4.1.2.5 Traffic Markings.......................................................................................................................70 

4.1.2.6 Industrial Surface Coating........................................................................................................74 

4.1.2.7 Industrial Adhesives and Sealants............................................................................................80 

4.1.2.8 Graphic Arts .............................................................................................................................81 

4.1.2.9 Asphalt Paving..........................................................................................................................85 

4.1.2.10 Synthetic Organic Chemical Storage Tanks.........................................................................87 

4.1.2.11 Pesticide Application............................................................................................................88 

4.1.2.12 Commercial/Consumer Solvent Use ....................................................................................93 

4.1.3 BIOPROCESS EMISSIONS SOURCES.................................................................................... 95 

4.1.3.1 Bakeries....................................................................................................................................95 

4.1.3.2 Breweries..................................................................................................................................98 

4.1.3.3 Wineries..................................................................................................................................100 

4.1.3.4 Distilleries...............................................................................................................................101 

4.1.4 CATASTROPHIC/ACCIDENTAL RELEASES ..................................................................... 102 

4.1.4.1 Oil Spills.................................................................................................................................102 

4.1.4.2 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks.....................................................................................104 

4.1.5 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL, TREATMENT, AND RECOVERY......................................... 106 

4.1.5.1 On-site Incineration................................................................................................................106 

4.1.5.2 Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs).........................................................................107 

4.1.5.3 Open Burning – Land Clearing Debris...................................................................................109 

4.1.5.4 Open Burning – Residential Municipal Solid Waste .............................................................112 

4.1.5.5 Open Burning – Residential Yard Waste ...............................................................................118 

4.1.5.6 Cremation – Animal and Human............................................................................................124 

4.1.5.7 Municipal Solid Waste Landfills............................................................................................127 

4.1.6 SMALL STATIONARY SOURCE FOSSIL FUEL USE ........................................................ 131 

4.1.6.1 Small Electric Utility Boilers .................................................................................................131 

4.1.6.2 Other Fuel Consumption ........................................................................................................131 

4.1.6.3 Fuel Oil Combustion ..............................................................................................................132 

4.1.6.4 Coal Combustion....................................................................................................................134 

4.1.6.5 Natural Gas Combustion ........................................................................................................141 

4.1.6.6 Liquified Petroleum Gas Combustion....................................................................................146 

4.1.6.7 Wood Combustion..................................................................................................................152 

4.1.7 FUGITIVE SOURCES.............................................................................................................. 159 

4.1.7.1 Residential Construction Activity ..........................................................................................159 

4.1.7.2 Heavy Construction Activity..................................................................................................163 

4.1.7.3 Road Construction Activity....................................................................................................166 

4.1.7.4 Agricultural Land Preparation................................................................................................169 

4.1.7.5 Paved Roads ...........................................................................................................................173 

4.1.7.6 Unpaved Roads.......................................................................................................................177 

4.1.8 FIRE SOURCES ....................................................................................................................... 178 

4.1.8.1 Vehicle Fires...........................................................................................................................178 

4.1.8.2 Forest Fires.............................................................................................................................180 
4.1.8.3 Slash/Prescribed Burning .......................................................................................................183 

4.1.8.4 Agricultural Burning ..............................................................................................................185 

4.1.8.5 Structure Fires ........................................................................................................................185 

4.1.8.6 Orchard Heaters......................................................................................................................188 

4.1.9 AMMONIA SOURCES ............................................................................................................ 189 

4.1.9.1 Cows (Milk Cows, Beef Cows, Heifers, and Steers) .............................................................190 

4.1.9.2 Hogs and Pigs.........................................................................................................................192 

4.1.9.3 Chickens (Pullets, Layers, and Broilers)................................................................................194 

4.1.9.4 Sheep ......................................................................................................................................196 

4.1.9.5 Goats (Angora and Milk)........................................................................................................198 

4.1.9.6 Horses.....................................................................................................................................200 

4.1.9.7 Ducks, Geese and Turkeys.....................................................................................................202 

4.1.9.8 Agricultural Fertilizer Application.........................................................................................204 

4.1.9.9 Human Breath and Perspiration..............................................................................................208 

5.0 NONROAD SOURCES............................................................................................................210

5.1 NONROAD VEHICLES/ENGINES..........................................................................................210 

5.2 NONROAD MODEL.................................................................................................................211 

5.2.1 NONROAD Model Equipment ................................................................................................. 214 

5.3 RAILROADS .............................................................................................................................216 

5.4 AIRCRAFT ................................................................................................................................221 

5.4.1 Commercial Aircraft.................................................................................................................. 223 

5.4.2 General Aviation ....................................................................................................................... 226 

5.4.3 Military Aircraft ........................................................................................................................ 228 

5.5 MARINE VESSELS ........................................................................................................................231 

6.0 ONROAD MOBILE SOURCES.............................................................................................235

6.1 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................235 

6.2 EMISSION FACTORS ..............................................................................................................237 

6.3 VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED ................................................................................................237 

6.4 KEY TRAVEL DATA INPUTS.................................................................................................237 

6.5 MOBILE INPUT PARAMETERS.............................................................................................241 

6.6 OTHER DATA INPUTS ............................................................................................................242 

6.7 EMISSION PROCESS OUTPUTS ............................................................................................243 

6.8 CONVERSION TO NIF FORMAT............................................................................................244 

7.0 BIOGENIC EMISSIONS ........................................................................................................245

7.1 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................245 

8.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE PROCEDURES ...........................................................................247

8.1 REALITY CHECK/PEER REVIEW CHECK...........................................................................247 
8.2 SAMPLE CALCULATIONS.....................................................................................................247 

8.3 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................248 

8.4 STANDARD RANGE CHECKS ...............................................................................................248 

8.5 CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN................................................................................................249 

8.6 QUALITY ASSURANCE FINAL REPORT.............................................................................249 

9.0 RESPONSIBILITY ..................................................................................................................250
5 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

1.1 OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND 

The 2002 Base Year State Implementation Plan Emissions Inventory and Methodologies for Regional 

Haze is being prepared for the purpose of describing the Scope of Work required to prepare an emission 

inventory of sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ammonia (NH3), particulate matter (PM10 

and PM2.5), and volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions for the State of Maryland. The federal 

Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C.A § 7401 et seq, as amended by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, 

P.L. 101-549, (referred to hereafter as the Act) requires all areas of the nation to attain and maintain 

compliance with the federal ambient air quality standards. These federal standards are designed to protect 

the public health and welfare from these six criteria pollutants. These standards are referred to as the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Areas that meet the NAAQS are referred to as 

“attainment areas”; those that do not are referred to as “nonattainment areas.” The Base Year will provide 

an outline for content and organization review of the inventory. The goal of the Base Year is to provide 

guidance on the development of a reliable inventory, the quality of emissions data collected and provide 

for acceptable documentation and reporting of this information. The Maryland Department of the 

Environment Air and Radiation Management Administration (MDE-ARMA), the Maryland Department 

of Transportation (MDOT), and the Metropolitan Washington Council of Government (MWCOG) will be 

involved in preparing various portions of the inventory by contributing information that is necessary for 

developing emissions estimates. 

The final inventory document will include emissions from point sources, mobile sources, biogenic 

emissions, non-road mobile sources, and area sources. MDE-ARMA will use the Non-Road Mobile 

Emissions Model, NONROAD, for small engine emissions. MDE-ARMA will supply emissions for 

major point sources and area sources, and will accept EPA estimates for biogenic emissions. Mobile 

source emissions will be estimated by a separate MDE-ARMA work plan with MDOT and MDE-ARMA 

Mobile Sources Control Program (MSCP) as well as the MWCOG. 

The applications for emissions inventory data include use of the data in annual trends reports, State 

Implementation Plans (SIPs), compliance demonstrations, emissions trading, emissions fees programs, 

and in modeling activities designed to evaluate ambient air concentrations encountered by the general 

public. For the SIP program, the air emission inventory is a fundamental building block in developing an 

air quality control and maintenance strategy. Section 172, Part C, of the Clean Air Act (CAA) as amended 

in 1990, which addresses SIP requirements, states that “. . . plan provisions shall include a 

comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources or the relevant pollutants 

or pollutants in such area . . .”. Regulatory agencies and industrial facilities rely on emission inventories 

on an ongoing basis as indicators of air quality changes and for setting permit requirements. 

The end use of emission inventories requires that they be of the highest quality obtainable. They are the 

foundation of air quality decisions. Inventory quality is critical to defining realistic regulations and 

attainment strategies. Deficiencies and inconsistencies in existing compilation processes accentuate the 

need for developing and implementing more uniform and systematic approaches to collecting and 

reporting data. One of the primary goals of the Base Year is to improve the quality of inventory data 

collection so that it is a reliable source of information for sound decision-making. 
6 

1.2 GEOGRAPHIC AREA 

The area that will be inventoried includes the entire State of Maryland. The area can be divided into the 

distinct Non-attainment areas (NAA). Categories that will be inventoried are point, mobile, biogenic, 

non-road mobile and area sources. 

1.3 TEMPORAL RESOLUTION 

Another step of inventory development is the temporal allocation of emissions. Because air quality 

modeling attempts to represent the actual physical and chemical processes as they occur over a specific 

duration of time, it is important that the temporal allocation of emissions be as accurate as possible. 

Temporal allocation can be thought of as an accounting of emissions variation over time. The simplest 

temporal allocation is for a steady-state emissions source that continually releases emissions at the same 

rate all the time. Under actual conditions, however, steady-state emission sources are quite rare. Instead, 

under actual conditions, emissions sources may operate only in the winter not operate on Sundays, or their 

activity may peak during certain hours of the day. 

The planning period for particle matter is based on annual emissions. 

1.4 QUALITY ASSURANCE POLICY AND OBJECTIVES 

In order to provide data of sufficient quality for maintenance planning needs, quality assurance (QA) and 

quality control (QC) procedures are implemented as part of the inventory process. The procedures address 

data quality objectives of accuracy, completeness, comparability and representativeness. A brief 

discussion of the data quality objectives is given below. 

Data quality objectives of accuracy, completeness, comparability, and representativeness are addressed to 

ensure an inventory of high quality. The target goals for each objective are listed below. 

Accuracy: All estimates must be calculated and documented using acceptable methods. 

Individual source requirements and availability of data and resources will affect the estimation method 

selection. 

Completeness: Completeness is addressed by ensuring that all applicable source categories are included in 

the inventory, and that all information required to estimate emissions is present. Applicable source 

categories are listed in Appendix A. 

Comparability: Data will be compared to the most recent base year inventories: 1990 for PM10 and 1999 

for CO. Any discrepancies (data outliers) greater than 20% involving sources that made up greater than 

5% of either the 1990 or the 2002 inventories for PM10, or the 1999 and 2002 inventories for CO will be 

corrected or justified. 

Representativeness: Actual 2002 annual and seasonal daily emissions will be calculated for the base year 

inventory. Local data will be used in inventory calculations wherever possible. 
7 

 

1.5 PLAN INFORMATION SOURCES 

This plan draws upon inventory, quality assurance, and emissions projections guidance available from 

state and federal agencies and partnerships.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

 The effort will also draw upon experience gained

with the 1990 Ozone and 1996/1999/ periodic emission inventory reviews and prior SIP inventory efforts 

in other areas and for other pollutants. 

A primary source of emissions inventory data will be the 2002 Consolidated Emissions 

Reporting Rule (CERR) submittal recently submitted to the U.S. EPA by MDE-ARMA. Another source 

of information will be EPA’s National Emissions Inventory (NEI). The MD DOT and MDE-ARMAMobile Department will provide base year and projection year onroad mobile source emissions data and 

additional activity data to be used in estimating emissions for other source categories (paved and unpaved 

road dust). Finally, information from local sources, including Maryland Transportation Authority, 

Maryland Aviation Authority, Maryland Port Authority, university sources, and agricultural experts will 

be used to develop emission estimates for select source categories (as described in Chapter 6). 

1.6 INVENTORY DEVELOPMENT AND QUALITY CONTROL PROCEDURES 

An inventory of actual emissions will be developed for base year 2002. Annual and typical VOC, NOX, 

SO2, PM10 and CO season day emissions estimates will be made. A list of potential VOC, NOX, SO2, 

PM10 and CO sources was developed using the 1990 base year inventory, 1996/1999 periodic emission 

inventories, local knowledge, categories as defined in references, and the 2002 National Emissions 

Inventory (NEI) for VOC, NOX, SO2, PM10 and CO source categories. The source categories are listed in 

Appendix A. 

The inventory development process consists of several steps. A description of each step and the quality 

control procedures implemented are discussed individually in the following sub-sections: 

• Estimation methods and data gathering; 

• Emissions calculations and data checking; 

• Missing data; 

• Application of rule effectiveness and rule penetration; 

• Corrective action; and 

• Documentation. 

1

 PM-10 Emission Inventory Requirements. Final Report. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research 

Triangle Park, NC, September 1994. 

2

 Emission Inventory Improvement Program, Volume IV: Quality Assurance Procedures. EPA-454/R-97-0041. July 1997. 3

 Procedures Document for National Emissions Inventory, Criteria Air Pollutants 1985-1999. United States Environmental 

Protection Agency. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park NC 27711. EPA-454/R-01-006. 

March 2001. 

4

 Procedures for Preparing Emissions Projections. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, July 

1991 

5

 Emission Inventory Requirements for Carbon Monoxide State Implementation Plans, EPA-450/4-91-011, March 1991 

6

 June 4-6, 1991 EPA manual Workshop for Implementation of Clean Air Act Provisions Relating to Ozone and Carbon 

Monoxide Emission Inventories, June 4-6, 1991 EPA. 

7 Guidance for the Preparation of Quality Assurance Plans for O3/CO SIP Emission Inventories. EPA-450/4-88-023. 

December 1988. 
8 

 

1.7 ESTIMATION METHODS AND DATA GATHERING 

Guidance listed under Plan Information Sources will be utilized to select estimation methods and gather 

information necessary to develop the inventory. QC activities during data gathering include thorough 

documentation of methods and data sources, and checking for reasonableness of data obtained. General 

estimation methods and data sources anticipated for each source category are listed below. 

1.7.1 COMBINED APPROACH FOR O3, PM10 and CO BASE YEAR EMISSIONS 

This section of the Base Year document is an overview of MDE-ARMA’s proposed approach to 

preparing the 2002 emission estimates. This is followed by approaches specific to the source 

categories. 

For PM10, the top-emitting PM10 categories are point sources, residential wood combustion, open 

burning, paved and unpaved road fugitive dust. In addition, agricultural tilling and other fugitive dust 

source categories were not quantified in the 1990 Base Year Emissions Inventory. For agricultural 

tilling, MDE-ARMA will evaluate the potential importance of this activity during the planning period 

through contacts with local agricultural experts. If little or no agricultural tilling occurs within the state 

during the planning period, no effort will be made to quantify these emissions. For windblown dust, 

emissions are dominated by sources outside of the NAA. MDE-ARMA does not intend to estimate 

these emissions. 

MDE-ARMA plans to focus most of its CO emission inventory and emissions projection effort on the 

top-emitting source categories in the area. For CO, the priority source categories are onroad mobile 

sources, point sources, residential wood combustion, open burning, and nonroad engines/vehicles. 

1.8 MISSING DATA 

Missing data will be identified by the inability to complete the calculations. If data are found to be 

missing, a reasonable effort will be made to acquire the data. If this is unsuccessful, estimates will be 

made based on past years' data or default information contained in EPA documents and models. Sources 

of all data will be documented. 

1.9 APPLICATION OF RULE EFFECTIVE AND RULE PENETRATION 

Rule effectiveness (RE) reflects the ability of a control device or regulation to achieve all the emission 

reductions that could be achieved by full compliance at all times. Rule penetration (RP) is a measure of 

the extent to which a regulation covers emissions from a source category. RE/RP has been the subject of 

ongoing discussion nationally and is the topic of a draft report by the Emissions Inventory Improvement 

Program (EPA/STAPPA/ALAPCO).8 Briefly, the report recognizes that control efficiencies are often 

based on in-use conditions, and when this is the case, RE has already been taken into account. This is the 

situation for point sources in the NAAs. Additionally, some point source emissions are estimated through 

source testing, and therefore do not use control efficiencies and RE/RP to calculate emissions. For area 

sources, MDE will evaluate each control measure to determine whether EPA default RE and RP estimates 

(80% and 100%) should be applied or some more representative values. 

8

 "Emissions Inventories and Proper Use of Rule Effectiveness." September 23, 1998. Memorandum from EIIP Point Sources 

Committee Members to EIIP Steering Committee Members. September 23, 1998. 
9 

1.10 CORRECTIVE ACTION 

Corrective and follow-up actions identified during the inventory development process will be noted and 

referred to the appropriate staff. Both the corrective actions identified and results of actions taken in 

response will be documented and kept on file. 

Written documentation specifying inventory methodology and information sources will be provided. 

Emission summaries will be presented. 
10 

2.0 POINT SOURCES

2.1 INTRODUCTION 

The Maryland Department of the Environment Air and Radiation Management Administration (ARMA) 

is the lead agency responsible for compiling the point source emissions inventory, including identification 

of sources, documenting the method used to calculate emissions from each source, and presenting the 

findings. In order to provide EPA with a written documentation of emissions calculations for major point 

sources, confidential information was included in the documentation. It is included with the 

understanding that EPA is also bound to respect the confidentiality of the information, including 

appropriate storage of the information. Any contractors employed by EPA to review the inventory are 

also subject to confidentiality provisions, or the EPA must remove the confidential material before 

submitting the document for review. This information does not appear in copies prepared public review. 

The Maryland stationary point source inventory is the result of efforts to characterize air emissions 

sources since the early 1970's. This section describes data collection, verification and emission estimation 

methods used to estimate point source emissions from stationary sources. For the 2002 Periodic 

Emissions Inventory, point sources are defined as stationary commercial or industrial operations that emit 

more than 10 tons per year of volatile organic compounds (VOC); 100 tons per year of carbon monoxide 

(CO), sulfur oxides (SOx), particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than 10 micrometers 

(PM10), and total suspended particulates (TSP); or 25 tons per year of oxides of nitrogen (NOx. In 

addition, stationary sources included in previous PEI submissions were included herein regardless of the 

amount of air pollutants emitted. These emissions criteria are more commonly referred to as “emissions 

thresholds” or simply, “thresholds.”

2.2 COMPILING THE POINT SOURCE LIST 

Maryland has a substantial database of both small and large air emission sources compiled over the last 

eighteen years. Since the thirteen central counties of Maryland and Baltimore City have been 

nonattainment for ozone since before 1982 and 80% of the state's population and major industrial sources 

lie within these counties, the database of over 10,700 sources (both above and below the point source 

thresholds) is reasonably complete. The list of point sources in this inventory was developed by applying 

the appropriate thresholds to the emission levels in the database to differentiate between point and area 

stationary sources. Sources with emission levels greater than the threshold or sources previously included 

in PEI submittals are by definition point sources while sources with emissions levels less than the 

thresholds are by definition area sources. 

 

Several methods of source identification are used by ARMA to ensure the point source inventory is as 

complete as possible. The primary data source is the Permitting Program, which overseas the registration 

requirements found in Title 26, Subtitle 11, Chapter 02, Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR). The 

Compliance Program identifies other point sources though annual facility inspections and through 

investigations conducted in response to citizen complaints. 

The primary means of new source identification is the steady influx of permit applications and equipment 

registrations. Many sources are required by COMAR 26.11.02, Permits, Approvals and Registration, to 

register with ARMA. From 700 to 1,000 new sources are registered with the Department each year. 
11 

Most of these sources are not considered to be point sources as defined for inventory purposes, even 

though they require permits. As an example, emissions from some sources can be less than one ton per 

year. However, all sources that are registered with the Department are tracked until the Department 

receives notification that the equipment or emission source has ceased operations. An emissions source or 

its equipment is not permanently deleted from the registration database until the installation is 

demolished. 

The Department has established a Small Business Assistance Program as required by the Clean Air Act 

Amendments to acquaint the owners of potential sources with the State’s permitting requirements, 

including air quality permits. The Department has also published a guidebook, Environmental 

Regulation: A Business Guide to the Maryland Department of the Environment's Permitting Process as 

part of its outreach program. 

A secondary means of new source identification are the emission sources identified by Compliance 

Program staff during annual field inspections of major point sources. During these inspections, 

unregistered equipment is sometimes discovered. Statewide response to the Air Pollution Report and the 

Air Quality Complaint Hotline, has also led to the discovery of previously unidentified emissions sources. 

Sources discovered in this manner may be the result of the citizen complaints, or the result of further 

investigation of visual evidence such as buildings, storage yards, visible emissions, etc., sighted elsewhere 

during the response. 

2.2.1 EMISSION CALCULATIONS 

The ARMA technical staff uses one of the following methodologies to calculate criteria pollutant 

emissions: 

• EPA-supplied emission factors 

• EPA-supplied emission models 

• Material balances 

• Emissions based on source test data 

• Agency or company-generated emission factors 

The Compliance Program facility inspectors calculate annual emissions estimates following their annual 

facility inspections. The results are then entered into ARMA’s Registration Files for Facilities and 

Equipment, which lists facilities by premise numbers and equipment by registration numbers under each 

facility. The emissions, both stack and fugitive, from all registered equipment at a specific facility are 

summed to yield the annual facility emissions estimate. This total facility estimate is used to determine 

whether the facility satisfies the criteria for classification of as a point source. 

The estimation of emissions on a facility-wide basis can result in emissions from equipment in some 

subcategories, such as boilers, being obscured. For example, boiler emissions are included in the 

Amerada Hess Corporation’s total emissions. Therefore, these boiler emissions are included with 

emissions from gasoline storage and handling operations and included in the Storage, Transportation and 

Marketing of Petroleum Products and Volatile Organic Liquids source category rather than in External 

Combustion Sources category. 

 
12 

Emissions from specific subcategories of sources can be extracted from the inventory to estimate possible 

reductions from various control strategies. However, the emissions from specific equipment 

subcategories cannot be excluded from the facility-wide emissions because of the limitations of the 

software used to create the Registration File. Therefore, subcategories of equipment emissions are not 

included in the inventory as separate line items for to do so would result in the double counting of those 

emissions. 

The estimates prepared by the facility inspectors following the annual inspection of each facility are 

compared to the annual emissions reported by each facility in its Annual Emissions Certification. A 

person who owns or operates a major facility as defined in COMAR 26.11.01.05-1 must submit to the 

Department an emissions statement by April 1 of each year for the previous calendar year. The owner or 

operator of the facility must further certify that the emissions statement is accurate to the best of the 

owner/operator’s best knowledge. After the certified emissions statements are logged in, they are 

thoroughly reviewed by the assigned facility inspectors. Each inspector compares their emissions 

estimate to that prepared by the respective company for consistency of methodology and final emissions 

estimate results. The facility inspectors resolve any discrepancies between the two estimates with the 

owner/operator of the facility in question. When all discrepancies are resolved to the satisfaction of MDE, 

the final emissions estimates are then submitted as an update to ARMA’s Registration File for Facilities 

and Equipment. 

2.2.1.1 Seasonal Adjustments 

ARMA has not collected extensive data on the temporal allocation of emissions. Typically, companies 

are required to partition annual emissions by calendar quarter. More specific information to allow 

allocation of emissions to time of day, peak ozone season, ozone season, or even monthly periods of 

activity was not collected in 2002. More specific information may be collected in the future. 

In cases where the facilities did not provide peak ozone season emission estimates, the peak ozone season 

emissions were calculated by the following method and are included in the emissions summary tables, by 

county, at the end of this section: 

1) Annual emissions in pounds per year were converted into pounds per day emissions by dividing 

annual emissions by operating days, 

2) Pounds per day emissions were then multiplied by a seasonality factor, 

3) The seasonality factor was based on the quarterly percentage of operations estimated by the 

company adjusted for June, July, and August. 

4) The ratio obtained in Step 3 was multiplied by the daily emissions calculated in Step 1 to generate 

the seasonally adjusted emissions. 

2.2.2 CONSOLIDATED EMISSIONS REPORTING RULE (CERR) 

MDE-ARMA compiled a 2002 point source emission inventory in order to satisfy EPA reporting 

requirements under the Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule. This will be the primary resource 

for developing refined estimates of PM2.5 and NH3 emissions. 
3.0 QUASI - POINT SOURCES 

3.1 INTRODUCTION 

The Maryland Department of the Environment Air and Radiation Management has identified several 

facilities that due to size and/or function are considered point sources. These establishments contain a 

wide variety of air emission sources, including traditional point sources, on-road mobile sources, off-road 

mobile sources and area sources. For each particular establishment, the emissions from these sources are 

totaled under a single point source and summary documents include these “quasi-point” sources as point 

sources. 

Sample calculations presented below are for illustrative purposes only and may not reflect actual 

emissions. 

3.2 ABERDEEN PROVING GROUNDS 

Description 

Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG) occupies more than 72,500 acres in Harford County, Md. Its 

northernmost point is marked by the confluence of the Susquehanna River and the Chesapeake Bay. On 

the south the Gunpowder River borders it. 

The installation comprises two principal areas, separated by the Bush River. The northern area is known 

as the Aberdeen Area, and the southern sector, formerly Edgewood Arsenal (established in November, 

1917 - as a chemical weapons research, development and testing facility), is the Edgewood Area. The two 

areas were administratively combined in 1971. 

Aberdeen Proving Ground is home to 66 tenants and a host of satellite activities. Among the major 

tenants are the U.S. Research, Development and Engineering (RDECOM), U.S. Army Ordnance Center 

and Schools, U.S. Army Developmental Test Command, U.S. Army Aberdeen Test Center, U.S. Army 

Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine, Northeast Region Civilian Personnel Operations 

Center, U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Chemical Defense, Program Manager for Chemical 

Demilitarization and major elements of the Army Research Laboratory. 

As a center for Army materiel testing, laboratory research and military training, the post is a key element 

in the nation's defense. All tanks and wheeled vehicles which have served U.S. forces for the past 50 years 

have been tested for performance and durability at APG - from the M4 Sherman tank of World War II to 

the M1 tank and High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle and Family of Stryker Vehicles of today. 

Known as the "Home of Ordnance," APG has been training Army ordnance personnel since 1918. The 

Army's ordnance training was consolidated at the proving ground during World War II, and today the 

U.S. Army Ordnance Center and School provides mechanical maintenance training for more than 20,000 

U.S. and foreign personnel each year. APG is the regimental headquarters for the Army's Chief of 

Ordnance. 

APG's Edgewood Area has been a center for chemical warfare research and development since it was 

established. From the trenches of France and Belgium in World War I to the desert battlefields of Iraq 

nearly 80 years later, the work done at APG has contributed to the defense and safety of American forces 

threatened by chemical weapons. 

13 
More than 7,500 civilians work at Aberdeen Proving Ground, and more than 5,000 military personnel are 

assigned there. In addition, there are nearly 3,000 contractors and private business employees working on 

the proving ground. 

There are 2,148 military family members living on the post and another 155 off post. The post supports 

more than 16,000 military retirees and retiree family members. The post is Harford County's largest 

employer and one of the largest employers in the state of Maryland. 

U.S. Army Garrison, Aberdeen Proving Ground, provides general, administrative and logistical support to 

the post's tenants and satellite activities, and is responsible for the management and operation of the entire 

installation, which in many ways is like a small city. 

Environmental stewardship is an essential component of all activity at APG. The installation and its 

tenants are actively involved in a wide variety of environmental compliance, pollution prevention, 

conservation, and restoration programs. In FY 2004 APG spent a total of $31 million on environmental 

programs, installation programs and installation restoration activities. 

Pollutants 

VOC, NOx, CO, PM, Toxics 

Emission 

Source 

Categories 

MDE staff reviewed emission estimates prepared for Aberdeen Proving Grounds by a private contractor. 

These emission estimates included data for the following source categories: 

• Mobile On-Road Source Emissions 

o Mobile - LDGV Emissions 

o Mobile - LDGT 1&2 Emissions 

o Mobile - LDGT 3&4 Emissions 

o Mobile - HDGV 

o Mobile - LDDT 1-4 

o Mobile - HDDV 

o Mobile - HDDV Exhaust 

o Mobile – HDDB 

o Mobile - HD CNG Trucks 

o Mobile - LD CNG Trucks 

• Mobile Nonroad Source Emissions 

o 2-Stroke Gas Eng; Lawn & Garden Equip; Other Equipment 

o 4-Stroke Gas Eng; Recreational Equip; Golf Carts 

o 4-Stroke Gas Eng; Recreational Equip; Specialty Vehicles/Carts 

o 4-Stroke Gas Eng; Construction & Mining Equip; Off-Highway Trucks 

o 4-Stroke Gas Eng; Industrial Equip; Forklifts 

o 4-Stroke Gas Eng; Lawn & Garden Equip; Chain Saws 

o 4-Stroke Gas Eng; Lawn & Garden Equip; Leaf blowers/Vacuums 

o 4-Stroke Gas Eng; Lawn & Garden Equip; Rear Eng Riding Mowers 

14 
o 4-Stroke Gas Eng; Lawn & Garden Equip; Front Mowers 

o 4-Stroke Gas Eng; Lawn & Garden Equip; Other Lawn & Garden Equip 

o 4-Stroke Gas Eng; Commercial Equip; Generator Sets 

o LPG Eng; Construction & Mining Equip; Off-Highway Trucks 

o Diesel Eng; Construction & Mining Equip; Rollers 

o Diesel Eng; Construction & Mining Equip; Cranes 

o Diesel Eng; Construction & Mining Equip; Graders 

o Diesel Eng; Construction & Mining Equip; Off-highway Trucks 

o Diesel Eng; Construction & Mining Equip; Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 

o Diesel Eng; Construction & Mining Equip; Other Construction Equip 

o Diesel Eng; Industrial Equip; Forklifts 

o Diesel Eng; Industrial Equip; Sweepers/Scrubbers 

o Diesel Eng; Lawn & Garden Equip; Front Mowers 

o Diesel Eng; Agricultural Equip; Agricultural Tractors 

o Diesel Eng; Commercial Equip; Generator Sets 

o Recreational marine 4-stroke gasoline equipment 

o Recreational marine diesel compression ignition equipment 

o Aircraft 

• Area Source Emissions 

o Emissions from aircraft refueling. 

o Construction Welding 

o Solvent-based architectural surface coatings. 

o Water-based architectural surface coatings. 

o Cold cleaning solvents. 

o Solvent Utilization - Miscellaneous 

o Commercial/consumer solvents. 

o Open Burning Detonation 

o Landfills - All Categories 

o Munitions Detonation 

o Firefighting Training 

o Industrial Process - Miscellaneous 

o Commercial/institutional distillate oil combustion. 

o Commercial/institutional natural gas combustion. 

• Point Source Emissions 

o MDE staff also reviewed and included emission estimates from emission certification 

reports prepared by Aberdeen Proving Grounds and submitted on an annual basis to 

MDE’s Compliance and Enforcement Program. These emission estimates include major 

sources. 

 

Emission 

Estimation 

Methodologies 

Emission estimation methodologies varied by source category. A brief synopsis of the methodologies is 

presented below. 

15 
16 

Mobile On-Road Source Emissions 

Information on the privately owned vehicles for APG was estimated from a 2001 traffic study 

conducted for all gates at both Aberdeen and Edgewood.

Emissions for the on-road vehicles were calculated only for the estimated miles and hours of onbase vehicle operation. Miles traveled off the base were not included in the emission calculations. 

AP-42, Volume 11, Fifth Edition includes the emission factors for NOx, CO, and VOC, which were 

calculated using EPA's MOBILE 5 model for gasoline and diesel operated vehicles. AP-42 has not 

been updated with NOx, CO, and VOC emission factors from the latest version of EPA's MOBILE 

6.2.03 model, released in October 2002, which also includes emission factors for PM-10, PM-25, 

S02, and HAPS. Therefore, the emission factors for on-road vehicles were obtained by running the 

MOBILE 6.2.03 model.

 

APG government-owned vehicles were grouped into vehicle categories according to vehicle type, 

gross vehicle weight (GVW), and fuel type. The CY 2002 mileage for each vehicle, if available, 

was provided by each organization, as were estimates of on-base mileage or a percentage of the 

total miles per vehicle that were driven on the base. If the mileage data was not available, it was 

estimated based on mileage for similar types of vehicles from other organizations or from estimates 

provided by organization personnel. 

Emission estimates for privately owned vehicles (POVs) are based on traffic studies for CY 2000 

and CY 2001. Each traffic study tracked incoming vehicles at all gates at both Aberdeen and 

Edgewood over a three-week period. The average number of vehicles counted at each gate over 

both years was used to estimate the number of POVs entering each day. The average values were 

7,680 POVs per day at Aberdeen and 5,277 per day at Edgewood. 

POV miles traveled were determined by using the distance from each gate to a central location at 

both Aberdeen and Edgewood. Each POV that entered a specific gate was assumed to drive that 

distance each day. The daily on-base mileage was determined by multiplying the number of POVs 

by the round-trip distance to a specific gate. The POV vehicles from the traffic study were 

conservatively estimated to be in the above-referenced vehicle categories.

Emissions of NOx, CO, VOC, PM-10, PM-2.5, and SO2 from daily employee POVs were estimated 

by multiplying the annual on-base mileage of each vehicle category with the emission factors 

obtained from the MOBILE 6.2.03. Since the model years of POVs traveling on the base would 

vary greatly, it is impractical to estimate the emissions from each vehicle in that model year range. 

Instead the year 2000 was considered the average vehicle model year, and the emission factors for 

the 2000 model year vehicles were used. The emission factors were used in the following equation 

to estimate annual emissions: 

1.1.1.1.1.1.1 E = V * F * C 

Where: 

E = Annual emissions of particular pollutant from each vehicle category (lb/yr) 

V = Vehicle miles traveled on-base per year for each vehicle category (mi/yr) 

F = Average model year emission factor in the applicable vehicle category (g/mi) 

C = Conversion factor (2.205 x 10 lb/g)
17 

The information on the vehicles tested and miles driven on unpaved test tracks at APG was obtained 

from 2002 logs for each track. The test vehicles were divided equally into the HDDV and HDGV 

vehicle classes. 

Mobile Nonroad Mobile Source Emissions 

APG gathered information about the number of vehicles, model year, horsepower rating, fuel type, 

engine cycle type, and estimated operating hours for CY 2002. In the majority of instances, 

horsepower ratings and operating hours were not readily available and have been assumed based on 

the typical horsepower of similar types equipment. If data was not available for CY 2002, then data 

was obtained for the closest available year. 

Criteria pollutant emission factors were obtained from Air Emissions Inventory Guidance Document 

for Mobile Sources at Air Force Installations, United States Air Force Institute for Environment, 

Safety & Occupational Health Risk Analysis (IERA), January 2002, which includes the emission 

factors used in EPA's NON-ROAD 2002 model. Emission factors to estimate PM-2.5 from PM-10 

emissions were obtained from EPA's NON-ROAD 2002a model. The Non-road model incorporates 

research results from U.S. EPA 's Non-road Engine and Vehicle Emission Study (NEVES), 

November 1991, as well as from the California Air Resources Board's off-road model, test results, 

and regulatory emission standards. These factors were used to estimate the emissions from non-road 

vehicles and equipment.

Emission factors for stationary internal combustion engines were used to estimate criteria pollutant 

emissions for the non-mobile equipment. These factors are found in Table 3.3-1, AP-42 Section 3.3, 

Gasoline and Diesel Industrial Engines. Emissions were calculated by multiplying the power output 

by the emission factors applicable to the type of fuel used by the non-mobile equipment, either 

gasoline or diesel. The power output was calculated by multiplying the power of the equipment in 

horsepower times the estimated hours of operation. Net workdays were derived from the equipment 

rental records. It was assumed that the light towers were used 8 hours per day and that all other 

equipment was used 10 hours per day. 

The total emissions for all non-road vehicles and equipment were separated into emissions for 

Aberdeen and Edgewood. In cases were vehicles were used at both Aberdeen and Edgewood the 

total emissions were divided equally. 

Aircraft operations are conducted at Phillips Airfield at Aberdeen and Weide Heliport at Edgewood. 

These operations include landings and takeoffs (LTOs), touch and go's (T&Gs), low approaches 

(LAs), and trim and power checks (T&Ps). Emissions from aircraft operations were estimated 

using the EDMS (version 4.4) model. 

Emissions of criteria pollutants for watercraft were calculated using factors provided in AP-42, 

Volume 11. Inboard emissions were calculated based on fuel consumption or operating time. 

Outboard emissions were calculated using factors related to fuel consumption. Fuel consumption 

was rarely known, so a generic fuel usage of 3 gallons per hour was used to calculate consumption 

from operating time. 
The inventory of watercraft includes APG vessels, privately owned boats, and rental boats. The 

inventory included the size of vessels, whether the boat has an inboard or outboard motor, whether 

the boat uses gasoline or diesel, on-site fuel usage, and on-site estimated usage. 

Many assumptions were necessary to calculate emissions from the limited information known about 

many of the watercraft. The number of memberships to the private boat clubs located at APG and 

number of permits to launch boats at APG was known, but no information as to the size and type of 

boats was, nor the time or distance they traveled within the boundaries of APG. All privately 

owned boats launched in the Aberdeen Area were considered outside of the APG boundary once in 

the water, so no emissions were counted from these boats. For privately owned watercraft it was 

assumed that 80% have outboard motors and 20% have inboard and that all are gasoline fueled. An 

assumption was made that privately owned watercraft were used 5 times per year and spent 2 hours 

on site each usage for a total of 10 hours each. For rental outboards it was assumed that they were 

used 3 hours on-site per rental weekend and that there were 40 rentals in 2002.

Area Source Emissions 

Emissions from the various area source categories were estimated using a variety of methods, 

including population based, fuel consumption, and mass balance. Emission factors were derived 

from the EPA document titled 'Emission Inventory Improvement Program', and AP-42. Landfill 

losses as VOC were calculated for Michaelsville landfill using Landfill Gas Emissions Model 

(LandGEM) version 3.02 available through the EPA. LandGEM is based on a first-order 

decomposition rate equation for quantifying emissions from the decomposition of waste in 

municipal solid waste landfills.

Activity 

An activity level of 7 days a week with no seasonal adjustment factor was used. 

Emission Factors 

Emission factors were derived from the Emission Inventory Improvement Program (EIIP); AP-42, 

Volume 11, Fifth Edition; EPA's NON-ROAD 2002 model; EPA's MOBILE 5 model; and the 

Landfill Gas Emissions Model (LandGEM) version 3.02. 

Point Source 

Adjustments 

Collecting all emissions estimates under one facility effectively creates a single point source for all of the 

emissions. No other point sources were subtracted from the area source inventory to avoid double 

counting. 

Adjustment for 

Controls 

Controls were applied when applicable to a particular source category. 

Spatial and 

Temporal 

Allocations 

18 
19 

Spatial 

Spatial allocation of the emission estimates to specific areas within APG is not available. 

Temporal 

Data for temporal allocation is not available for this source. 
3.3 ANDREWS AIR FORCE BASE 

Description 

Andrews Air Force Base (ICAO code KADW) is a United States Air Force base near 

Washington, DC and the home base of the U.S. presidential aircraft, Air Force One. 

The base is located a few miles southeast of Washington, in Prince George's County, 

Maryland near the town of Morningside. According to the United States Census Bureau, 

the town has a total land area of 6.8 mi2 and none of it is covered by water. There are two 

runways on the base; the western runway is 3,440 meters in length, and the eastern 

runway is 3,570 meters in length. 

The host unit for Andrews AFB is the 89th Airlift Wing which falls under Air Mobility 

Command. The primary mission at Andrews AFB is to transport the President of the 

United States. The base is also tasked, under what is known as "SAM FOX", to provide 

worldwide airlift for the vice president, the president's Cabinet, members of Congress, 

military leaders and other high ranking dignitaries. At one time, "SAM FOX", was used 

as a prefix to an aircraft tail number, during radio transmissions to identify Air Force 

aircraft that were transporting high-ranking VIPs, typically on foreign flights. The call 

sign prefix was constructed from the acronym SAM (Special Air Mission) and the initial 

F (Foreign), which at the time was represented by the phonetic word "Fox." 

Andrews is also the home of the 89th Communication Group, a unit that provides 

communications to military installations all over the world. The technical control facility 

is one of the largest in the world, and hosts a myriad of sophisticated telecommunications 

equipment. One of the squadrons within the 89th Communications Group is the 789th 

Communications Squadron, whose CNCS remotely operates 15 HF Global radio stations 

from around the Globe. Other major tenants include the District of Columbia Air 

National Guard (DC-ANG), Naval Air Facility (NAF), and the Maryland State Police. 

Pollutants 

VOC, NOx, CO, PM, Toxics 

Emission 

Source 

Categories 

MDE staff reviewed emission estimates prepared for Andrews Air Force Base by a 

private contractor. These emission estimates included data for the following source 

categories: 

• Mobile On-Road Source Emissions 

o Mobile - LDGV 

o Mobile - LDGT12 

20 
o Mobile - LDGT34 

o Mobile - HDGV / Buses 

o Mobile - MC 

o Mobile - LDDV 

o Mobile - LDDT 

o Mobile - HDDBT 

o Mobile - HDDV 

o Mobile - HDDBS 

o Mobile - Heavy Duty Trucks 

o Mobile - Light Duty Vehicles 

• Mobile Nonroad Source Emissions 

o Nonroad Mobile - Recreational 

o Nonroad Mobile - Construction 

o Nonroad Mobile - Industrial 

o Nonroad Mobile - Lawn and Garden 

o Nonroad Mobile – Agricultural 

o Gas-Fired Non-road vehicle-4-stroke gasoline engine 

o Gas-Fired Non-road vehicle-2-stroke gasoline engine 

o Aircraft - All Aircraft Types and Operations 

o Emissions from military aviation aircraft landing and takeoff. 

o Emissions from commercial aviation aircraft landing and takeoff. 

o Diesel Generators 

o Off-highway Vehicle Gasoline, 2-Stroke Total without APUs 

o Off-highway Vehicle Gasoline, 4-Stroke Total without APUs 

o Off-highway Vehicle Gasoline, 4-Stroke APU emissions 

o Off-highway Vehicle Diesel APU emissions 

o Nonroad Mobile Aircraft Ground Equipment - All Gasoline Engines 

o Nonroad Mobile Aircraft Ground Equipment - All JP-8 Engines 

• Point Source Emissions 

o MDE staff also reviewed and included emission estimates from emission 

certification reports prepared by Andrews Air Force Base and submitted 

on an annual basis to MDE’s Compliance and Enforcement Program. 

These emission estimates include major sources. 

Emission 

Estimation 

Methodologies 

Emission estimation methodologies varied by source category. A brief synopsis of the 

methodologies is presented below. 

21 
Mobile On-Road Source Emissions 

The Andrews AFB on-road vehicle inventory consists of a mix of light- and heavyduty gasoline-, diesel-, and natural gas-powered government-, and privately owned 

vehicles (POVs). POVs include vehicles owned by both daily employees and 

weekend personnel. The inventory contains the vehicle type, model year, number 

of vehicles, and annual on-base mileage. To distinguish leased General Services 

Administration (GSA) government-owned vehicles (GOVs) from the regular fleet, 

vehicle tag numbers are provided in cases where they are known. 

On the basis of inventory data provided by vehicle maintenance personnel, 

government-owned vehicles (GOVs) were grouped into eight vehicle categories 

according to vehicle type, gross vehicle weight (GVW), and fuel type. The 2002 

mileage for each vehicle was provided by vehicle maintenance personnel, as were 

estimates of on-base mileage or a percentage of the total miles per vehicle that were 

driven on the base. 

Emissions were calculated only for the estimated miles and hours of on-base 

vehicle and equipment operation. Miles traveled off the base were not included in 

the emission calculations. The Fifth Edition of AP-42, Volume II includes the 

emission factors for NOx, CO, and VOC, which were calculated using EPA’s 

MOBILE 5 model for gasoline and diesel operated vehicles. AP-42 has not been 

updated with NOx, CO, and VOC emission factors from the latest version of EPA’s 

MOBILE 6.2.03 model, released in October 2002, which also includes emission 

factors for PM-10, PM-2.5, SO2, and HAPs. Therefore, the emission factors for onroad vehicles were obtained by running the MOBILE 6.2.03 model. The MOBILE 

model does not address compressed natural gas vehicles, so emission factors for 

these vehicles have been obtained from 40CFR86.1708-99, 40CFR88.105-94, and 

40CFR88.104.94. 

Emission estimates for privately owned vehicles (POVs) are based on traffic 

studies supplied by base personnel (89th AW Civil Engineering, July 2004). 

Andrews AFB has approximately 61, 738 vehicles traveling on base each workday. 

This number assumes a working schedule of employees of 40 hours per week. In 

addition, 25% of the daily personnel are assumed to be on the base on the 

weekends. 

The emission factors were used in the following equation to estimate annual 

emissions: 

E = V * F * C 

Where: 

E = Annual emissions of particular pollutant from each vehicle category (lb/yr) 

V = Vehicle miles traveled on-base per year for each vehicle category (mi/yr) 

F = Average model year emission factor in the applicable vehicle category (g/mi) 

C = Conversion factor (2.205 x 10 lb/g)

22 
Mobile Nonroad Mobile Source Emissions 

The Andrews AFB non-road vehicle inventory consists of various equipment 

including forklifts, loaders, riding lawn care equipment, and towing equipment. 

The inventory contains the equipment name, model year, horsepower rating, 

number of vehicles, fuel type, engine cycle type, and operating hours for CY 2002. 

The inventory specifies whether the operating hours are a total operating time for 

CY 2002 for the number of units listed or an operating time for each unit. 

Criteria pollutant and HAP emission factors were obtained from Air Emissions 

Inventory Guidance Document for Mobile Sources at Air Force Installations, 

United States Air Force Institute for Environment, Safety & Occupational Health 

Risk Analysis (IERA), January 2002, which includes the emission factors used in 

EPA’s NONROAD 2002a model. Emission factors to estimate PM-2.5 from PM10 emissions were obtained from EPA’s NONROAD 2002a model.

The Andrews AFB aircraft operations inventory consists of information related to 

landings and takeoffs (LTOs), touch and go’s (T&Gs), low approaches (LAs), and 

trim and power checks (T&PCs). Calendar year 2002 was used for the calculations 

of the baseline emissions inventory because 2002 is the baseline year selected by 

the MDE for use in the revision of its SIP. The inventory contains the aircraft type 

and manufacturer, engine model and manufacturer, the number of LTOs, T&Gs, 

LAs, and T&PCs. The calendar year 2002 inventory was generated using 

information compiled from the Aerial Port Squadron, the Andrews AFB Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) Liason, and Allan Holtzman, Andrews AFB Air 

Quality Program Manager. This inventory will also be submitted to MDE for 

incorporation into EDMS (version 4.4). 

Activity 

An activity level of 7 days a week with no seasonal adjustment factor was used. 

Emission Factors 

Emission factors were derived from the EDMS Airport Emission Model, Version 

4.4; EPA's NON-ROAD 2002 model; and EPA's MOBILE 6.02.03 model. 

Point Source 

Adjustments 

Collecting all emissions estimates under one facility effectively creates a single point 

source for all of the emissions. No other point sources were subtracted from the area 

source inventory to avoid double counting. 

23 
24 

Adjustment for 

Controls 

Controls were applied when applicable to a particular source category. 

Spatial and 

Temporal 

Allocations 

Spatial 

Spatial allocation of the emission estimates to specific areas within Andrews Air 

Force Base is not available. 

Temporal 

Data for temporal allocation is not available for this source. 

 
25 

3.4 BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (BWI) 

Description 

Baltimore-Washington International Airport (BWI) is located in Anne Arundel County, 

Maryland, approximately 9 miles south of the City of Baltimore and approximately 30 miles 

northeast of Washington, D.C. BWI Airport is generally bounded on the north, east, and west by 

Aviation Boulevard (MD Route 170 and MD Route 162) and on the south by Dorsey Road (MD 

Route 176). Interstate 195 (I-195) is a four-lane divided highway that serves as the primary 

access point to the airport terminal area. Elm Road and Aviation Boulevard provide secondary 

access to the terminal and cargo facilities. 

BWI is operated by the Maryland Aviation Administration, Maryland Department of 

Transportation. BWI Airport encompasses 3,596 acres of land. The passenger terminal contains 

1.4 million square feet; 4 concourses (3 domestic, 1 international/swing); 69 jet gates with 12 

gates dedicated to commuter aircraft. 

The emission sources at BWI include aircraft, aircraft ground support service equipment, motor 

vehicles (on roadways, in parking facilities, and at terminal curbsides), the heating plant, fuel 

storage and handling, and training fires. 

Pollutants 

VOC, NOx, CO, PM, Toxics 

Emission 

Source 

Categories 

MDE staff reviewed emission estimates prepared for BWI Airport by a private contractor. These 

emission estimates included data for the following source categories: 

• Mobile Onroad Source Emissions 

o Mobile - LDGV Emissions 

o Mobile - Parking Facility Emissions 

o Mobile - LDGT 1&2 Emissions 

o Mobile - LDDT 1-4 

o Mobile – HDDV 

• Mobile Nonroad Source Emissions 

o Emissions from airport service diesel compression ignition equipment 

o Emissions from military aircraft LTOs 

o Emissions from commercial aircraft LTOs 

o Emissions from general aviation aircraft LTOs 

o Emissions from aircraft auxiliary power units 
26 

• Mobile Nonroad Source Construction Equipment Emissions 

o 2-Stroke Gas Eng; Construction & Mining Equip; Paving Equip 

o 4-Stroke Gas Eng; Construction & Mining Equip; Plate Compactors 

o 4-Stroke Gas Eng; Construction & Mining Equip; Concrete/Industrial Saws 

o Diesel Eng; Construction & Mining Equip; Pavers 

o Diesel Eng; Construction & Mining Equip; Rollers 

o Diesel Eng; Construction & Mining Equip; Scrapers 

o Diesel Eng; Construction & Mining Equip; Signal Boards/Light Plants 

o Diesel Eng; Construction & Mining Equip; Trenchers 

o Diesel Eng; Construction & Mining Equip; Excavators 

o Diesel Eng; Construction & Mining Equip; Cranes 

o Diesel Eng; Construction & Mining Equip; Graders 

o Diesel Eng; Construction & Mining Equip; Off-highway Trucks 

o Diesel Eng; Construction & Mining Equip; Rubber Tire Loaders 

o Diesel Eng; Construction & Mining Equip; Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 

o Diesel Eng; Construction & Mining Equip; Crawler Tractor/Dozers 

o Diesel Eng; Industrial Equip; Aerial Lifts 

o Diesel Eng; Industrial Equip; Forklifts 

o Diesel Eng; Industrial Equip; Sweepers/Scrubbers 

o Diesel Eng; Commercial Equip; Generator Sets 

o Diesel Eng; Commercial Equip; Air Compressors 

o Diesel Eng; Commercial Equip; Welders 

• Mobile Onroad Source Emissions 

o Firefighting Training 

• Point Source Emissions 

o MDE staff also reviewed and included emission estimates from emission 

certification reports prepared by BWI and submitted on an annual basis to MDE’s 

Compliance and Enforcement Program. These emission estimates include major 

sources. 

Emission 

Estimation 

Methodologies 

Emission estimation methodologies varied by source category. A brief synopsis of the 

methodologies is presented below. 

Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS) Version 4.4 

• Aircraft 
27 

FAA’s EDMS computer program contains a database of aircraft engine emission factors 

based on engine make and model and four engine operation modes (taxi/idle, takeoff, 

climb out, and approach). EDMS also contains a database of emission factors for an 

aircraft’s auxiliary power units (APUs). Time-in-mode data is also used as an input into 

the emission inventory. EDMS time-in-mode data include the time that aircraft spend in 

each of the four operating modes. 

• Ground Support Equipment 

FAA’s EDMS computer program contains a database of the ground support equipment 

(GSE) used to service specific types of aircraft. Also included in the database are the 

emission factors for each piece of GSE, as well as the time that each piece of equipment 

spends servicing the aircraft. 

• Roadways 

FAA’s EDMS computer program uses EPA’s MOBILE 6.2 model to estimate on-road 

mobile vehicle emissions. 

• Parking Facilities 

FAA’s EDMS computer program uses EPA’s MOBILE 6.2 model to estimate on-road 

mobile vehicle emissions from parking facilities. 

• Training Fires 

FAA’s EDMS computer program contains a database of emission factors for five fuel 

types (JP-4, JP-5, JP-8, Tekflame and Propane). Training fire emissions are estimated by 

choosing the fuel type and specifying the amount of fuel consumed in the training exercise. 

Nonroad Mobile Source Emissions 

• Construction Equipment 

Emissions from construction activities were estimated based on the construction activity 

schedule, including the number and types of construction vehicles and equipment units and 

their utilization rates. Emission rates were taken from EPA’s NONROAD program and 

MOBILE6.2. Emissions from several components of construction activities were calculated, 

specifically: onsite construction equipment (backhoes, bull dozers, graders, etc.), haul 

vehicles idling onsite (cement trucks, dump trucks, etc.), and haul vehicles and construction 

worker vehicles accessing the site. An industry-wide, representative mix of the number and 

types of construction equipment, average power rating (horse power), and equipment load 

factors was used in the analysis. Construction-related motor vehicles (dump trucks, pick-up 
28 

trucks, etc.) were assumed to travel a round trip on-site distance of 5 miles while on the 

Airport construction site. 

 

Activity 

An activity level of 7 days a week with no seasonal adjustment factor was used. 

Emission Factors 

Emission factors were derived from FAA’s EDMS computer program (Version 4.4). 

Vehicular emission factors contained in EDMS are obtained from the EPA's MOBILE 6.2 

model. Construction emission factors were derived from EPA’s NONROAD Model. 

Point Source 

Adjustments 

Collecting all emissions estimates under one facility effectively creates a single point source for 

all of the emissions. No other point sources were subtracted from the area source inventory to 

avoid double counting. 

Adjustment for 

Controls 

Controls were applied when applicable to a particular source category. 

Spatial and 

Temporal 

Allocations 

Spatial 

Spatial allocation of the emission estimates to specific areas within Baltimore Washington 

International Airport is not available. 

Temporal 

Data for temporal allocation is not available for this source. 
29 

4.0 AREAS SOURCES

4.1 EMISSION ESTIMATION METHOD BY CATEGORY 

Sample calculations presented below are for illustrative purposes only and may not reflect actual 

emissions. 

4.1.1 PETROLEUM DISTRIBUTION LOSSES 

Evaporative emissions occur at all points in the gasoline distribution process. These operations, 

generally inventoried as area sources, are gasoline dispensing outlets and gasoline tank trucks in 

transit. Bulk terminals and gasoline bulk plants, which are intermediate distribution points 

between refineries and outlets, have been inventoried as point sources. Most gasoline dispensing 

outlets emit less than 10 tons of VOC per year and therefore have been inventoried using area 

source methods. 

VOC emissions from gasoline dispensing outlets result from vapor losses during tank truck 

unloading into underground storage tanks, vehicle fueling (boat fueling at marinas), and 

underground storage tank breathing. Evaporative losses from each activity in this source 

category have been tabulated separately so that various emission reduction control measures 

could be easily evaluated. 

Emissions from vehicle fueling, including spillage during fueling, were calculated with the 

MOBILE6 model and the methodology is described in Section 5.0 Mobile Sources. Tank truck 

unloading, underground tank breathing, tank trucks in transit and aircraft refueling were 

calculated using emissions factors from AP-42 and EIIP. 
30 

4.1.1.1 Tank Truck Unloading 

SCC: 25 01 060 053 

Description: 

 Emissions from tank truck unloading are affected by whether the service station tank is 

equipped for submerged, splash or balance filling. Therefore calculations were based on the 

filling method used and gallons sold. 

Pollutants 

VOC 

Method and 

Data Sources: 

The method used to calculate emissions (all VOC), is presented in EIIP9, Chapter 11, Gasoline 

Marketing, which extracts the emission factors from AP-42, Volume I, Table 5.2-7. 

Activity 

The Maryland Comptroller of the Treasury, Gasoline Tax Division provided annual 

gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel sold. This data includes taxable and non-taxed gasoline 

purchased by the U.S. Government. State and local government sales are included in the 

taxable sales data. The statewide total of gallons of fuel sold was allocated to the county 

level proportional to the number of registered vehicles within the county. Vehicle 

registration data was collected from the Maryland Department of Transportation, Motor 

Vehicle Administration that supplied the data to MDE’s Mobile Sources Control Program. 

Diesel fuel powered vehicle totals were subtracted from the Maryland and county 

registration numbers. 

Percentages of submerged, balanced submerged and splash-fill tanks were determined with 

the assistance of MDE Waste Management. MDE staff reported no splash filling at 

Maryland service stations in 2002. All underground storage tanks within the nonattainment 

areas of the State of Maryland are required to use vapor-balance submerged filling 

methods. Waste Management's underground tank inspection program and regulations 

concerning underground storage tanks have eliminated splash-fill tanks in the state. A 

recent SSCD study determined that the rule effectiveness factor for vapor balance controls 

was 91%. 

An activity level of 7 days per week was used, based on observations by MDE staff of 

unloading at Maryland retail gas stations. A rule effectiveness of 91% was determined 

from a study of Stage I compliance performed in Regions III and IV by the MDE/ARMA 

enforcement program in 1991. In the attainment counties outside of Regions III and IV, a 

default rule effectiveness of 80 % was used. This survey data was used to determine the 

penetration of each filling technology. The total fuel sales in the county were multiplied 

 

9

 Emission Inventory Improvement Program 
31 

by the fraction using each filling technology. The AP-42 technology-specific emission 

factors were then used to estimate emissions from submerged filling and balanced 

submerged filling. The emissions from each filling technology were summed to estimate 

total emissions. 

Filling Method Non-Attainment 

Area 

Transport 

Region 

Attainment Area 

Submerged 9% 9% 20% 

Balanced Submerged 91% 91% 80% 

Splash 0% 0% 0% 

Activity Days per Year 365 

Emission Factors 

Emission factors are affected by true vapor pressure and temperature. Emissions from 

loading petroleum liquid can be estimated (with a probable error of ±30 percent) using the 

following expression10: 

T

MPS LL** = *46.12

where: 

LL = loading loss, pounds per 1000 gallons (lb/103 gal) of liquid loaded 

 (The loading loss is equivalent to an emission factor) 

S = a saturation factor (see Table 5.2-1) 

P = true vapor pressure of liquid loaded, pounds per square inch absolute (psia) 

 (see Figure 7.1-5, Figure 7.1-6, and Table 7.1-2) 

M = molecular weight of vapors, pounds per pound-mole (lb/lb-mole) 

 (see Table 7.1-2) 

T = temperature of bulk liquid loaded, °R (°F + 460) 

Table 5.2-1 from AP-42 shows that the saturation factor (S) is a constant for a specific 

petroleum liquid, carrier and type of loading service 

The true vapor pressure (P) can be estimated from the Reid vapor pressure using the 

following equation: 

( ) ( ) ⎩⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎣⎦ ⎦ ⎭

⎬

⎫ ⎨⎧ ⎟ +

⎠

⎞ ⎜

⎝

⎛

+ − ⎥

⎤ ⎢⎡ ⎟ −

⎠

⎞ ⎜

⎝

⎛

+

+ ⎥

⎤ ⎢⎡ ⎟

⎠

⎞ ⎜

⎝

⎛

+ −− ⎥

⎤ ⎢⎡ ⎟

⎠

⎞ ⎜

⎝

⎛

+ = − 64.156.459

8742 log013.2 6.459

2416

6.459

1042 log* 854.1

6.459

0.413 7553.0exp 10

5.0

10

5.0

T

RVP

T

S

T

S RVP

T

P

The molecular weight varies slightly with temperature and pressure, however for this 

analysis it is assumed to be constant. 

 

10 AP42, Chapter 5.2: Transportation and Marketing of Petroleum Liquids 
32 

Proportioning the loading factors yields 

2*1

1*2

1

1*1*1*46.12

2

2*2*2*46.12

1

2

TP

TP

T

MPS

T

MPS

LL

LL = = 2*1

1*2 *12

P T

TP = LLLL

The loading factor or emission factor is directly proportional to true vapor pressure and 

versely proportional to temperature in degrees Rankin. 

L1 = 0.3 at RVP of 10 and 60 F; this yields LL1 =0.3; P =5.186; T=520 R 

o calculate LL2 at RVP of 6.7 and 81.8 F or P = 5.094; T = 541.8 R 

in

L

T

2828.0

8.541*186.5

520*094.5 *3.0

2*1

1*2 = *12 = = P T

TP LLLL

Initial emission factors of 0.3 lb VOC per 1000 gallons throughput for balanced submerged

filling and 7.3 lb VOC per 1000 gallons throughput for submerged filling were used in

Maryland counties. These factors were then adjusted with county-specific mont

 all 

hly 

average temperature and true vapor pressure values using the above technique. 

Lb. VOC per 1,000 gallon 

merged 

Filling Method Base Emission Factor 

Balanced Sub 0.3 

Submerged 7.3 

Diesel Fuel Unloading 0.014 

No subtraction of emissions from point sources is necessary. 

Controls for this source category are reflected in the emission factors. 

Data for spatial allocation is not available for this source. 

Data for temporal allocation is not available for this source. 

nt for 

Alloca

Point Source 

Adjustments 

Adjustme

Controls 

Spatial and

Temporal 

tions 

Spatial 

Temporal 
33 

Emissions 

Calculation 

The equation for estimating emissions from tank truck unloading is: 

(Gi x Fi (fm) x EFfm) + (Gi x Fi (fm) x EFfm) Efj = 2000 x 365 Where: 

 Efj = Emissions of VOC in tons per day from tank truck unloading per county i 

 Gi = Gallons of gasoline sold in county i during 2002 

 Fi (fm) = Fraction of gasoline dispensed per county i per filling method (balanced 

submerged or submerged) during 2002 

 EFfm = Emission factor per filling method for tank truck unloading adjusted by RVP and 

temperature: 

 (0.3 lb. VOC/1000 gallon throughput or 7.3 lb. VOC/1000 gallon throughput ) 

Tank Truck Unloading Sample Calculation (Carroll County)

To calculate fuel usage for Carroll County: 

Filling Method 

Carroll County 

Adjusted Emission Factor 

Lb. VOC per 1,000 gallon 

Balanced Submerged 0.2453 

Submerged 5.9691 

Diesel Fuel Unloading 0.014 

Total fuel sold in Maryland in 200211 = 2,570,356,195 gallons 

Allocate gallons of fuel sold to the county level by the 2002 county vehicle registration 

proportion: 

Carroll County vehicle registration12 138,645 

Total MD vehicle registration = 4,100,225 = 0.0338 

2,570,356,195 x 0.0338 = 86,914,019.269 gallons sold in Carroll County 

 

11 Annual sales of gasoline from Maryland Comptroller of the Treasury, Gasoline Tax Division 12 State of Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration and MDE Mobile Sources Control Program. 
34 

 

[86,914,019.269 gallons of gasoline sold in Carroll County in 2002 x 91 percent13 filled by 

balanced submerged filling method x 0.2453 lbs.. VOC per 1000 gallons of gasoline14 ] + 

[86,914,019.269 gallons of gasoline sold in Carroll County in 2002 x 9 percent filled by 

submerged filling method x 5.9691 lbs.. VOC per 1000 gallons of gasoline15 ] = 66,093.07 lbs.. 

VOC emitted. 

Convert to tons per day: 

66,093.07 lbs. VOC / (365 days per year x 2000 lbs. per ton) = 0.09 tons VOC per day 

13 A rule effectiveness of 91% was determined from a study of Stage I compliance performed in Regions III and IV 

by the MDE/ARMA enforcement program in 1991. In the attainment counties outside of Regions III and IV, a 

default rule effectiveness of 80 % was used. 

14 Emission factor for balanced submerged filling from AP-42 Volume I, Table 5.2-7. 15 Emission factor for submerged filling from AP-42 Volume I, Table 5.2-7. 
35 

4.1.1.2 Stage II Refueling 

SCC: 25 01 060 100 

Description 

Emissions from Stage II refueling are substantially less than those from Stage I because gasoline 

vapors that ordinarily might have escaped during vehicle fueling are recirculated by a special 

nozzle back into the pump. The start year for Stage II refueling in all Maryland ozone 

nonattainment areas was 1993. Gasoline stations were required to have Stage II nozzles installed 

by November of that year. Calculations were based on the filling method used and gallons sold. 

Pollutants 

VOC 

Method and 

Data Sources 

EPA recommends that the MOBILE6 model be used to generate refueling (Stage II) emission 

factors for highway vehicle emission inventories (EPA, 1992b). The model, designed to support 

the evaluation of air pollution from gasoline- and diesel-fueled vehicles, generates emission 

factors for tailpipe emissions and refueling activities. A detailed discussion of using this model is 

available from EPA (EPA, 1994). 

Activity 

The MOBILE6 model produces estimates of refueling emissions in units of grams per 

mile. These values are multiplied by fuel economy (in units of miles per gallon) and total 

gasoline sales (in units of gallons purchased/sold) in the study area resulting in refueling 

emissions in terms of grams. It should be noted that MOBILE makes use of improved 

predictive equations to calculate refueling emission factors, including sensitivity to 

temperature and Reid vapor pressure (RVP), and these have not yet been incorporated into 

published AP-42 factors for refueling. Additionally, the user may provide information on 

local Stage II emission controls to develop an emission factor for controlled emissions. 

Refueling emissions have two mechanisms of introducing emissions to the environment: 

(1) vapor displacement from the vehicle fuel tank during refilling; and (2) gasoline spillage 

during refueling. The MOBILE user may request either a single emission factor that 

combines the two mechanisms or separate emission factors for displacement and spillage. 

Because both mechanisms should be taken into account when estimating refueling 

emissions, the preferred approach is to request the combined emission factor. 

Emission Factors 

ARMA mobile sources staff ran the MOBILE6 model to estimate the refueling emissions 

using the grams per mile (g/mile) methodology described above. The emission estimates 

were converted from grams to tons. 
36 

Point Source 

Adjustments 

No subtration of emissions from point sources is necessary. 

Adjustment for 

Controls 

Controls for this source category include Stage II Vapor Recovery Systems and Onboard 

Refueling Vapor Recovery (ORVR) systems. The controls are reflected in the emission 

estimates produced by the MOBILE6 model. 

Spatial and 

Temporal 

Allocations 

Spatial 

The MOBILE6 model uses user-supplied county-level gasoline sales data to spatially 

allocate emission estimates. 

Temporal 

Data for temporal allocation is not available for this source. 

Emissions 

Calculation 

The equation for estimating emissions from tank truck unloading is: 

(Gi x EFStII x MPG x SAF) EStII = 2000 x 365 Where: 

 EStII = emissions of VOC in tons per day from stage II refueling 

 Gi = gallons of gasoline sold in county i during 2002 

 EFStII = emission factor for stage II refueling from the MOBILE6 model (grams/mile) 

 MPG = average fuel economy (miles/gallon) 

 SAF = seasonal adjustment factor to reflect summer weekday emissions 

Stage II Refueling Sample Calculation 

Since all calculations are included in the MOBILE6 model output, a sample calculation is not 

available for this source category. 
37 

4.1.1.3 Underground Tank Breathing 

SCC: 25 01 060 201 

Description: 

Underground tank breathing occurs when gasoline is drawn out of the tanks and into the pump 

lines. During this process air moves into the tank evaporating gasoline and emitting vapors. 

Pollutants 

VOC 

Method and 

Data Sources: 

The method used to calculate emissions (all VOC), is presented in EIIP16, Chapter 11, Gasoline 

Marketing, which extracts the emission factors from AP-42, Volume I, Table 5.2-7. 

Activity 

The Maryland Comptroller of the Treasury, Gasoline Tax Division provided annual 

gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel sold. This data includes taxable and non-taxed gasoline 

purchased by the U.S. Government. State and local government sales are included in the 

taxable sales data. The statewide total of gallons of fuel sold was allocated to the county 

level proportional to the number of registered vehicles within the county. Vehicle 

registration data was collected from the Maryland Department of Transportation, Motor 

Vehicle Administration that supplied the data to MDE’s Mobile Sources Control Program. 

Diesel fuel powered vehicle totals were subtracted from the Maryland and county 

registration numbers. 

An activity level of 7 days per week was used. 

Activity Days per Year 365 

Emission Factors 

An emission factor of 1.0 lbs. VOC per 1000 gallons throughput was used. The emission 

factor was taken from EIIP, Chapter 11, Gasoline Marketing, which extracts the emission 

factors from AP-42, Volume I, Table 5.2-7. 

MDE used the same sources for gasoline sales and car registration as in tank truck 

unloading. 

 

16 Emission Inventory Improvement Program 
38 

Point Source 

Adjustments 

No subtration of emissions from point sources is necessary. 

Adjustment for 

Controls 

Controls for this source category are reflected in the emission factors. 

Spatial and 

Temporal 

Allocations 

Spatial 

Data for spatial allocation is not available for this source. 

Temporal 

Data for temporal allocation is not available for this source. 

Emissions 

Calculation 

The equation used to estimate emissions from underground tank breathing is: 

(Gi x EFutb) Eutb = 2000 x 365 Where: 

 Eutb = emissions of VOC in tons per day from underground tank breathing and 

emptying 

 Gi = gallons of gasoline sold in county i during 2002 

 EFutb = emission factor for underground tank breathing (1.0 lbs. VOC/1000 gallon 

throughput) 

Underground Tank Breathing Sample Calculation (Carroll County)

To calculate fuel usage for Carroll County: 

Total fuel sold in Maryland in 200217 = 2,570,356,195 gallons 

Allocate gallons of fuel sold to the county level by the 2002 county vehicle registration 

proportion: 

 

17 Annual sales of gasoline from Maryland Comptroller of the Treasury, Gasoline Tax Division 
39 

Carroll County vehicle registration18 138,645 

Total MD vehicle registration 

 

= 4,100,225 = 0.0338 

2,570,356,195 x 0.0338 = 86,914,019.269 gallons sold in Carroll County in 2002. 

22,376,721 = gallons of gasoline sold in Carroll County during the summer of 2002. 

[22,376,721 gallons of gasoline sold in Carroll County in 2002 x 0.000818 lbs. VOC per gallons 

of gasoline19 ] = 18,304.16 lbs. VOC emitted. 

Convert to tons per summer day: 18,304.16 / (92 days per year x 2000 lbs. per ton) = 0.0994 tons 

VOC per day emitted from underground tank breathing in Carroll County. 

 

 

18 State of Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration and MDE Mobile Sources Control Program. 

19 Emission factor from AP-42 Volume I, Table 5.2-7. 
40 

4.1.1.4 Gasoline Tank Trucks in Transit 

SCC: 25 05 030 120 

Description 

Breathing losses from tank trucks during the transport of gasoline are caused by leaking delivery 

trucks, pressure in the tanks, and thermal effects on the vapor and on the liquid. A worst case 

situation arises if a poorly sealed tank has been loaded with gasoline and pure air becomes 

saturated. During the vaporization process, pressure increases and venting occurs. Emissons 

from this source category include the evaporation of petroleum vapor from: 

• loaded tank trucks during transportation of gasoline from the bulk plant/terminal to the 

service station or other dispensing outlet, and 

• from empty tank trucks returning from service stations to bulk plant/terminals. 

Pollutants 

VOC 

Method and 

Data Sources 

The method used to calculate emissions (all VOC), is presented in EIIP20, Chapter 11, Gasoline 

Marketing (Stage I & Stage II), dated September 1997. 

Activity 

Emission Factors 

EPA documents the emission factors in AP-42, Table 5.2-5 and EIIP states the emission 

factors within the above-referenced document in Table 11.3-1. The AP-42 emission 

factors represent a typical range of values. EIIP averages the “typical range values” within 

AP-42 and arrives at average emission factor values of 0.055 and 0.005 lbs.. VOC per 1000-

gallon gasoline, respectively for emissions from empty tank trucks and emissions from full 

tank trucks. 

Emission Source EIIP Table 11-3.1 

Lb/1000 gallon 

“Average” 

AP-42 Table 5-2.5 

Lb/1000 gallon 

“Typical Range” 

Gasoline Tank Trucks in Transit 

Empty Tank Trucks 0.055 0 - 0.11 

Full Tank Trucks 0.005 0 - 0.01 

MDE used the same sources for gasoline sales and car registration as in tank truck unloading. 

MDE used the emission factors from EIIP, Volume I, Table 5.2-5, of 0.06 pounds VOC per 1000 

gallons throughput (combines 0.005 lb VOC /1000 gallon full tank truck delivery and 0.055 lb VOC 

 

20 Emission Inventory Improvement Program 
41 

/1000 gallon empty tank return). MDE also used a bulk facility throughput adjustment factor of 

1.25 and calculated throughput by a ratio of county retail sales and state retail sales times state 

fuel sales. MDE used the same sources for gasoline sales and car registration as in tank truck 

unloading. 

Emission Factors: 

Full tank truck delivery 0.005 lbs. VOC per 1000 gallons 

Empty tank truck return 0.055 lbs. VOC per 1000 gallons 

Combined (full & empty) 0.060 lbs. VOC per 1000 gallons 

Bulk Facility Throughput Adjustment Factor: 1.25 

Activity Days Per Year: 312 

Equation:

(Gi x 1.25 x EFtt) Ett = 2000 x 312 Where: 

 Ett = emissions of VOC in tons per day from tank trucks in transit 

 Gi = thousand gallons of fuel sold in county i 

 EFtt = Combined (full & empty) tank trucks in transit emission factor 

2002 Gasoline Tank Trucks in Transit Sample Calculation (Carroll County)

To calculate fuel usage for Carroll County: 

Total fuel sold in Maryland in 200221 = 2,570,356,195 gallons 

Allocate gallons of fuel sold to the county level by the 2002 county vehicle registration 

proportion: 

Carroll County vehicle registration22 138,645 

Total MD vehicle registration 

 

= 4,100,225 = 0.0338 

2,570,356,195 x 0.0338 = 86,914,019.269 gallons 

[86,914,019.269 gallons of gasoline sold in Carroll County in 2002 x 1.25 x 0.06 lbs. VOC per 

1000 gallons of gasoline23 ] = 6,518.55 lbs. VOC emitted. 

 

21 Annual sales of gasoline from Maryland Comptroller of the Treasury, Gasoline Tax Division 22 State of Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration and MDE Mobile Sources Control Program . 
42 

 

Convert to tons per day: 6,518.55 / (312 days per year x 2000 lbs. per ton) = 0.010446 tons VOC

per day emitted from tank trucks in transit in Carroll County. 

23 Emission factor from AP-42 Volume I, Table 5.2-7. 
43 

4.1.1.5 Aircraft Refueling 

SCC: 22 75 900 000 

Description 

Jet kerosene (used primarily by commercial turbojet and turboprop aircraft), jet naphtha (used 

primarily by military aircraft) and aviation gasoline (used by aviation reciprocating engines) are 

the three most common types of aircraft fuels used in the United States. Emissions occur when 

vapor-laden air in a partially empty fuel tank is displaced to the atmosphere when the tank is 

refilled. 

Pollutants 

VOC 

Method and 

Data Sources 

MDE staff apportioned state level fuel sales to aircraft activity as suggested in Procedures, 

Section 4.2.3. 

Activity 

MDE used selected data from the Department of Energy’s State Energy Data System, to 

obtain fuel consumption data. MDE used airport survey data and the Maryland Aviation 

Administration’s 2002 Operations Count for Public-Use Airports to obtain operational 

counts. A few airports, such as Andrews Air Force Base, provided their own operations 

count. 

Fuel Type Fuel Consumption 

(1,000 Barrels) 

Jet Kerosene 3,938.000 

Aviation Gasoline 38.877 

Jet Naphtha 39.380 

Emission Factors 

Emission factors, splash loading factor and physical properties of aviation fuel are taken 

from AP-42, Tables 5.2-1, 5.2-5, 7.1-2, and are summarized below. Note the relatively 

high emission factor for aviation gasoline which contributes to high emissions at airports 

with large amounts of general aviation (piston engine aircraft). 

Fuel Type Vapor Pressure 

(60 ° F) 

Molecular Weight 

(at 60 ° F) 

Jet Kerosene 0.0085 130 

Aviation Gasoline 6.9 62 

Jet Naphtha 1.3 80 

Splash loading saturation factor: 1.45 
44 

Units conversion factor 42 gals/barrel 

Activity days per period 365 days/year 

Study Temperature 520 deg. R (unit used in Procedures) 

Emission Factor Equation: 

Refueling EF = 12.46 x 

splash 

loading 

factor 

x 

true 

vapor 

pressure 

x 

molecular weight 

at the study 

temperature 

 Refueling EF (REi) 

Fuel Type (lbs. VOC/kgal)

Jet Kerosene 0.03839 

Aviation Gasoline 14.86358 

Jet Naphtha 3.61340 

Emission Estimate Equation:

CAI Si x SAi

X REi Ear = 

2000 x 365 

where: 

 Si = State aircraft fuel sales for fuel type i 

 CA i = County aircraft activity (LTO) for fuel type i 

 SA i = State aircraft activity (LTO) for fuel type i 

 RE i = Refueling emission factor for fuel type i 

 Ear = Emissions from aircraft refueling in tons VOC per day 

2002 Sample Calculation for Aircraft Refueling- General Aviation (Allegany County)

Maryland aviation gasoline fuel sales = 105,000 barrels24 = 1,632,826.86 gallons 

Allegany County General Aviation LTOs 7650.5 

Maryland general aviation LTOs = 723,256 = 0.010578 

Gallons of AvGas used Allegany = 1,632,826.86 x 0.010578 = 17,271.81 

Emissions-GA Refueling Allegany = 17,271.81 ÷ 1,000 x 14.8635825 = 256.721 lbs. VOC /year 

Emissions-GA Refueling Allegany = 256.721 ÷ (2000 x 365) = 0.0004 tons VOC /day 

 

24 From Department of Energy State Energy Data Report 

25 Emission factors, splash loading factor and physical properties of aviation fuel are taken from AP-42, Tables 5.2-

1, 5.2-5, 7.1-2, 
45 

4.1.1.6 Petroleum Vessel Unloading Losses 

SCC: 25 05 020 000 

Description 

Petroleum liquids are transported via ships and barges, and on-land transportation. The 

procedures discussed below relate to marine transport of petroleum liquids. This category does 

not include emissions from fuel consumed by vessels while in transit or in port. Evaporative 

VOC emissions from ocean going ships and barges carrying petroleum liquids result from 

loading losses, ballasting losses and transit losses. Petroleum liquids are classified into groups 

which are represented by crude oil, gasoline, jet naptha, distillate oil/kerosene, or residual oil. 

Loading and ballasting losses do not occur with pipeline transport of petroleum products (AP-42, 

Section 5.2). 

Loading losses occur as organic vapors in “empty” cargo tanks are displaced to the atmosphere 

by the liquid being loaded into the tanks. These vapors are a composite of vapors formed in three 

ways: 

 Vapors which are formed in the “empty” tank by evaporation of residual product from 

previous loads; 

 Vapors transferred to the tank from a vapor balance system that was used when the previous 

load was being unloaded; and 

 Vapors generated in the tank as the new product is being loaded. 

Loading losses are usually the largest source of evaporative emissions from petroleum vessels 

(EPA, 1996). 

Ballasting losses are associated with the unloading of petroleum liquids at marine terminals and 

refinery loading docks. It is common practice to load several cargo tank compartments with sea 

water after the cargo has been unloaded. This water, called “ballast,” improves the stability of the 

empty tanker during the subsequent voyage. Ballasting emissions occur as vapor-laden air in the 

empty cargo tank is displaced to the atmosphere by ballast water being pumped into the tank. 

Transit losses are similar to breathing losses associated with petroleum storage. Transit loss is 

the expulsion of vapor from a vessel compartment through vapor contraction and expansion, 

which are the result of changes in temperature and barometric pressure. This loss may be 

accompanied by slight changes in the level of the liquid in the tank due to liquid expansion or 

contraction due to the temperature change. Some ships are equipped with controls for these 

losses. 

Pollutants 

VOC 
46 

Method and 

Data Sources 

Activity 

The method used to calculate emissions (all VOC) is presented in EIIP26, Chapter 12, 

Marine Vessel Loading, Ballasting and Transit, dated May 1998. 

A significant part of the emissions from this source are from the Eastern Shore of 

Maryland because petroleum products are delivered to this area by barge rather than by 

pipeline as in the rest of the state. To compile emissions MDE used guidance in EIIP, 

Chapter 12, Marine Vessel Loading, Ballasting and Transit, Waterborne Commerce of the 

United States, Atlantic Region Freight Tables, Part 1, 1998, and AP-42, Table 7.1-2 and 

Section 5.2. Waterborne Commerce supplied tonnage and type of petroleum products 

delivered to the various ports in Maryland for the year 2001. Tonnages of petroleum 

delivered were converted into Kgal.s (1000 gallons) and then used to calculate emissions. 

 

Factors 

UNCONTROLLED VOC EMISSION FACTORS FOR PETROLEUM CARRYING 

MARINE VESSELS (EPA, 1996) 

Petroleum 

Liquid 

Ship/Ocean 

Vessel Loading 

(Lbs. VOC per 

1,000 gallons 

Transferred) 

Barge Loading 

(Lbs. VOC per 

1,000 gallons 

Transferred) 

Ballasting 

(Lbs. VOC per 

1,000 gallons 

Transferred) 

Transit 

(Lbs. VOC per 

1,000 gallons 

Transferred) 

Crude Oil 0.61 1 1.1 1.3 

Gasoline 1.8 3.4 0.8 2.7 

Jet Naphtha / 

Other 0.5 1.2 NA 0.7 

Distillate Oil / 

Kerosene 

0.005 0.012 NA 0.005 

Residual Oil 4 x 10 -5 9 x 10 –5 NA 3 x 10 -5

Data obtained from sources such as the Waterborne Commerce of the United States are typically 

provided in terms other than 1,000 gallons (Mgal) as is required in Equation 12.4-1 and must be 

converted. Equation 12.4-3 can be used to convert units from 1,000 ton (Mtons) to Mgal. 

where: 

 

26 Emission Inventory Improvement Program 
47 

PP V = (PP M / d) x ( 2,000 lb/ton) x ( Mgal/1,000 gallons) x ( 1,000 tons/Mtons) 

PP V = Amount of petroleum liquid (Mgal)

PP M = Amount of petroleum liquid (Mtons)

d = Density of petroleum liquid; see Table 7.1-2 in AP-42 (lb/gallon) 

Density27

(lb/gal) 

Distillate Oil 7.10 

Residual Oil 7.90 

Gasoline 5.60 

Kerosene 7.00 

Crude Oil 7.10 

Jet Naphtha 6.40 

If controls exist, then control efficiency can be calculated: 

PP C = PP U x (1 - CE/100) 

where: 

PP C = Controlled emissions (tons) 

PP U = Uncontrolled emissions (tons) 

CE = Control efficiency (%) 

Equation:

[(SOEFP x PPS,P) + (BREFP x PPB,P) + (BLEFP,U x 0.30 x PPBL,P) + (TREFP x PPT,P)] PVP = 2000 

Where: 

PVP : Total VOC emissions from petroleum vessel loading, ballasting, and transit 

for each of the petroleum liquids (p) transported: crude oil, gasoline, kerosene, 

distillate oil, and residual oil (tons) 

SOEFP: Ship/ocean vessel loading emission factor (pounds VOC per 1,000 gallons 

transferred) 

PPS,P: Amount of petroleum liquid (p) loaded into ships and ocean vessels in the 

inventory region (1,000 gallons) 

BREFP: Barge vessel loading emission factor (pounds VOC per 1,000 gallons 

transferred) 

PPB,P: Amount of petroleum liquid (p) loaded into barges in the inventory region 

(1,000 gallons) 

 

27 AP-42, Table 7.1-2 
48 

BLEFP,U : Ballasting emission factor (pounds VOC per 1,000 gallons water ballasted) 

PPBL,P: Amount of petroleum liquid (p) unloaded from vessels that are ballasted 

(1,000 gallons) 

TREFP : Vessel transit emission factor (pounds VOC per week per 1,000 gallons 

transferred) 

PPT,P: Amount of petroleum liquid (p) transported by marine vessels in the inventory 

region (1,000 gallons) 

2002 Petroleum Vessel Unloading Losses Sample Calculation (Gasoline - Baltimore City)

Gallons (in Thousands) of Petroleum Shipped in Baltimore Harbor 

Crude Oil Distillate 

Oil 

Gasoline Jet 

Naphtha 

Residual 

Oil 

Kerosene 

Baltimore 

Harbor 

0.00 1690.14 33214.29 625 56202.53 0.00 

Tonnage of distillate oil shipped in Baltimore Harbor (from Waterborne Commerce of the U.S., 

2001) were converted in thousands of gallons (Kgal.s) and then used to calculate emissions. 

Vessel Loading Emissions

For vessel loading operations, 90 percent of the total throughput was loaded at terminals with a 

control system of 95 percent efficiency. According to the local port authorities, transit time in the 

inventory area is two days (2/7 of a week). Emissions for each emission point are calculated 

using Equation 12.4-1 and the emission factors from Table 12.4-5. In this example, emissions for 

each emission point are calculated separately and then totaled. Note that CE is applied to vessel 

loading emissions, and transit emissions are apportioned to two days per week by multiplying 

emissions by 2/7. 

Vessel Loading (gasoline) emissions are calculated: 

PV GAS = [(1.8 lbs VOC/Kgal) x (31785.71 Kgal/yr) x {0.10 + [0.9 ( 1 – 95/100)]}÷ 2,000 lb/ton 

PV GAS = 4.1480 tons/year 

Barge Loading emissions are calculated: 

PV GAS = [(3.4 lbs VOC/Kgal) x ( 113928.57 Kgal/yr)] ÷ 2,000 lb/ton 

PV GAS = 193.6786 tons/year 

Ballasting emissions are calculated: 

PV GAS = [(0.8 lbs VOC/Kgal) x (477857.14 Kgal/yr) x ( 0.20)] ÷ 2,000 lbs/ton 

PV GAS = 38.2286 tons/year 
49 

Note that the calculation for ballasting emissions in the equation includes a correction term of 

0.20. This correction term reflects the practice of loading a ship or barge at some fraction of 

capacity when ballasting. 

Transit emissions are calculated: 

PV GAS = (2.7 lbs VOC/Kgal) x ( 1271071.43 Kgal/yr) x ( 2/7wk) ÷ 2,000 lbs/ton 

PV GAS = 490.2704 tons/year 

Total VOC emissions are calculated as follows: 

Total VOC = 4.1480 tons/year + 193.6786 tons/year + 38.2286 tons/year + 490.2704 tons/year 

Total VOC = 726.3256 tons/yr 

There are 260 activity days per year 

Total Daily VOC = (726.3256 tons/yr ÷ 260 days/yr = 2.7936 tons/day for Baltimore City. 

True vapor pressure of distillate oil at 60 deg. F: 0.0074 

 
50 

 

4.1.1.7 Portable Fuel Containers 

 SCC: 25 01 011 011 (Residential – Permeation) 

 25 01 011 012 (Residential – Diurnal) 

 25 01 011 016 (Residential – Transport) 

 25 01 012 011 (Commercial – Permeation) 

 25 01 012 012 (Commercial – Diurnal) 

 25 01 012 016 (Commercial – Transport) 

Description 

Portable fuel containers (PFCs) store and transport fuel from gasoline service stations to 

residential homes and businesses. Emissions from PFC use include: 

• Permeation Emissions, which are produced after fuel has been stored long enough in a 

can for fuel molecules to infiltrate and saturate the can material. 

• Diurnal Emissions, which result when stored fuel vapors escape to the outside of a gas 

can through any possible openings while the gas can is subjected to daily cycle of 

increasing and decreasing ambient temperatures. Diurnal emissions are dependent on the 

closed- or open-storage condition of a gas can. 

• Transport Emissions arise when fuel escapes (e.g., spills,etc.) from gas cans that are in 

transit. 

• Equipment Refueling Emissions results when fuel escapes (e.g., spillage, vapor 

displacement) during the refueling of nonroad equipment; however these emissions are 

handled by EPA’s NONROAD model. Activity data from the NONROAD model were 

used to estimate these emissions (described below). 

Both residential and commercial PFCs are included. The SCCs for PFCs are also new and are 

shown above. 

Pollutants 

VOC 

Method and 

Data Sources 

The method used to calculate emissions (all VOC), is adoped from a CARB28 survey and 

methodology adopted by OTC29. 

Portable fuel container emission are calculated by accounting for emissions from five different 

components related to gas container use: permeation, diurnal, transport-spillage, refueling 

spillage and refueling vapor displacement emissions. The permeation, diurnal emissions 

28 ARB’s Mailout MSC 99-25, “Public Meeting to Consider Approval of CA’s Portable Gasoline-Container 

Emissions Inventory, “ (ARB, 199b) 

29 Control Measure Development Suppoort Analysis of Ozone Trnasport Commission Model Rules, E.H. Pechan & 

Associates, Inc. 5528-B Hempstead Way, Springfield, VA 22151, March 31, 2001. 
51 

 

(associated with storage) and transport-spillage (associated with filling the can) emissions are 

included in the area source inventory. The equipment refueling spillage and refueling vapor 

displacement emissions are calculated from the non-road model and are included in the non-road 

inventory 

Activity 

The following input data is required to calculate emissions for this source category. 

1. Number of residential housing units in 2002 by county, N 

2. Number of commercial businesses30 2002 expected to have at least one gas can by county, 

NAICS 11, 23, 31-33, 441, 45299, 447, 484, 488, 493, 53131, 5321, 532291, 5323, 5324, 

54132, 54162, 54169, 56173, 71391, 71393, 7212, 811, 81293 

3. Weekly activity, WAF = 7 days/week 

4. Seasonal adjustment factors, SAF = 1 

Emission Factors 

Separate emission factors were developed for permeation, diurnal, transport and spillage 

emissions for PFC (both for commercial and residential PFCs). These emission factors 

were derived from CARB’s survey data (CARB, 1999). 

Point Source 

Adjustments 

Because the application of architectural surface coating is defined as an area source, there is no 

need to subtract point source emissions from the total, and all emissions estimated for this source 

are area source emissions. 

Adjustment for 

Controls 

No controls are available for this source category. 

Spatial and 

Temporal 

Allocations 

Spatial 

For the residential PFC SCCs, emissions were allocated to the local area level based on a 

housing surrogate. Commercial PFC emissions were allocated to the local area level based 

on commercial and industrial business location. 

Temporal 

For the residential PFC SCCs, the emissions were allocated based on the monthly and 

weekday/weekend day temporal profiles for residential lawn and garden equipment in the 

30 Total 2002 employment and business establishments by 6 digit NAICS code and by county, County Business 

Patterns 
52 

NONROAD model. For the commercial PFC SCCs, these emissions were allocated based 

on temporal profiles for the NONROAD model engines used in commercial applications. 

Emissions 

Calculation 

The equation used to estimate emissions from portable fuel containers is: 

Equation: 

The residential-gas-can population is calculated as follows: 

 

 PopR = (N)*(A)*(CountR) (Eq. 1) 

where: PopR = Statewide Residential-Gas-Can Population 

 N = Number of Occupied-Housing Units in OTC State 

 A = Percentage of Households with Gas Cans (46%) 

 CountR = Average Number of Residential-Gas Cans per Household 

Statewide residential-gas-can-permeation emissions are computed as follows: 

 HCPR = Σ (PopR)*(S)*(EFP)*(BR)*(SizeR)*(Level)/CF (Eq. 2) 

where: HCPR = Permeation Emissions in tons per day (tpd) 

 PopR = Statewide Residential-Gas-Can Population 

 EFP = Appropriate Permeation-Emission Factor (g/gal-day) 

 S = Percentage of Gas Cans Stored with Fuel (70%) 

BR = Percentage of Cans Stored in Closed Condition with respect to 

Material (Plastic 53%; Metal 13%) 

 SizeR = Weighted Average Capacity of Residential-Gas Cans (2.34 gal.) 

 Level = Weighted Average Amount of Stored Fuel (49%) 

 CF = 908,105 g/ton 

Diurnal emissions from both open- and closed-system-residential-gas cans are calculated as 

follows: 

 HCDR = (PopR)*(S)*(EFD)*(BR)*(SizeR)*(Level) (Eq. 3) 

where: HCDR = Diurnal Emissions (tpd) for Residential-Gas Cans with respect to 

Storage Condition (Open or Closed) and Material (Plastic or 

Metal) 

 PopR = Statewide Residential-Gas-Can Population 

S = Percentage of Gas-Can Population Stored with Fuel (70%) 

 EFD = Appropriate Diurnal-Emission Factor with respect to Storage 

Condition and Material (g/gal-day or g/day) 
53 

 BR = Percentage of Gas-Can Population with respect to Storage 

Condition and Material 

 SizeR = Weighted Average Capacity of Residential-Gas Cans (2.34 gal.) 

Level = Weighted Average Amount of Stored Fuel (49%) 

 CF = 908,105 g/ton 

 

Residential-transport-spillage emissions are determined as: 

 HCTR = (PopR)*(S)*(RefillR)*(EFT)*(BR) (Eq. 4) 

where: HCTR = Residential-Gas-Can-Transport-Spillage Emissions (tpd) 

 PopR = Statewide Residential-Gas-Can Population 

S = Percentage of Gas Cans Stored with Fuel (70%) 

 RefillR = Average Number of Residential-Gas-Cans-Pump-Refills per Day 

per Can (refill/day from survey) 

 EFT = Transport-Emission Factor with respect to Storage Condition 

(g/refill) 

 BR = Percentage of Gas Cans with respect to Storage Condition and 

Material 

 CF = 908,105 g/ton 

 

The commercial-gas-can population is calculated as follows: 

 

 PopC = (NC )*( CountC) (Eq. 5) 

where: PopC = Statewide Commercial-Gas-Can Population 

 NC = Number of Occupied Businesses in State 

 CountC = Average Number of Gas Cans per Business 

Statewide commercial-gas-can-permeation emissions are computed as follows: 

 HCPC = Σ (PopC)*(S)*(EFP)*(BC)*(SizeC)*(Level) (Eq. 6) 

where: HCPC = Permeation Emissions (tpd) 

 PopC = Statewide Commercial-Gas-Can Population 

 EFP = Appropriate Permeation-Emission Factor (g/gal-day) 

S = Percentage of Gas Cans Stored with Fuel (70% for Residential 

Survey) 

 BC = Percentage of Applicable Gas Cans Stored in Closed Condition 

 SizeC = Weighted Average Capacity of Commercial-Gas Cans (3.43 gal) 

Level = Weighted Average Amount of Stored Fuel (49% from Residential 

Survey) 

 CF = 908,105 g/ton 
54 

)

The amount of diurnal emissions from both open- and closed-system commercial-gas cans is 

calculated as follows: 

 HCDC = (PopC)*(S)*(EFD)*(BC)*(SizeC)*(Level) (Eq. 7) 

where: HCDC = Diurnal Emissions (tpd) for Commercial-Gas Cans with respect to 

Storage Condition (Open or Closed) and Material (Plastic or 

Metal) 

 PopC = Statewide Commercial-Gas-Can Population 

 EFD = Appropriate Diurnal-Emission Factor with respect to Storage 

Condition and Material (g/gal-day or g/day) 

S = Percentage of Gas Cans Stored with Fuel (70% from Residential 

Survey) 

 BC = Percentage of Gas Cans with respect to Storage Condition and 

Material 

 SizeC = Weighted Average Capacity of Commercial-Gas Cans (3.43 gal.) 

Level = Weighted Average Amount of Stored Fuel (49% from Residential 

Survey) 

 CF = 908,105 g/ton 

The non-lawn-and-garden-equipment commercial-gas-can refills at the pump is derived as 

follows: 

( )

( )( )( ⎥

⎥

⎦

⎤

⎢

⎢

⎣

⎡

= ∑

SIZE POP S

Fuel

REFILL

C NON

C * * (Eq. 8) 

where: RefillC = Average Number of Non-Lawn-and-Garden Equipment 

Commercial-Gas-Cans Pump Refills per Day per Can (refill/day) 

 Fuel = Non-Lawn-and-Garden Equipment Fuel Consumption (gal/day) for 

2000 

 SizeC = Weighted Average Capacity of Commercial-Gas Cans (3.43 

gal/can-refill) 

 POPNON = Statewide Commercial-Gas-Can Population with respect to NonLawn-and-Garden Businesses 

S = Percentage of Gas Cans Stored with Fuel (70% from Residential 

Survey) 

 CF = 908,105 g/ton 

The commercial-transport-spillage emissions are determined as: 

 HCTC = (PopC)*(S)*(BC)*(RefillC)*(EFTC) (Eq. 9) 

where: HCTC = Commercial-Gas-Can-Transport-Spillage Emissions (tpd) 
55 

 PopC = Statewide Commercial-Gas-Can Population 

S = Percentage of Gas Cans Stored with Fuel (70% from Residential 

Survey) 

 BC = Percentage of Gas Cans with respect to Storage Condition and 

Material 

 RefillC = Average Number of Gas-Cans Pump Refills per 

 Day per Can 

 EFTC = Transport-Spillage Emission Factor (g/refill) with respect to 

Storage Condition 

 CF = 908,105 g/ton 

The total area source portable fuel container emissions are summed as follows: 

EPFC - A = HCPR+HCDR+HCTR+HCPC+HCDC+HCTC

EPFC - SD = EPFC - A *SAF//ADDF 

Where: 

EPFC - A = (tons/yr) for an annual emission of pollutant by county 

EPFC - SD = (tons/day) for a typical summer day emission of pollutant 

AADF = Annual activity day factor (WAF * 52 weeks/year) 

SAF = Seasonal adjustment factor 

 
56 

4.1.2 STATIONARY SOURCE SOLVENT APPLICATION 

4.1.2.1 Dry Cleaners 

SCC: 24 20 000 000 

Since perchloroethylene has been removed from the EPA list of reactive VOCs, it has been 

removed from the inventory total. Table 4.3-3 in Procedures lists three compounds under 

halogenated solvents for dry cleaning: 1,1,1 trichloroethane, trifluorotrichloroethane and 

perchloroethylene. None of these solvents is on the VOC list. The latest Emission Inventory 

Improvement Program guidance on dry cleaning (Vol. III, Chapter 4, Dry Cleaning Final 

Report, May 2002), also states that the synthetic solvents used in dry cleaning are not 

photochemically reactive and should not be included in a VOC inventory of ozone precursors. 

Therefore this category has been eliminated from the 2002 periodic inventory. 

4.1.2.2 Surface Cleaning (Cold Cleaning Degreasing) 

SCC: 24 15 300 000 

Description 

Cold cleaning is seen primarily at auto repair stations or manufacturing facilities, where solvents 

at room temperature (or slightly warmed) are used to clean parts via immersion or rinsing. 

Cold cleaners are usually individually small emission sources and, because they are widely 

scattered and frequently used, they are most easily treated as area sources. If they are collocated 

at a major source, they may be included in the point source inventory and those emissions will 

need to be subtracted from the area source estimate. 

There are two basic types of cleaning machines: batch and in-line cleaning machines (also called 

continuous cleaning machines). Both of these equipment types are designed to use solvent to 

clean parts. The solvent is either used to clean in its non-vapor liquid form (at a temperature 

below the boiling point, referred to as cold cleaning), or heated to a temperature above its boiling 

point (referred to as vapor cleaning). Other solvent cleaning operations involve the use of solvent 

in wipe-cleaning and equipment cleanup. Emissions from solvent cleaning machines can also be 

considered to be point sources; therefore, the estimation process for the source category must 

take this into account to prevent double counting of emissions. Additionally, emissions from 

solvent cleanup may be included as a part of an industry- or process-specific emission estimate. 

Pollutants 

VOC 
57 

Method and 

Data Source 

MDE staff used an alternative per capita emission estimation method documented in EIIP31, 

Chapter 6, Solvent Cleaning, dated September 1997. 

Activity 

The U.S. Census Bureau reports population statistics for the counties of Maryland. 

Population statistics for 2002 for the counties of Maryland were collected from the U.S. 

Census Bureau Internet address (http://www.census.gov). 

An activity level of 6 days a week with no seasonal adjustment factor was used as 

recommended in the EIIP document. Solvent storage and recycling centers such as Safety 

Kleen are included in the point source inventory. The U.S. Census Bureau reports 

population statistics for the counties of Maryland. Population statistics for 2002 for the 

counties of Maryland were collected from the U.S. Census Bureau Internet address 

(http://www.census.gov). A 2002 reduction factor (Phase II Attainment Plan for the 

Baltimore Nonattainment Area and Cecil County) of 53.60% was applied to the calculated 

emissions. This factor combines reductions from technology rules and good housekeeping 

practices and the application of rule effectiveness as shown below: 

Reduction factor = (control efficiency) x (rule effectiveness) x (rule penetration) 

Reduction factor = 0.67 x 0.80 x 1.00 

Reduction factor = 0.5360 

Emission Factor 

Table 6.5-4 of the EIIP document lists a total emission factor of 4.3 lbs. VOC per capita 

per year for solvent cleaning operations. The emission factor is a composed of a total from 

four categories; including automobile repair (2.5 lbs. VOC per capita), manufacturing (1.1 

lbs. VOC per capita), electronics and electrical (0.21 lbs. VOC per capita), and other (0.49 lbs. 

VOC per capita). 

Factors

Ecc = 4.3 lbs VOC per capita per year for cold cleaning degreasers 

CEcc = 67% 

REcc = 80% 

RPcc = 100% 

Note:

 

31 Emission Inventory Improvement Program 
58 

Emissions from this source category have increased because of a change in the emission factor 

and emission estimation methodology. In previous emission inventories, only cold cleaning 

degreasing operations were considered an area source and open top and conveyor degreasing 

operations were considered point sources that were listed in the MDE/ARMA registration files. 

No point source emissions were then subtracted from the area source inventory. MDE 

previously used an emission factor from AP-42, Section 4.6 – Solvent Degreasing, Table 4.6-132. 

This table reports a 4.0 lbs. VOC per capita emission factor that includes 25 percent non-reactive 

VOCs, yielding an effective emission factor of 3.0 lbs. VOC per capita. A 1996 reduction factor 

of 0.70 was applied to the calculated emissions (rule effectiveness was not applied). This factor 

combines reductions from technology rules and good housekeeping practices. In effect, MDE 

increased the emission factor from 3.0 to 4.3. 

Point Source 

Adjustments 

Solvent cleaning emissions from facilities identified as point sources were subtracted from the 

area source inventory to avoid double counting. 

Adjustment for 

Controls 

Maryland has adopted a cold and vapor degreasing regulation (COMAR 26.11.19.09). The 

regulation mandates that all cold degreasing material must have a vapor pressure less than or 

equal to 1 mm Hg at 20 degrees centigrade after May 15, 1996. The regulation also requires that 

good operating practices be implemented to minimize VOC losses. MDE estimates a 67 percent 

control efficiency for this control. 

Spatial and 

Temporal 

Allocations 

Spatial 

Data for spatial allocation is not available for this source. 

Temporal 

Data for temporal allocation is not available for this source. 

Emissions 

Calculation 

The equation used to estimate emissions from cold cleaning/degreasing is: 

 

32 Nonmethane VOC Emissions from small cold cleaning degreasing operations 
59 

Equation:

[ ] CC CC CC PtSourceCC

ccj

CC ERPRECE EFPOP E −

⎭

⎬

⎫

⎩

⎨

⎧ = − )**(1* 312*2000

*

Where: 

 Ecc = Emissions of VOC in tons/day from cold cleaners 

 POPj = 2002 population of county j 

 EFcc = VOC emissions factor for cold cleaning degreasing 

 CEcc = Control efficiency for cold cleaning degreasing 

 REcc = Rule Effectiveness for cold cleaning degreasing 

 RPcc = Rule Penetration for cold cleaning degreasing 

E PtSourceCC = Point Source Emissions from cold cleaning degreasing 

2002 Sample Calculation for Cold Cleaning Degreasing (Anne Arundel County)

(503,38833 people x 4.3 lb/capita/year)/(2000 lbs./ton x 312 operating days/year) = 3.469 

tons/day. 

503,388 x 4.3 lbs. VOC/ person/year34 = 2,164,568 lbs. per person VOC emitted. 

Converting to tons per day: 2,164,568 / (312 operating days per year35 x 2000 pounds per ton) = 

3.469tons VOC per day emitted (there is no seasonal adjustment36). 

To adjust for controls 

3.469 x [1 – (0.67 x 0.80 x 1.00)] = 1.610 tons VOC / day emitted with 2002 controls applied 

To adjust for point sources 

1.610 tons VOC / day – 0.076 tons VOC / day = 1.534 tons VOC / day 

 

33 Population data from the U.S. Bureau of Census, Population Estimates Branch 

34 Emission factor from EIIP 

35 6 days per week operation from EIIP 

36 No seasonal adjustment from EIIP 
60 

3.3.2.3 Surface Coating

Surface coating includes paints, enamels, varnishes, lacquers and other product finishes. Some 

of those coatings contain a solvent-based liquid carrier; others use a water-based liquid carrier 

but still contain a small portion of solvents. Solvents are also used to clean up painting 

equipment. The primary types of surface coating applications are architectural coatings, 

automobile refinishing and traffic paints. 

4.1.2.3 Architectural Surface Coating 

SCC: 24 01 001 000 

Description 

Architectural surface coating is an area source that occurs from homeowners and contractors 

painting homes, buildings and signs. 

Pollutants 

VOC 

Method and 

Data Sources 

MDE staff used an alternative per capita emission estimation method documented in EIIP37, 

Chapter 3, Architectural Surface Coating, dated November 1995. The document provides an 

outline for developing a per capita usage factor, and for using that usage factor and an emission 

factor to calculated a VOC emission estimate. 

Activity 

Determine the per capita usage factor by dividing the national total architectural surface 

coating quantities38 for solvent- and water-based coatings by the U.S. population39 for that 

year. 

Per Capita Usage Factor Development

The table below shows a portion of Table 2 from the U.S. Bureau of Census MA28F - 

Paint and Allied Products. This section of the table summarizes the market information 

available on architectural coatings for the year of 2002. In the table, types of paints are 

identified as being either solvent- or water-based paints, except for the two types listed as 

Architectural Lacquers and Architectural Coatings N.S.K. These latter types of paints can 

be assumed to be entirely solvent-based coatings. The calculation to obtain the number of 

gallons of solvent based paints totals the gallons for Exterior Solvent Type, Interior 

Solvent Type, Architectural Lacquers and Architectural Coatings N.S.K: 

 

37 Emission Inventory Improvement Program 

38 Total national coating usage is compiled by the Bureau of the Census, Report MA28F—Paint and Allied Products, 

available on the Census Bureau Bulletin Board, (301)457-2310. 

39 Population data from the U.S. Bureau of the Census, Population Estimates Branch . 
61 

Solvent-Based Paints = 70,967 + 48,947 + 5,808 + 1,981 

 = 127,703 thousand gallons of paints 

The calculation to obtain the number of gallons of water based paints totals the gallons for 

Exterior Water Type and Interior Water Type: 

Water-Based Paints = 182,423 + 407,104 

 = 589,527 thousand gallons of paints 

The per capita usage factor is calculated by dividing the total usage of solvent based paints by 

the U.S. population, and the total usage of water based paint by the U.S. population. 

Gallons of Solvent Based Paints Per Capita Solvent Based Usage Factor = U. S. Population 

127,703,000 

= 288,368,698 

= 0.442846 

Gallons of Water Based Paints Per Capita Water Based Usage Factor = U. S. Population 

589,527,000 

= 288,368,698 

= 2.044352 
62 

Table 2. Quantity and Value of Shipments of Paint and Allied Products: 2002 

Product 

code Product description 2002 Quantity 

 

325510 Paint and allied products 1/ 1,448,755 

3255101 Architectural coatings 717,230 

 Exterior solvent-type 70,967 

3255101111 Solvent thinned paints and tinting bases, including barn 

 and roof paints 19,874 

3255101115 Solvent thinned enamels and tinting bases, including 

 exterior-interior floor enamels 11,444 

3255101119 Solvent thinned undercoaters and primers 9,184 

3255101121 Solvent thinned clear finishes and sealers 5,701 

3255101125 Solvent thinned stains, including shingle and shake 14,665 

3255101129 Other exterior solvent thinned coatings, including 

 bituminous paints 10,099 

 Exterior water-type 182,423 

3255101131 Water thinned paints and tinting bases, including barn 

 and roof paints 118,492 

3255101135 Water thinned exterior-interior deck and floor enamels 4,186 

3255101139 Water thinned undercoaters and primers 13,786 

3255101141 Water thinned stains and sealers 16,773 

3255101145 Other exterior water thinned coatings 29,186 

 Interior solvent-type 48,947 

3255101211 Flat solvent thinned wall paint and tinting bases, including 

 mill white paints 6,288 

3255101215 Gloss and quick drying enamels and other gloss solvent 

 thinned paints and enamels 4,164 

3255101219 Semigloss, eggshell, satin solvent thinned paints and 

 tinting bases 9,674 

3255101221 Solvent thinned undercoaters and primers 11,602 

3255101225 Solvent thinned clear finishes and sealers 7,429 

3255101229 Solvent thinned stains 1,892 

3255101231 Other interior solvent thinned coatings 7,898 

 Interior water-type 407,104 

3255101235 Flat water thinned paints and tinting bases 162,810 

3255101239 Semigloss, eggshell, satin, and other water thinned paints 

 and tinting bases 164,419 

3255101241 Water thinned undercoaters and primers 43,051 

3255101245 Other interior water thinned coatings, stains, and sealers 36,824 

3255101249 Architectural lacquers 5,808 

3255101YWV Architectural coatings, n.s.k. 1,981 

3255104 Product finishes for original equipment manufacturers (OEM), 

 excluding marine coatings 414,943 

3255104111 Automobile, light truck, van, and sport utility vehicle finishes 47,994 
63 

3255104121 Automobile parts finishes 5,636 

3255104131 Heavy duty truck, bus, and recreational vehicle finishes 12,481 

3255104141 Other transportation equipment finishes, including aircraft 

 and railroad 11,558 

3255104211 Appliance, heating equipment, and air-conditioner finishes 7,329 

3255104215 Wood furniture, cabinet, and fixture finishes 43,725 

3255104219 Wood and composition board flat stock finishes 10,060 

3255104221 Metal building product finishes (including coatings for 

 aluminum extrusions and siding) 35,855 

3255104225 Container and closure finishes 43,393 

3255104229 Machinery and equipment finishes, including road building 

 equipment and farm implement 18,865 

3255104231 Nonwood furniture and fixture finishes, including business 38,842 

 equipment finishes 

3255104235 Paper, paper board, film, and foil finishes, excluding pigment 14,241 

 binders 4,447 

3255104239 Electrical insulating coatings 77,567 

3255104241 Appliance powder coatings 2/ 11,889 

3255104245 Automotive powder coatings 2/ 8,903 

3255104249 Architectural powder coatings (such as aluminum 

 extrusions) 2/ 2,062 

3255104251 Lawn and garden powder coatings 2/ 2,434 

3255104255 General metal finishing powder coatings 2/ 22,203 

3255104259 Thermoset functional powder coatings (for pipe, rebar, 

 electrical insulation, etc.) 2/ (D)

3255104261 Thermoplastic powder coatings (all) 2/ (D)

3255104265 Other industrial product finishes 38,485 

3255104YWV Product finishes for original equipment manufacturers (OEM), 

 excluding marine coatings, n.s.k. 4,465 

3255107 Special purpose coatings, including all marine coatings 174,114 

 Industrial new construction and maintenance paints 

 (especially formulated coatings for special conditions of 

 industrial plants and/or facilities requiring protection against 

 extreme temperatures, funge, chemicals, fumes, etc.): 

3255107011 Interior 23,370 

3255107015 Exterior 34,207 

3255107021 Traffic marking paints (all types; shelf goods and highway 

 department) 39,397 

3255107031 Automotive, other transportation and machinery refinish 

 paints and enamels, including primers 45,979 

3255107041 Marine paints, ship and off-shore facilities and shelf goods for 

 both new construction and marine refinish and 

 maintenance. Excludes spar varnish 13,565 

3255107051 Marine paints for yacht and pleasure craft, new construction, 

 refinish and maintenance (D)

3255107061 Aerosol - Paint concentrates produced for packaging in 
64 

 aerosol containers (D)

3255107YWV Special purpose coatings, n.s.k. 4,233 

325510A Miscellaneous allied paint products 142,468 

325510A011 Paint and varnish removers 6,433 

325510A021 Thinners for lacquers and other solvent based paint products 31,386 

325510A031 Pigment dispersions 25,151 

325510A041 Other miscellaneous allied paint products, including brush 

 cleaners, ink vehicles, putty and glazing compounds, etc. 78,512 

325510AYWV Miscellaneous allied paint products, n.s.k. 986 

Total Solvent-Based 127,703 

Total Water-Based 589,527 

Emission Factor 

Use the emission factors for architectural surface coatings (EPA, 1993A), that are shown 

in Table 5-2 of the EIIP document and reproduced below: 

Coating Type VOC Content 

Lbs / gallon 

Water-based 0.74 

Solvent-based 3.87 

Total 4.61 

This activity occurs 7 days a week and is usually more common in the summer months as 

indicated by a seasonal adjustment factor of 1.3 (see Table 5.8-1 in Procedures). It should 

be noted that 99% of solvents in these coatings are VOC. 

Point Source 

Adjustments 

Because the application of architectural surface coating is defined as an area source, there is no 

need to subtract point source emissions from the total, and all emissions estimated for this source 

are area source emissions. 

Adjustment for 

Controls 

EPA surface coating regulation provides a 20 percent reduction. 

Spatial and 

Temporal 

Allocations 

Spatial 

Data for spatial allocation is not available for this source. 
65 

Temporal 

Data for temporal allocation is not available for this source. 

Emissions 

Calculation 

The equation used to estimate emissions from architectural surface coatings is: 

Equation to calculate solvent-based emissions is:

POPi x UF ASC - SB x EF ASC - SB x SAF ASC x [(1 – (CE ASC x RE ASC x RP ASC )] E ASC – SB = 2000 x 365 

Where: 

E ASC – SB = VOC emissions in tons per day from solvent-based architectural surface coatings 

POPi = 2002 population of county i 

UF ASC – SB = Usage factor for solvent-based architectural surface coatings 

EF ASC – SB = VOC emission factor for solvent-based architectural surface coatings 

SAF ASC = Seasonal adjustment factor for architectural surface coatings 

CE ASC = Control efficiency40 for architectural surface coatings 

RE ASC = Rule effectiveness41 for architectural surface coatings 

RP ASC = Rule penetration for architectural surface coatings 

Equation to calculate water-based emissions is:

POPi x UF ASC - WB x EF ASC - WB x SAF ASC x [(1 – (CE ASC x RE ASC x RP ASC )] E ASC – WB = 2000 x 365 

Where: 

E ASC – WB = VOC emissions in tons per day from water-based architectural surface coatings 

POPi = 2002 population of county i 

UF ASC – WB = Usage factor for water-based architectural surface coatings 

EF ASC – WB = VOC emission factor for water-based architectural surface coatings 

SAF ASC = Seasonal adjustment factor for architectural surface coatings 

CE ASC = Control efficiency for architectural surface coatings 

RE ASC = Rule effectiveness for architectural surface coatings 

RP ASC = Rule penetration for architectural surface coatings 

 

40 A 20% reduction in emissions is due to EPA’s AIM regulation 

41 EPA’s AIM regulation is a federal rule applying to architectural surface coatings 
66 

2002 Example Calculation Architectural Surface Coating (Anne Arundel County)

Solvent-Based

503,3881

 x 0.442846 gal/capita x 3.87 lbs. VOC/gal/year2 = 862,713.4 lbs. VOC per person per yr 

To adjust for controls 

862,713.4 x [1 – (0.20 x 1.00 x 1.00)] = 690170.7 lbs. VOC / year with 2002 controls 

Converting to tons per day: 

690,170.7 / (365 days per year x 2000 lbs. per ton) = 0.945439 tons VOC per average day 

To seasonally adjust: 

0.945439 x 1.33

 = 1.229 tons VOC per ozone season day emitted from solvent-based architectural 

surface coating 

Water-Based

503,3881

 x 2.044352 gal/capita x 0.74 lbs. VOC/gal/year2 = 761,535.7 lbs. VOC per person per yr 

To adjust for controls 

761,535.7 x [1 – (0.20 x 1.00 x 1.00)] = 609,228.6 lbs. VOC / year with controls applied 

Converting to tons per day: 

609,228.6 / (365 days per year x 2000 lbs. per ton) = 0.83456 tons VOC per average day 

To seasonally adjust: 

0.83456 x 1.33

 = 1.085 tons VOC per ozone season day emitted from water-based architectural 

surface coating 

 
67 

4.1.2.4 Auto Refinishing 

SCC: 24 01 005 000 

Description 

Automobile refinishing is the repainting of worn or damaged automobiles, light trucks and other 

vehicles. Coating of new cars is not included in this category but falls under industrial coating. 

In automobile refinishing, lacquers and enamels are usually applied with hand-operated spray 

guns. Because the vehicles contain heat-sensitive plastics and rubber, the coatings are dried or 

cured in low-temperature ovens or at ambient conditions. MDE adopted a regulation based upon 

federal guidance that requires the use of reformulated coatings and equipment with greater 

transfer efficiency in the application of coatings. 

Pollutants 

VOC 

Method and 

Data Sources 

MDE staff used an alternative per employee emission estimation methodology documented in 

EIIP42, Chapter 13, Auto Body Refinishing, dated January 2000. The document provides an 

outline for developing a per employee emission factor using a national VOC emission estimate 

and national employment data. 

Activity 

MDE calculated an emission factor of 0.3858 tons VOC per employee per year by utilizing 

the national VOC emission estimate found in the EIIP document (79,429.39 tons) and 

totaling all of the reported state employment totals within SIC 7532 for the entire U. S. 

The national VOC emission estimate of 79,429.39 tons per year has been developed using 

1997 activity and 1998 and 1999 emission rate information and are thus controlled 

emissions. An EPA memo on auto body refinishing allows a 37% reduction for the federal 

rule. Maryland’s auto body regulation is more stringent than the national rule, which 

allowed MDE to take an additional 8% reduction. 

County Business Patterns lists employee data by Standard Industry Code (SIC). Many 

values are based on actual data. However, some county SICs list a range for the number of 

employees through a letter code. In this case the arithmetic average number of employees 

per letter code per county was adjusted so that the state total employment in a SIC matched 

the sum of the number of employees reported per county. 

 

42 Emission Inventory Improvement Program 
68 

The autobody refinishing category does not include new car coating. Applicable point 

source emissions (those within the same SIC) taken from the MDE/ARMA registration 

files have been subtracted from the calculated emissions, and their emissions are separated 

from the totals presented below. Table 5.8-1 in Procedures shows that there is no seasonal 

variation in this category and the activity level is 5 days a week. 

Emission Factor: 

MDE calculated an emission factor of 0.3858 tons VOC per employee per year by utilizing 

the national VOC emission estimate found in the EIIP document (79,429.39 tons) and 

totaling all of the reported state employment totals within SIC 7532 for the entire U. S. 

0.3858 tons VOC per employee per year 

Point Source 

Adjustments 

Autobody refinishing emissions from facilities identified as point sources were subtracted from 

the area source inventory to avoid double counting. 

Adjustment for 

Controls 

The national VOC emission estimate of 79,429.39 tons per year has been developed using 1997 

activity and 1998 and 1999 emission rate information and are thus controlled emissions. An 

EPA memo on auto body refinishing allows a 37% reduction for the federal rule. Maryland’s 

auto body regulation is more stringent than the national rule, which allowed MDE to take an 

additional 8% reduction. 

Spatial and 

Temporal 

Allocations 

Spatial 

Data for spatial allocation is not available for this source. 

Temporal 

Data for temporal allocation is not available for this source. 

Emissions 

Calculation 

The equation used to estimate emissions from automobile refinishing is: 

EMP J x EF AR x [ 1- (RE x RP x CE)] E AR = 260 - E Point Source AR 
69 

Where: 

 E AR = VOC emissions in tons per day from auto refinishing 

 EMP J = Number of employees in county j for SIC 7532 (auto refinishing), from 

County Business Patterns 

 EF AR = VOC emission factor for auto refinishing 

E Point Source AR = Point source emissions from auto body refinishing 

2002 Example Calculation Auto Refinishing (Baltimore County)

59443 x 0.385844 x [ 1- (1.0 x 1.0 x .08)] E AR = 260 - 0.00 

210.832 E AR = 260 - 0.00 

E AR = 0.811 Tons VOC / day 

 

43 Employee data from County Business Patterns - Maryland 

44 Emission factor from EIIP Chapter 13 – Auto Body Refinishing 
70 

4.1.2.5 Traffic Markings 

SCC: 24 01 008 000 - Traffic paints 

SCC: 24 01 008 999 - Traffic paint solvents 

Description 

Traffic paints are used to mark pavement, the majority of which is used to create dividing lines 

for traffic lanes. These markings are applied by state or local highway maintenance crews or by 

contractors. VOC emissions result from the evaporation of organic solvents during and shortly 

after the application of the marking paint. All traffic paint emissions are included in the area 

source inventory. 

Pollutants 

VOC 

Method and 

Data Sources 

MDE staff were not able to utilize EPA's recommended "pounds per lane-mile painted" emission 

factor due to the fact that several jurisdictions did not keep records on lane-miles painted. Instead 

MDE surveyed agencies for gallons of paint used and the VOC content of the paint used. 

Activity 

The Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA) keeps data on gallons of traffic 

marking paint used by district and not by individual county. For emissions from SHA line 

painting, each county’s proportion of the total district’s lane miles was multiplied by total 

gallons painted in a district to get an estimated amount of gallons used for each county. In 

a few counties, SHA does all the line painting. Also, data was collected from the 

Maryland Aviation Addministration (MAA) and the Mass Transit Addministation (MTA). 

MDE was able to gather information on gallons of traffic paint used during the ozone 

season and during a year. The Material Safety Data Sheets and Environmental Data Sheets 

were collected for each paint and solvent used by each local jurisdiction and State agency 

doing the striping. It was necessary to collect data on yellow and white paint separately 

because the amount of VOCs per gallon is different for each type of paint. 

The emission totals are slightly lower than in previous inventories because many 

jurisdictions have switched to latex (water-borne) paints for traffic marking, and those 

areas already using latex paints have switched to using a latex paint that is lower in VOC 

content than what was previously used. The widespread use of latex paints means that 

there are no longer any emissions from the solvents used to clean painting equipment when 

oil based paints are used. 
71 

The following information was collected from all public agencies using traffic marking 

paint in Maryland: 

Gallons of yellow traffic paint and solvent used in 2002. 

Gallons of white traffic paint and solvent used in 2002. 

The MSDS and Environmental Data Sheets per type of paint provided the following 

information: 

• Percent volatile by weight 

• Percent water by weight 

• Percent volatile organic compounds by weight 

• Total VOC (lbs./gal) 

• VOC/gallon less water 

Emission Factor 

Point Source 

Adjustments 

No subtraction of emissions from point sources is necessary. 

Adjustment for 

Controls 

MDE surveyed the various state agenicies that apply coatings to road surfaces and transportation 

projects. MDE collected data on the gallons of paint applied and the VOC content of the paint. 

MDE made emission estimates based on this data and therefore no controls are available for this 

source category. 

Spatial and 

Temporal 

Allocations 

Spatial 

Data for spatial allocation is not available for this source. 

Temporal 

Data for temporal allocation is not available for this source. 

Emissions 

Calculation 

Traffic Paint Sample Calculation (Caroline County)
72 

(1) Calculate VOC emissions from yellow and white traffic paints for ozone season 

a. State Highway Administration (SHA) Traffic Paint Use

Total yellow gallons used April - October45 = 4,671 gallons 

Total VOC per gallon of yellow paint used46 = 0.78 lbs. VOC /gallon 

Total white gallons used April – October47 = 6,481 gallons 

Total VOC per gallon of white paint used48 = 0.77 lbs. VOC /gallon 

(4,671 gallons) x (0.78 lbs. VOC /gallon) E Yellow Paint = (2,000 lbs./ton) x (214 days / ozone season) 

E Yellow Paint = 0.0085 tons / ozone day 

(6,481 gallons) x (0.77 lbs. VOC /gallon) E White Paint = (2,000 lbs./ton) x (214 days / ozone season) 

E White Paint = 0.0117 tons / ozone day 

E Local Paint Total = E Yellow Paint + E White Paint

E Local Paint Total = 0.0085 + 0.0117 

E Local Paint Total = 0.0202 tons / ozone day 

b. Maryland Aviation Administration (MAA) Traffic Paint Use

The MAA did not apply any paint in Caroline County. 

c. Maryland Transportation Administration (MTA) Traffic Paint Use

The MTA did not apply any paint in Caroline County. 

d. Local Jurisdiction Traffic Paint Use 

The Local Jurisdictions did not apply any paint in Caroline County. 

 

45 Reported by Caroline County's Department of Public Works, Division of Highways 

46 MSDS from Caroline County's Department of Public Works, Division of Highways 

47 Reported by Caroline County's Department of Public Works, Division of Highways 

48 MSDS from Caroline County's Department of Public Works, Division of Highways 
73 

(2) Calculate VOC emissions from paint cleaning solvent use for ozone season 

a. Local Jurisdiction Traffic Paint Use

 The Local Jurisdictions did not use any paint cleaning solvents in Caroline County. 

b. State Highway Administration (SHA) Solvent Use - None 

The SHA did not use any paint cleaning solvents in Caroline County. 

c. Maryland Aviation Administration (MAA) Solvent Use - None 

The MAA did not use any paint cleaning solvents in Caroline County. 

d. Maryland Transportation Administration (MTA) Solvent Use - None 

The MTA did not use any paint cleaning solvents in Caroline County. 

(3) Total VOC emissions from traffic paint use and paint cleaning solvent use for ozone 

season 

E Paint Total = E Local Paint Total + E SHA Paint Total + E MAA Paint Total + E MTA Paint Total + E Paint Solvent

E Paint Total = 0.0202 + 0.0 + 0.0 + 0.0 + 0.0 

E Paint Total = 0.0202 
74 

4.1.2.6 Industrial Surface Coating 

Industrial surface coatings are applied during the manufacture of a wide variety of products, 

including furniture, cans, automobiles, other transportation equipment, machinery, appliances, 

metal coil, flat wood, wire and other miscellaneous products. In addition, coatings are used in 

maintenance operations at industrial facilities but these are considered paint sources. 

VOC 

Description 

Pollutants 

Method and 

Data Sources 

MDE used the methods and procedures documented in EIIP49, Chapter 8, Industrial Surface 

Coatings, dated September 1997. Applicable point source emissions (those within the same 

NAICS) taken from the MDE/ARMA registration files have been subtracted from the emissions 

calculated on a per capita and per employee basis that are presented below. 

Activity 

The choice between using per capita factors and per employee factors in categories where a 

choice of factors was offered was made based on the quality of data. County Business 

Patterns lists employee data by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). 

Many values are based on actual data. However, some county NAICS list a range for the 

number of employees through a letter code. In this case the arithmetic average number of 

employees per letter code per county was adjusted so that the state total employment in a 

NAICS matched the sum of the number of employees reported per county. For those 

categories where all or most of the employment data was listed as a range, the per capita 

factor was assumed to be more reliable and was used to calculate emissions. The U.S. 

Census Bureau reports population statistics for the counties of Maryland. Population 

statistics for 2002 for the counties of Maryland were collected from the U.S. Census 

Bureau Internet address (http://www.census.gov). 

Because the emission factors were developed based on NAICS employment data and 2001 

was the last year employment data was available per NAICS, MDE used the 2001 County 

Business Patterns as the source for employment figures. 

Emission Factor 

Per employee factors were used for the following SIC and NAICS because they are 

generally more reliable (see Procedures, Table 4-10.1), and a comparison with per capita 

emissions in one county showed that for these SICs, the per capita factors led to a large 

overestimation of emissions. 

 

49 Emission Inventory Improvement Program 
75 

Industry SCC SIC NAICS 

Factory Finished Wood 24 01 015 000 

2426, 2427, 2428, 

2429, 2430, 2440, 

2450, 2493, 2499 

32121 

Metal Furniture and Fixtures 24 01 025 000 2500 33636, 33791, 33792, 337121, 

337122, 337124, 337125, 

337127, 337129, 337211, 

337212, 337214, 337215, 

339111, 339942 

Machinery and Equipment 24 01 055 000 3500 33272 

Other Transportation 

Equipment 

24 01 990 000 3700 except 3711 

and 3730 

333924 

Marine Coatings 24 01 080 000 3730 48839, 81149, 336611, 336612

NAICS were used that best corresponded to SIC for each source category so that 

emission factors that were generated from EIIP SIC data could be used. EPA provided 

the correlation between NAICS and SIC. Emission factors are listed in Table 8.5-1 in the 

EIIP Industrial Surface Coating document and below. As an example, MDE has chosen 

finished wood for presentation of an equation and emissions by county. The EIIP 

document lists no seasonal adjustment factor and 5 days per week activity. For counties 

with no employees listed in County Business Patterns 2001- Maryland, MDE assumed no 

emissions were generated because these processes were not located in those counties. 

Appliances (SIC 363), and Electrical Insulation (SIC 3357,3612), had no employees 

listed in County Business Patterns in Maryland, thus no emissions were calculated. 

Emissions from New Motor Vehicles (SIC 3711), were assigned to the point source 

section of the inventory since they are all from the General Motors Truck and Bus Group 

in Baltimore City. 

 

Industry VOC Emission Factor 

(lbs. VOC/employee/year) 

Factory Finished Wood 131 

Metal Furniture and Fixtures 944 

Machinery and Equipment 77 

Other Transportation Equipment 35 

Marine Coatings 308 

Appliances 463 

Electrical Insulation 290 

New Motor Vehicles 794 
76 

Point Source 

Adjustments 

Applicable point source emissions (those within the same SIC or NAICS) taken from the 

MDE/ARMA registration files have been subtracted from the calculated emissions, and their 

emissions are separated from the totals presented below. 

Adjustment for 

Controls 

MDE surveyed the various state agenicies that apply coatings to road surfaces and transportation 

projects. MDE collected data on the gallons of paint applied and the VOC content of the paint. 

MDE made emission estimates based on this data and therefore no controls are available for this 

source category. 

Spatial and 

Temporal 

Allocations 

Spatial 

Data for spatial allocation is not available for this source. 

Temporal 

Data for temporal allocation is not available for this source. 

Emissions 

Calculation 

Equation:

EMPi x EF FW E FW = 2000 x 260

Where: 

E FW = VOC emissions in tons per day from finished wood 

EMPi = employees in county i employed in NAICS 32121. 

EF FW = VOC emission factor for finished wood which is 131 lbs. VOC per employee per year 

To adjust for control efficiency, etc.: 

E FWA = (E FW - E FWR) x [1 - (CE x RE x RP)] where: 

E FWA = finished wood adjusted emissions 
77 

E FWR = emissions from factory finished wood sources in ARMA registration files that 

 emit more than 10 tons per year VOC 

CE = Control Efficiency 

RE = Rule Effectiveness 

RP = Rule Penetration

2002 Example Calculation Industrial Surface Coating – Machinery Coating (Baltimore County)

Number of employees in NAICS 33272 in Baltimore County 

(2001 County Business Patterns): 4543 

Emission factor for other transportation equipment (lbs. VOC/employee/year): 7750

5 days per week activity level, no seasonal adjustment factor 

(4543 x 77) x [1 – (0 * 1.00 * 1.00)] E MC – Baltimore = (260 x 2000) 

E MC – Baltimore = 0.6727 tons VOC per day 

Adjusting for registered point sources: 

E MC-ADJ – Baltimore = E MC – Baltimore - E MC Pt. Sources - Baltimore

51

E MC-ADJ – Baltimore = 0.6727 – 0.00 

E MC-ADJ – Baltimore = 0.6635 tons VOC per day 

 

50 Table 8.5-1, EIIP Chapter 8 Industrial Surface Coatings 

51 Point Source Reduction from JCB Incorporated (SIC 3531) 
78 

 Industrial Surface Coating- per Capita Emissions

The following sources had their emissions calculated by per capita emission factors because 

employment data was not definitive. 

Industry VOC Emission Factor 

(lbs. VOC/person/year) 

Metal Cans 1.3 

Misc. Manufacturing 0.6 

Industrial Maintenance 0.8 

Other Special Purpose Coatings 0.8 

Misc. Finished Metals 0.5 

Equation:

POPi x EF MFM E MFM = 2000 x 260 x [1 – (CE x RE x RP)] 

where: 

E MFM = VOC emissions in tons per day from miscellaneous finished metals 

POPi = 2002 population of county i 

EF MFM = VOC emission factor for misc. finished metals (0.5 lbs. VOC per person per year) 

CE = Control Efficiency 

RE = Rule Effectiveness 

RP = Rule Penetration
79 

To adjust for Point Sources: 

E MFMA = (E MFM - Emfmar) 

Where: 

E MFMA = adjusted emissions from miscellaneous finished metals 

E MFMAR = emissions from miscellaneous finished metal coating facilities in ARMA registered 

 premise files 

2002 Per Capital Sample Calculation for Misc. Manufacturing Coating in Anne Arundel County

503,38852 x 0.6 lbs. VOC/capita/year53 x [1 – (0.0 x 1.0 x 1.0)] = 302,032.8 lbs. VOC per person 

Converting to tons per day: 302,032.8 / (260 days per year x 2000 lbs. per ton) = 0.5808 tons VOC

per day 

 

52 2002 estimated population from U.S. Bureau of the Census, Population Estimation Branch . 

53 Emission factor from EIIP Industrial Surface Coating 
80 

 

4.1.2.7 Industrial Adhesives and Sealants 

SCC: 2440020000 

Description 

Industrial adhesive and sealant surface coating is the application of a liquid or powder substance, 

such as solvent type paints, varnishes, and lacquers to a surface for decorative or protective 

purposes. The substances can be applied by brushing, rolling, spraying, dipping or flow coating. 

VOCs are released into the air as the substance dries. Powder coatings are applied to a hot 

surface and then melted; VOCs are released as the powder melts and dries.

Pollutants 

VOC 

Method and 

Data Sources 

MDE staff used EPA’s “Solvent Mass Balance” methodology for estimating emissions from 

nonpoint solvents, which uses the total solvent production and sales for a particular source 

category to estimate overall emissions then subtracting out emissions due to point sources, waste 

management, and recycling. 

Activity 

EPA used the Freedonia54 market research report on nonpoint solvents to obtain solvent 

utilization data for this source category. Some solvent usage estimates came from a 

National Paint and Coating Association (NP&CA)55. A brakedown of the methods used to 

derive the data for painting and coating sources are described in the report and is attached 

as section 3.4.1 Industrail Adhesives and Sealants. VOC emission estimates were then 

allocated to the state and county levels and adopted by MDE for this source category. 

54 Data were estimated from Freedonia Group, Inc. - Freedonia Reports from 1999 and 2004 

55 National Paint and Coating Association (NP&CA) “Paints and Coatings ‘2000': Review 

and Forecast” 
81 

4.1.2.8 Graphic Arts 

SCC: 24 25 000 000 

Description 

Graphic arts includes operations that are involved in the printing of newspapers, magazines, 

books and other printed materials. There are six basic operations used in graphic arts: 

lithography, gravure, letterpress, flexography, screen printing and metal decorating. Lithography 

accounts for nearly half of all graphic arts operations. 

Pollutants 

VOC 

Method and 

Data Sources 

MDE staff used an alternative per capita emission estimation method documented in EIIP56, 

Chapter 7, Graphic Arts, dated November 1996. The EIIP methodology recommended an 

emission factor of 1.3 lbs. VOC per capita per year emission factor (EPA, 1991) for graphic arts 

sources emitting less than 100 tons VOC per year. An activity level of 5 days per week was used 

with no seasonal adjustment factor as recommended in Table 5.8-1 in Procedures. Any point 

source graphic arts facility (SIC 275) in the ARMA registration files that had 2002 emissions of 

between 10 and 100 tons VOC per year had its emissions subtracted from the area source 

inventory. 

Activity 

The estimated percentage of market share, reported in Table 7.2-3 of the EIIP document 

and reproduced below, was used to allocate the total graphic arts emissions to specific 

printing types. Maryland has different regulations regarding specific types of printing 

operations and thus to calculate controlled emissions the estimated percentage that each 

type of printing operation contributes to the total had to be determined. 

Type of Printing Estimated Percentage of 

Product Market Share 

Rotogravure 18 

Flexography 18 

Offset Lithography 47 

Letterpress 8 

Screen 3 

Plateless 3 

Emission Factor 

1.3 lbs. VOC per capita per year 

 

56 Emission Inventory Improvement Program 
82 

Point Source 

Adjustments 

Graphic arts emissions from facilities identified as point sources were subtracted from the area 

source inventory to avoid double counting. 

Adjustment for 

Controls 

Control efficiency is based on Maryland regulations for each type of printing process and has 

been developed within technical support documents for the graphic arts printing regulations. 

Rule penetration has been defined as the estimated percentage that each type of printing 

operation. Rule effectiveness has been assigned the EPA default value of 80 per cent. 

Lithographic Rotogravure Flexographic Screen 

 Rule Effectiveness (RE) 0.800 0.800 0.800 0.800 

Rule Penetration (RP) 0.640 0.180 0.180 0.050 

Control Efficiency (CE) 0.750 0.630 0.540 0.350 

Reduction factor (RE x RP x CE) 0.3840 0.0907 0.0778 0.0140 

 

Spatial and 

Temporal 

Allocations 

Spatial 

Data for spatial allocation is not available for this source. 

Temporal 

Data for temporal allocation is not available for this source. 

Emissions 

Calculation 

The equation used to estimate emissions from graphic arts is: 

Equation:

POPi x EF GA E GA = 2000 x 260 x [ 1 - RF L – RF R – RF F – RF S] 

Where: 

E GA = VOC emissions in tons per day from graphic arts 

POPi = 2002 population of county i 

EF GA = VOC emission factor for graphic arts (1.3 lbs. VOC per person per year) 
83 

RF L = Reduction Factor for Lithographic Printing 

RF R = Reduction Factor for Rotogravure Printing 

RF F = Reduction Factor for Flexographic Printing 

RF S = Reduction Factor for Screen Printing 

To adjust for point sources emitting below 100 tons per years: 

E GAA = (E GA - E GAR) 

Where: 

E GAA = adjusted emissions 

E GAR = emissions from printers in MDE/ARMA registered premise files that emit more than 

 10 tons VOC /year 
84 

2002 Example Calculation Graphic Arts (Anne Arundel County)

E GA = 503,38857 x 1.3 lbs. VOC/capita/year58 x [1 – 0.384 – 0.0907 – 0.0778 – 0.014] 

E GA = 283684.3 lbs. VOC per person 

Converting to tons per day: 

 E GA = 283684.3 / (260 days per year x 2000 lbs. per ton) 

 E GA = 0.5455 tons VOC per day 

Adjusting for registered point sources emitting between 10 and 100 tons per year: 

 E GAA = (E GA - E GAR) 

 E GAA = 0.5455 – 0.1035 

 E GAA = 0.4420 tons VOC per day 

 

57 2002 estimated population from U.S. Bureau of the Census, Population Estimation Branch . 

58 Emission factor from EIIP Chapter 7 Graphic Arts 
85 

4.1.2.9 Asphalt Paving 

SCC: 24 61 022 000 

Description 

The two types of asphalt paving used for road paving and repair are cutback asphalt and 

emulsified asphalt. Cutback asphalt is a liquefied road surface prepared by blending (or "cutting 

back") asphalt cement with different petroleum distillates. The second type, emulsified asphalt, 

is also a liquefied road surface, but is prepared with a water/soap mixture instead of petroleum 

distillates. Cutback asphalt emits more VOCs, and its use has been limited in Maryland to the 

non-ozone period of April 15 to October 15. 

Pollutants 

VOC 

Method and 

Data Sources 

MDE calculated emissions from this category based on a per capita emission factor of 0.004 

pounds VOC per person per year for emulsified asphalt from the Short List of AMS SCCs and 

Emission Factors prepared by EPA's National Air Data Branch. All emissions from this source 

are reactive VOC. An activity level of 5 days a week and no seasonal variation were assumed. 

State of Maryland Department of Environment regulations (COMAR 26.11.11.02B), prohibit use 

of cutback asphalt paving from April 15 to October 15 so ozone precursor emissions from 

cutback asphalt application were not calculated. Cutback asphalt is made by blending asphalt 

cement with petroleum distillates that evaporate when the road surface is "cured" after 

application. Emulsified asphalt is asphalt cement mixed with a blend of water and an emulsifier, 

usually soap. The equations for calculating VOC emissions from emulsified asphalt paving are 

presented below. 

Activity 

The U.S. Census Bureau reports population statistics for the counties of Maryland. 

Population statistics for 2002 for the counties of Maryland were collected from the U.S. 

Census Bureau Internet address (http://www.census.gov). 

Emission Factors: 

Emulsified Asphalt 0.004 pounds VOC per person per year 

Point Source 

Adjustments 

No subtraction of emissions from point sources is necessary. 

Adjustment for 

Controls 

State of Maryland Department of Environment regulations (COMAR 26.11.11.02B), prohibit use 

of cutback asphalt paving from April 15 to October 15 so ozone precursor emissions from 
86 

cutback asphalt application were not calculated. Cutback asphalt is made by blending asphalt 

cement with petroleum distillates that evaporate when the road surface is "cured" after 

application. Emulsified asphalt is asphalt cement mixed with a blend of water and an emulsifier, 

usually soap. 

Spatial and 

Temporal 

Allocations 

Spatial 

Data for spatial allocation is not available for this source. 

Temporal 

Data for temporal allocation is not available for this source. 

Emissions 

Calculation 

The per capita equation used to estimate emissions from asphalt paving is: 

POPi x EF EA E EA = 2000 x 260 Where: 

E EA = VOC emissions in tons per day from emulsified asphalt 

POPi = 2002 population of county i 

EF EA = VOC emission factor for emulsified asphalt which is 0.004 lbs. VOC per person per yr 

2002 Emulsified Asphalt Sample Calculations: Anne Arundel County

• No seasonal variation assumed 

• Activity of five days per week 

• Emission factor of 0.004 lbs. VOC/person/year 

503,388 (2002 County Population) x 0.004 = 0.0039 tons VOC per day 

2000 lbs. per ton x 260 days per year 

503,38859 x 0.004 lbs. VOC/capita/year60 = 2,013.552 pounds per person VOC emitted 

Converting to tons per day: 2,013.552 / (260 days per year x 2000 lbs. per ton) = 0.0039 tons VOC

per day emitted

 

59 Population data from U.S. Bureau of the Census, Population Estimates Branch 60 Emission factor from the Short List of AMS SCCs and Emission Factors from EPA National Air Data Branch. 
87 

4.1.2.10 Synthetic Organic Chemical Storage Tanks 

This category is fully represented in the point source inventory. 
88 

4.1.2.11 Pesticide Application 

SCC: 24 61 800 000 

Description 

Pesticides are substances or mixtures used to control plant and animal life for the purposes of: 

agricultural production, public health from pest-borne disease, reducing property damage due to 

pests, and improving the aesthetic quality of outdoor and indoor surroundings. Agriculture, 

homeowners, industry, and government agencies use pesticides. The largest usage of pesticides 

by weight is in agriculture. Agricultural pesticides control weeds, insects, mites, fungi, 

nematodes, and other threats to the yield, quality, or safety of food production. 

Emissions arise from pesticide use because of the volatile nature of many ingredients, solvents, 

or other additives used in the formulations. Many pesticide formulations use solvents as carriers 

for more active organic or inorganic ingredients. In pesticide formulations, the organic or 

inorganic solute is the "active ingredient" (AI), while the solvent carrier is the "inert carrier." 

Thus, the terms "active" and "inert" in pesticide formulations refer to toxicological action, and 

are not indicators of photochemical activity. Both the active and inert ingredients in these 

formulations evaporate and contribute to VOC emissions. 

Pollutants 

VOC 

Method and 

Data Source: 

 Maryland Agricultural Statistics service in cooperation with the Pesticide Regulation Section of 

the Maryland Department of Agriculture compiled information for Maryland's 2000 pesticide 

statistics document. The document, Maryland Pesticide Statistics for 2000, reported pesticide 

usage in pounds used in a year by active ingredient for each Maryland county. Along with the 

pounds of AI applied, the document also listed the form of many pesticides and the formulation 

of some selected pesticides. From this, MDE used the EIIP’s emission inventory reference 

document titled Pesticides – Agricultural and Nonagricultural, December 1997, Section 9.2.2 to 

generate the VOC emissions for the active ingredient and inert carrier of the pesticide. This 

required assumptions and other references to collect the best information used in the calculations. 

The EPA method for estimating pesticide emissions uses a six-step procedure, as follows: 

1. Determine both the application method and the quantity of pesticide product applied. 

2. Determine the type of formulation used. 

3. Determine the specific AI(s) in the formulation and their vapor pressure(s). 

4. Determine the percentage of the AI (or each AI) present. 

5. Determine the VOC content of the formulation. 

6. Calculate the emissions. 
89 

MDE slightly deviated from this method, since information was presented to MDE in pounds of 

active ingredient. With the active ingredient, the vapor pressure and general application method 

(surface application or soil incorporation) was determined from the EPA's AP-42 document or 

The SCS/ARS/CES Pesticide Properties Database For Environmental Decision-Making, by R. D. 

Wauchope, et al. Then the form (i.e. wettable powder, emulsified concentrate, granule, etc.) of 

the most likely pesticide was determined from a list in the Maryland Pesticide Statistics for 2000. 

Also, the statistics listed some formulations, for example 80% inert, 20% AI. Most of the 

formulations were assumptions based on the information provided with the form of the pesticide 

in the Maryland Pesticide Statistics for 2000. 

The table below lists the EIIP emissions factors taken from AP-42 (Table 9.2.2-4) used to 

calculate this category. 

Uncontrolled Emission Factors for Pesticide Active Ingredients

Vapor Pressure Range Emission Factor 

 (mm Hg at 20° to 25° C) kg/Mg lbs./ton 

Surface Application 

1 x 10-4 to 1 x 10-6 350 700 

> 1 x 10-4 580 1160 

Soil Incorporation 

< 1 x 10-6 2.7 5.4 

1 x 10-4 to 1 x 10-6 21 42 

> 1 x 10-4 52 104 

Equations:

E pest = VOC Emissions from Active Ingredient (AI) + VOC Emissions from the Inert Ingredients (Inert). 

VOC Emissions Active Ingredients (AI) = (lbs AI / year) x (lbs VOC / lb AI)

VOC Emissions Inert Ingredients = [(lbs AI / year) / % AI] x % Inert Ingredients x % VOC INERT INGREDIENTS

(lbs AI/year) x EF AI in lbs VOC/ton AI (lbs AI/year) E pest = 2000 lbs. Per ton 

+ 

(1 - % Inert) x (% Inert) x (% VOC in Inert) 

Annual Emissions 

Daily Emissions = 312 days / year x Seasonal Adjustment Factor
90 

where: 

AI = Active Ingredient ( lbs. / yr. ) 

EF AI = Emission Factor ( lbs. VOC / ton AI ) 

% inert = percentage of formulation that contains the Inert Carrier 

% VOC in the inert = percentage of VOCs in the Inert Carrier portion of the pesticide 

SAF = seasonal adjustment factor of 1.3 to adjust for the summer ozone season 

MDE assumed six working days per week and 100% volatilization of the VOC portion of the 

inert carrier. 

Sample Calculations:

The following information was compiled from The Maryland Pesticide Statistics for 2000 and 

The SCS/ARS/CES Pesticide Properties Database for Environmental Decision-Making: 

Table 3-26 

Allegany County Pesticide Information 

VOC 

V. Press Formulation Formula % VOC EF Alleg. Alleg. 

Pesticide mm Hg Application Type (% Inert) Inert lbs. VOC/ 

lbs. A.I. lbs of A.I. Lbs/yr 

2,4-D 8E-06 foliar spray gas 0.8 0.29 0.35 2,058 3107.580

Acephate 1.7E-06 crop spray gas 0.8 0.29 0.35 62 93.620

Alachlor 1.4E-05 soil spray gas 0.15 0.29 0.35 19 7.622

Amitrole 4.40E-07 foliar spray gas 0.784 0.29 0.35 6 8.416

Atrazine 2.89E-07 soil surface wp 0.8 0.25 0.35 478 645.300

Azinphos-Methyl 2E-07 crop spray ec 0.35 0.56 0.35 33 21.501

Azoxystrobin crop spray gas 0.77 0.29 0.35 1 1.321

Bacillus thuringiensis neg crop spray gr 0.96 0.25 0.35 107 679.450

Benomyl 1E-10 crop spray wp 0.8 0.25 0.35 9 12.150

Bifenthrin 1.8E-07 crop spray gas 0.1 0.29 0.35 2 0.764

Boric Acid 0.0001 spray wp 0.1 0.25 0.35 4 1.511

Captan 8E-08 crop spray gas 0.5 0.29 0.35 727 465.280

Carbaryl 1.2E-06 crop spray gas 0.5 0.29 0.35 93 59.520

Carbofuran 6E-07 foliar spray fog 0.56 0.39 0.35 1 0.846

Chloroneb 0.003 spray wp 0.35 0.25 0.58 17 12.148

Chlorothalonil 1E-03 crop spray gas 0.8 0.29 0.58 368 640.320

Chlorpyrifos 1.7E-05 soil 

incorporation 

gas 0.15 0.29 0.021 36 2.598

Clomazone 1.4E-04 soil 

incorporation 

ec 0.3 0.56 0.052 3 0.876

Clopyralid 0 foliar spray gas 0.8 0.29 0.35 1 1.510

Cyanazine 1.6E-09 crop spray dust 0.8 0.21 0.35 31 36.890

Cyfluthrin 1.6E-08 crop spray wp 0.3 0.25 0.35 153 69.943

Cypermethrin 1.4E-09 crop spray wp 0.3 0.25 0.35 5 2.286

Diazinon 6E-05 crop spray pellet 0.143 0.27 0.35 21 8.296

Dicamba 0 spray gas 0.8 0.29 0.35 126 190.260

Dichlobenil 1E-03 crop spray wp 0.8 0.25 0.58 3 4.740

Dicofol 4E-07 crop spray wp 0.3 0.25 0.35 25 11.429
91 

 VOC 

 V. Press Formulation Formula % VOC EF Alleg. Alleg. 

Pesticide mm Hg Application Type (% Inert) Inert lbs. VOC/ 

lbs. A.I. lbs of A.I. Lbs/yr 

Diflubenzuron 9E-10 crop spray wp 0.25 0.25 0.35 80 34.667

Dimethenamid > 1.0 soil spray gas 0.468 0.29 0.35 5 3.026

Diuron 6.9E-08 soil surface wp 0.8 0.25 0.35 310 418.500

Endosulfan 1.7E-07 crop spray gas 0.5 0.29 0.35 2 1.280

Esfenvalerate 1.1E-08 crop spray dust 0.3 0.21 0.35 7 3.080

Fenarimol 2.2E-07 crop spray wp 0.3 0.25 0.35 1 0.457

Flumetsulam ND spray aq 0.18 0.21 0.35 12 4.753

Fluvalinate 1E-07 crop spray rtu 0.8 0.2 0.35 69 79.350

Fosamine Ammonium 4E-06 foliar spray aq 0.8 0.21 0.35 8 9.520

Glyphosate 0 foliar spray aq 0.8 0.21 0.35 2,610 3105.900

Hydroprene ? ? gr 0.09 0.25 2 0.049

Imidacloprid 1.50E-09 spray aq 0.786 0.21 0.35 1,426 1598.986

Iprodione 1E-07 crop spray wp 0.8 0.25 0.35 24 32.400

Lambda-cyhalothrin 1.50E-09 spray ec 0.87 0.56 0.35 8 32.782

MCPP 0 foliar spray aq 0.5 0.21 0.35 49 27.440

Malathion 8E-06 contact spray ec 0.3 0.56 0.35 7 4.130

Mancozeb 0 crop spray Fl aq conc 0.8 0.21 0.35 165 196.350

Maneb 0 crop spray wp 0.8 0.25 0.35 26 35.100

Metalaxyl 5.62E-06 soil spray wp 0.25 0.25 0.35 7 3.033

Metam-Sodium 20 soil spray aq 0.8 0.21 0.58 334 474.280

Methoprene 17.5 spray aq 0.8 0.21 0.58 26 36.920

Methoxychlor 0 spray wp 0.25 0.35 3 1.050

Methyl Bromide 1824 release of gas Fl aq conc 0.8 0.21 0.58 58 82.360

Metolachlor 3.135E-05 soil spray ec 0.3 0.56 0.35 488 287.920

Metribuzin 1E-05 soil surface Fl aq conc 0.75 0.21 0.35 3 2.940

Metsulfuron Methyl 2.5E-12 foliar spray gr 0.2 0.25 0.35 1 0.413

Nicosulfuron 1.20E-16 grass spray gr 0.162 0.25 0.35 2 0.797

Oryzalin 1E-08 soil spray wp 0.75 0.25 0.35 77 84.700

PCNB 1.1E-04 soil spray wp 0.6 0.25 0.58 88 84.040

Paclobutrazol 6.00E-10 spray wp 0.5 0.25 0.35 13 7.800

Paraquat 0 target spray aq 0.8 0.21 0.35 124 147.560

Pendimethalin 9.4E-06 soil spray ec 0.6 0.56 0.35 1,257 1495.830

Permethrin 1.3E-08 crop spray ec 0.3 0.56 0.35 9,455 5578.450

Petroleum Oils 1.0E-03 spray ec 0.56 0.58 1,503 871.740

Phosmet 4.9E-07 crop spray wp 0.5 0.25 0.35 26 15.600

Picloram Neg foliar spray aq 0.8 0.21 0.35 252 299.880

Primisulfuron-methyl 1.50E-05 crop spray gr 0.49 0.25 0.35 2 1.180

Propachlor 7.90E-05 spray gr 0.35 0.25 0.35 2 0.969

Propoxur 9.7E-06 crop spray ec 0.3 0.56 0.35 2 1.180

Quizalofop-ethyl 3E-07 foliar spray ec 0.2 0.56 0.35 1 0.490

Sethoxydim 1.6E-07 foliar spray ec 0.3 0.56 0.35 1 0.590

Simazine 2.21E-08 soil spray wp 0.8 0.25 0.35 776 1047.600

Sulfentrazone spray gr 0.25 0.25 0.56 1 0.643

Sulfometuron Methyl 6E-16 soil spray gr 0.2 0.25 0.35 7 2.888

Sulfur 0 dust dust 0.2 0.21 0 96 5.040

Terbacil 3.1E-07 soil spray wp 0.8 0.25 0.35 4 5.400

Thifensulfuron methyl 1.3E-10 foliar spray gr 0.2 0.25 0.35 1 0.413

Thiophanate-methyl 1E-07 crop spray wp 0.5 0.25 0.35 37 22.200

Triadimefon 1.5E-08 crop spray wp 0.8 0.25 0.35 7 9.450
92 

 VOC 

 V. Press Formulation Formula % VOC EF Alleg. Alleg. 

Pesticide mm Hg Application Type (% Inert) Inert lbs. VOC/ 

lbs. A.I. lbs of A.I. Lbs/yr 

Trichlorfon 2E-06 crop spray sp 0.8 0.12 0.35 36 29.880

Triclopyr 1.26E-06 foliar spray ec 0.8 0.56 0.35 454 1175.860

Trifluralin 1.1E-04 soil 

incorporation 

ec 0.015 0.56 0.052 3 0.182

Vinclozolin 120.0099 spray ec 0.5 0.56 0.58 16 18.240

Zinc Phosphide 0 powder pellet 0.8 0.27 0 1 1.080

County Total 24529 23472.544

Emissions are calculated for each pesticide active ingredient per county and then summed. 

Example calculation for the emissions from Pendimethalin pesticide use in Allegany county. 

Lbs lbs. VOC 1257 

Emis

Pendimethalin 1257 year x 

0

lbs. AI + (1-0.6) x 0.6 x 0.56 

Emis

Pendimethalin = 1495.83 lbs. VOC / year 

Emis

Pendimethalin = 1495.83 / 2000 = 0.7479 tons VOC / year 

Emis

Pendimethalin = (0.7479 tons VOC / year) * (1 year / 312 days) * (1.3) 

Emis

Pendimethalin = 0.0031 tons VOC / day 

The remaining pesticides used in Allegany county are calculated in a similar manner. 

Results:

Since the EPA has released new guidance on the calculation of agricultural pesticide application, 

the new methodology vastly differs from the method used in 1990. In the Maryland Ozone 

Precursor Inventory for 1990, Air and Radiation Management, MDE, September 1993, pesticide 

application for the state totaled 42 tons per day. This method assumed 90% volatilization of the 

AI. The method also assumed the inert carrier content to be 145% by weight of the AI. Another 

major assumption is 100% volatilization of the inert carrier. 

Since publication, the accuracy of the old pesticide methodology has been debated by different 

groups. General thoughts from scholars and private industry is the old methodology overpredicts 

the volatility of the organics in the pesticide. The new methodology, presented here, requires 

many assumptions and uses data that takes account for the different vapor pressures of individual 

active ingredients. This method, along with some general assumptions, estimated pesticide 

emissions at 8.7 tons per day for the state. The decrease is due to the change in method, along 

with a decline in pounds of pesticides applied in the state. 
93 

4.1.2.12 Commercial/Consumer Solvent Use 

SCC: 24 65 000 000 

Description 

Certain commercial/consumer uses of products containing volatile organics cannot easily be 

identified by questionnaires, surveys or other inventory procedures yielding locale-specific 

emission estimates. This category includes the following sources: household products, toiletries, 

aerosol products, rubbing compounds, windshield washing fluid, polishes, waxes, non-industrial 

adhesives, space deodorants, moth control agents and laundry detergents. 

Pollutants 

VOC 

Method and 

Data Sources 

The recommended emission factor that combines emissions from all these sources is 7.84 pounds 

VOC per person per year, from EIIP Volume III, Area Sources, Preferred and Alternate Methods 

(July, 1997). This emission factor excludes non-reactive VOC and takes into account more 

recent volatility levels based on product reformulation, than does AP-42, Fifth Edition. MDE 

used an activity level of 7 days a week and no seasonal adjustment factor as suggested in Table 

5.8-1 in Procedures. 

Activity 

The U.S. Census Bureau reports population statistics for the counties of Maryland. 

Population statistics for 2002 for the counties of Maryland were collected from the U.S. 

Census Bureau Internet address (http://www.census.gov). 

Emission Factors: 

Commercial and Consumer Products (All) 7.84 lbs. VOC/person/year 

Point Source 

Adjustments 

No subtraction of emissions from point sources is necessary. 

Adjustment for 

Controls 

Federal regulations provide a 20 percent reduction in emissions from a 3.9 lbs. VOC/person subset 

of the total commercial and consumer products category. 

Spatial and 

Temporal 

Allocations 

Spatial 

Data for spatial allocation is not available for this source. 
94 

Temporal 

Data for temporal allocation is not available for this source. 

Emissions 

Calculation 

The per capita equation used to estimate emissions from commercial and consumer solvents is: 

[ POPi x EF CC ] - [ (POPi x CS CC ) x CE CC ] E CC = 2000 x 365

Where: 

E CC = VOC emissions in tons per day from commercial and consumer solvents 

POPi = 2002 population of county i 

EF CC = VOC emission factor for commercial and consumer solvents (7.84 lbs. VOC/person) 

CS CC = Controlled subset of commercial and consumer solvents (3.9 lbs. VOC/person) 

CE CC = Control efficiency for controlled subset of commercial and consumer solvents (20%) 

2002 Sample Calculation Commercial/Consumer Solvent Use (Anne Arundel County)

[ (503,38861) x (7.84 62) ] - [ (503,388 x 3.963 ) x 

(0.20)64 ]

 

E CC = 

2000 x 365

E CC = 4.868 tons VOC per day

61 Population data from U.S. Bureau of Census, Population Estimates Branch 62 Emission factor from EIIP Chapter 5 Commercial and Consumer Solvent Use 

63 EPA memo from John Sietz 

64 EPA memo from John Sietz 
95 

4.1.2.12.1 Barge, Tank, Tank Truck, Rail Car and Drum Cleaning 

SCC: 24 61 160 000 

The EPA explained to MDE staff that the agency has not developed an emission factor for this 

category. The EPA also stated that most barge, tank truck, rail car and drum cleaning is done by 

steam cleaning and the residue goes to industrial and public waste disposal treatment plants. It is 

impossible to separate this category's portion of the treatment plant emissions. The EPA 

considers the emissions from this category to be insignificant. Emissions from this category are 

calculated for the appropriate facilities in the point source inventory. 

4.1.3 BIOPROCESS EMISSIONS SOURCES 

4.1.3.1 Bakeries 

SCC: 23 02 050 000 

Description 

Bakeries emit VOC, primarily ethanol formed by yeast fermentation of bread or dough, during 

the baking process. Ethanol is emitted through a vent, along with combustion product gases. 

Large commercial bakeries are inventoried as point sources. In-store and neighborhood bakeries 

have lower emissions, and thus are considered area sources. 

Pollutants 

VOC 

Method and 

Data Sources 

MDE staff followed methodology described in an EIIP Area Source Category Method Abstract – 

Bakeries, dated June 1999 and an emission factor of 0.11 tons VOC per employee cited in an April 

24, 1992 Technical Memorandum prepared by Radian Corporation for EPA. Applicable point 

source emissions (those within the same NAICS) taken from the MDE/ARMA registration files 

have been subtracted from the emissions calculated on a per employee basis that are presented 

below. 

Activity 

Employee numbers were taken from County Business Patterns 2001 - Maryland, NAICS 

311812, Bakery Products and 311811, Retail Bakeries. Some county employment data is 

represented by a letter code indicating a range for the number of employees for that SIC. 

In this case the arithmetic average number of employees per letter code per county was 

adjusted so that the state total employment in a SIC matched the sum of the number of 

employees reported per county 
96 

Emission Factor 

An emission factor of 0.11 tons VOC per employee cited in an April 24, 1992 Technical 

Memorandum prepared by Radian Corporation for EPA was utilized. 

Point Source 

Adjustments 

Bakery emissions from facilities identified as point sources (NAICS 311812 and 311811) were 

subtracted from the area source inventory to avoid double counting. 

Adjustment for 

Controls 

No controls are available for this source category. 

Spatial and 

Temporal 

Allocations 

Spatial 

Data for spatial allocation is not available for this source. 

Temporal 

Data for temporal allocation is not available for this source. 

Emissions 

Calculation 

The equation used to estimate emissions from bakeries is: 

Equation: 

EF BAK x EMPj E BAK = 260 

Where: 

E BAK = VOC emissions from small bakeries in tons per day 

EF BAK = per employee emission factor for bakeries 

EMPj = number of employees at small (less than 20 employees), bakeries in county j 
97 

Point Source Adjustments

E BAK-ADJ = E BAK - E BAK – Pt. Sources

65

Where: 

E BAK-ADJ Point source adjusted bakery emissions 

E BAK Calculated area source bakery emissions 

E BAK – Pt. Sources Point source emissions from MDE ARMA registration files 

2002 Sample Calculation for Bakery VOC Emissions (Prince George’s County): 

Employees in NAICS 311811 in Prince George’s County: 256 

E 0.11 x 256 BAK =

 260 

E BAK = 0.108 tons VOC per day 

Point Source Adjustment 

E BAK – Pt. Sources (Prince George’s County) = 0.0728 tons VOC per day 

E BAK-ADJ = E BAK - E BAK – Pt. Sources 

E BAK-ADJ = 0.1083 – 0.0728 

E BAK-ADJ = 0.0355 tons VOC per day 

 

65 Point Source Reduction from MDE ARMA registration files 
 98

4.1.3.2 Breweries 

SCC: 23 02 070 001 

Description 

During the fermentation process, breweries emit ethanol and other VOCs. Although large-scale 

commercial breweries have been inventoried as point sources, there are microbreweries and 

brewpubs that emit lower levels of VOCs and therefore must be inventoried as area sources. 

These smaller breweries emit most of their VOCs from the fermentation room, not the brew 

kettle as is the case with the large breweries. 

Pollutants 

VOC 

Method and 

Data Sources 

MDE/ARMA staff surveyed small brewpubs and microbreweries in Maryland. 

Activity 

The survey questionnaire asked the brewing facilities to provide MDE/ARMA with the 

amount of barrels brewed per month for the calendar year 2002. For those facilities that 

reported only annual production amounts, an average monthly value was used. 

Emission Factor 

Emissions from the small breweries were calculated using an emission factor cited in a 

February 5, 1992 Technical Memorandum prepared by Radian Corporation for EPA. This 

emission factor is 56.743 lbs. VOC per 1000 barrels produced. One barrel equals 31 gallons. 

Point Source 

Adjustments 

No subtraction of emissions from point sources is necessary. 

Adjustment for 

Controls 

No controls are available for this source category. 

Spatial and 

Temporal 

Allocations 

Spatial 

Data for spatial allocation is not available for this source. 
 99

Temporal 

Data for temporal allocation is not available for this source. 

Emissions 

Calculation 

The equation used to estimate emissions from bakeries is: 

EF BREW x BPj E BREW = 2000 x 260 

Where: 

E BREW = VOC emissions from small bakeries in tons per day 

EF BREW = emission factor for small breweries 

BPj = 2002 beer production in barrels 

260 = 5 days/week activity level 

2002 Sample Calculation for Small Brewery VOC Emissions (Anne Arundel County): 

Number barrels produced by microbreweries in Anne Arundel County: 1470.25 

0.05674 x 1506.40 E BREW = 2000 x 260 

E BREW = 0.000164 lbs. VOC per day 
 100

4.1.3.3 Wineries 

Description 

Ethanol emissions from wineries occur during the fermentation process. The emissions vary, 

depending upon the type of wine (red vs. white), the fermentation temperature and the sugar 

content of the grapes used. 

Pollutants 

VOC 

Method and 

Data Sources 

MDE used the methods and procedures documented in AP-4266, Chapter 12, Beverages, Section 

2, Wines and Brandies dated September 1995. AP42 Chapter 9.12.2 

Activity 

State of Maryland Comptrollers Office and the State of Maryland Department of 

Agriculture informed MDE staff that in 2002 Maryland wineries produced approximately 

99,701 gallons of wine. An informal survey of wineries in the area suggests that 64,233 

gallons of white and 57,303 gallons of red wine yielding approximately 121,536 gallons of 

wine was actually produced. 

Emission Factor 

Table 9.12.2-1 of AP-42 shows that ethanol emissions are 1.8 lbs. VOC per 1000 gallons of 

white wine fermented and 4.6 lbs. VOC per 1000 gallons of red wine fermented. 

Point Source 

Adjustments 

No subtraction of emissions from point sources is necessary. 

Adjustment for 

Controls 

No controls are available for this source category. 

Spatial and 

Temporal 

Allocations 

 

66 AP42, Chapter 9.12.2: Food and Agricultural Industries, Beverages, Wines and Brandies 
 101

Spatial 

Data for spatial allocation is not available for this source. 

Temporal 

Data for temporal allocation is not available for this source. 

Emissions 

Calculation 

Using the above figures, the production of wine by all Maryland wineries in 2002 resulted in the 

production of 379.2 pounds of ethanol. MDE has decided not to include this source in the 

periodic inventory due to the insignificance of the 2002 emissions. 

4.1.3.4 Distilleries 

Description 

Ethanol emissions are the largest component of the VOCs emitted from distilleries. Distilleries 

produce both grain alcohol for industrial and fuel purposes, and distilled spirits such as whiskey 

and brandy for consumption purposes. The emissions points in the distilled spirits 

manufacturing process are likely to be the same as in breweries and wineries, with the aging 

process as an additional source of emissions. During the aging process, ethanol and water seep 

through the wooden barrels used to age whiskey and evaporate into the air. Aging and barrel 

emptying are the major sources of VOC emissions from whiskey production. 

Pollutants 

VOC 

Method and 

Data Sources 

MDE staff indicated that no distilleries below the 10 ton per year point source cutoff operated in 

the inventory area during 2002. Fugitive VOC emissions from the aging process at large 

distillery operations can be substantial and will be included in the point source inventory. 
 102

4.1.4 CATASTROPHIC/ACCIDENTAL RELEASES 

4.1.4.1 Oil Spills 

SCC: 28 30 000 000 

Description 

Oil spills involve oil tanker accidents, tanker truck accidents, and spills and blowouts from oil 

rigs or pipelines in coastal and inland areas. Because a wide range of fuel types may be spilled, 

the nature and quantity of emissions can vary. Emissions are also influenced by the clean-up 

procedure and by dispersion and weathering processes. 

Oil spill evaporation produces local VOC emissions. If spills catch fire, additional SO2, CO, 

CO2, PM, NOx and VOC emissions may result. Other potentially toxic chemical compounds 

may also be released as a result of chemical cleanup 

Pollutants 

VOC 

Method and 

Data Sources 

Activity 

Data on oil spills in Maryland were obtained from MDE's Hazardous Waste Emergency 

Response Department. They provided MDE/ARMA staff a monthly list of all oil spills that 

occurred in Maryland during 1999, by county. Gallons of oil spilled per ozone season were 

summed by county for the ozone season period of April 1 through October 31 (214 days). 

Emission Factor 

MDE staff used an emission factor recommended to the Metropolitan Washington Council 

of Governments by E.H. Pechan and Associates, Inc., the contractor used by MWCOG to 

prepare their 1990 base year inventory. This emission factor was based on a California Air 

Resources Board (CARB), study of air emissions from large oil spills (over 10 million 

gallons of oil). Based on this study, a range of evaporation estimates for reactive organic 

gases was found to be between 5,500 and 13,000 tons. Using this information, an average 

emission factor was calculated to be 0.0000925 tons VOC per gallon of oil spilled. below. 

Point Source 

Adjustments 

No point source adjustments were made. 
 103

Adjustment for 

Controls 

No controls are available for this source category. 

Spatial and 

Temporal 

Allocations 

Spatial 

Data for spatial allocation is not available for this source. 

Temporal 

Data for temporal allocation is not available for this source. 

Emissions 

Calculation 

The equation used to estimate emissions from oil spills: 

 

EF Oil Spills x GOSj E Oil Spills = 2000 x 365 

Where: 

E Oil Spills = VOC emissions from oil spills in tons VOC per day 

EF Oil Spills = emission factor for small breweries 

GOSi = gallons of oil spilled in county I 

2002 Sample Calculation for Oil Spill VOC Emissions (Baltimore County): 

Annual Emissions: 

Number gallons oil spilled in Baltimore County, 2002: 

(0.0000925) x (Gal) E Oil Spills = 2000 

E Oil Spills = tons VOC per year 

Number gallons oil spilled in Baltimore County, April-October, 2002 

(0.0000925) x (Gal) E Oil Spills = 2000 x 214 

E Oil Spills = tons VOC per ozone season day 
 104

4.1.4.2 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks 

SCC: 26 60 000 000 

Description 

Many underground storage tanks (USTs) are over 15 years old and are constructed of steel, 

which may rust over time. The underground piping connected to these tanks also has the 

potential to leak. Leaking USTs are of concern because they may result in the contamination of 

drinking water, subsurface soils, and ground and surface water, and may emit toxic and/or 

explosive vapors. The contaminated soil and water may also emit VOC. 

Pollutants 

VOC 

Method and 

Data Sources 

Activity 

As suggested in section 4.8.6 of Procedures, MDE staff used emissions from soil and 

groundwater remediation to estimate VOC emissions from leaking underground storage 

tanks. From the MDE/ARMA registration files, inventory staff obtained location of soil 

and groundwater remediation sites and obtained fugitive VOC emissions from each site in 

pounds per day. No seasonal variation was assumed. 

Emission Factor 

VOC emissions are those allowable in each remediation permit- there are different 

allowable emissions for each permit. 

Point Source 

Adjustments 

No point source adjustments were made. 

Adjustment for 

Controls 

No controls are available for this source category. Because MDE staff used maximum allowable 

emissions from permit information, MDE believes that Rule Effectiveness, Control Efficiency, 

and Rule Penetration are not applicable to this source. 
 105

Spatial and 

Temporal 

Allocations 

Spatial 

Data for spatial allocation is not available for this source. 

Temporal 

Data for temporal allocation is not available for this source. 

Emissions 

Calculation 

RS1j + RS2j + RS3j .... E UST = 2000 

where: 

E UST = VOC emissions in tons per day from leaking underground storage tanks 

RS1j, RS2j = pounds VOC per day allowed from remediation site(s) in county j 

2002 Sample Calculation for Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (Anne Arundel County)

No seasonal variation assumed 

Annual VOC emissions in pounds per day: (from soil and groundwater remediation) 

Activity level: 7 days/week (see text) 

VOC emissions in tons per day: 

pounds/day total from registration data: 

pounds/day/ 2000 = tons VOC per day from leaking underground storage tanks in Anne 

Arundel County 
 106

4.1.5 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL, TREATMENT, AND RECOVERY 

4.1.5.1 On-site Incineration 

SCC: 26 01 000 000 

Description 

On-site incineration is the confined burning of waste on a small scale by institutions such as 

hospitals, nursing homes, veterinary offices, funeral homes and laboratories. Large-scale 

incineration is included in the point source inventory. 

Pollutants 

VOC, NOx, SOx, CO, and PM10

Method and 

Data Sources 

In Maryland incinerators are regulated under COMAR 26.11.08. Maryland began regulating 

incinerators for control of particulates in the 1970's. In AQCRs III and IV single chamber 

incinerators, the type that would be used for on-site residential incineration, were banned. All 

such incinerators were rendered inoperative under the direction of the Maryland Department of 

the Environment (MDE). Over 1700 small incinerators were eliminated under this requirement. 

In the other Maryland counties included in the Washington, D.C. nonattainment area, 

incineration of trash in on-site incinerators is prohibited except in areas where public trash 

collection is not provided. 

COMAR 26.11.08.09 now requires all incinerators to obtain a permit to operate and any person 

who owns or operates an incinerator must obtain certification from MDE and renew the 

certification annually. 

MDE/ARMA maintains a registry of all incinerators within the State. Because of the 

requirements prohibiting single chamber incinerators, the requirement for a permit to operate, 

and the operator certification requirements, staff used the sum of the incinerators in the registry 

as representing the total area source emissions from incinerators of all types emitting less than 10 

tons/VOC, 100 tons/yr CO and 50 tons per year NOx. Incinerators from the registry with 

emissions above these thresholds are included in the point source inventory. 

No seasonality is applied. The emission factor is chosen by type of incinerator: waste, 

pathological, hazardous, industrial, special medical, sewage sludge and municipal waste 

combustors. The burn rate is determined by stack test or AP-42. Hours of operation and tons of 

waste per day are supplied by the operator. 
 107

4.1.5.2 Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) 

SCC: 26 30 020 000 

Description 

EPA Procedures mentions that research into VOC emissions from POTWs has found that in the 

event of "heavy chemical loading", 85% of volatile pollutants discharged to these facilities "are 

stripped to the ambient air" (Section 3.5.1). Also, VOC concentration in POTW influent is 

directly proportional to the industrial contribution to POTWs as stated in Procedures, Page 3-14. 

Pollutants 

VOC, NH3 

Method and 

Data Sources 

The emissions from these facilities were calculated based on the method described in Procedures, 

Section 3.5.1. 

Activity 

The percent industrial flow for each POTW in Maryland was supplied by the Maryland 

Water Management Administration. MDE staff multiplied this amount by the emission 

factor listed above to get VOC emissions from each POTW. The individual POTW 

emissions were then totaled by county. Some counties are not listed in this table because 

their industrial effluent is discharged to a POTW in another county. 

Emission Factor 

This method uses an emission factor of 1.1 x 10-4 pounds VOC emitted per gallon of 

industrial wastewater discharged to a POTW. 

Point Source 

Adjustments 

VOC stack emissions in the Air Management registration files from the Patapsco Wastewater 

Treatment Plant in Baltimore City were subtracted from the totals below. 

Adjustment for 

Controls 

No controls are available for this source category. 
 108

Spatial and 

Temporal 

Allocations 

Spatial 

Data for spatial allocation is not available for this source. 

Temporal 

Data for temporal allocation is not available for this source. 

Emissions 

Calculation 

The equation used to estimate emissions from POTWs is: 

DF I J x PIF I J x EF POTW x SAF POTW E POTW = 2000 

Where: 

E POTW = VOC emissions in tons VOC per day from POTWs 

DF I J = Daily flow into POTW i in county j 

PIF I J = Percent industrial flow from POTW i in county j 

EF POTW = VOC emission factor67 for POTWs 

SAF POTW = Seasonal adjustment factor68 for peak ozone season which is 1.4 

2002 Sample Calculation for POTW VOC Emissions (Anne Arundel County): 

Back River Sewage Treatment Plant statistics69: 

Average daily flow (MGD)70: 152.0 

Percent industrial flow: 4.2% 

(843,800) x (4.2%) x (1.1 x 10-4 lbs.VOC / gal) x 1.4 E POTW = 2000 

E POTW = 0.0639 tons VOC / day 

 

67 Emission factor taken from Procedures, Section 3.5.1 

68 Seasonal adjustment factor taken from Procedures, Table 5.8.1 

69 Supplied by the Maryland Water Management Administration 

70 MGD : Million Gallons per Day 
 109

4.1.5.3 Open Burning – Land Clearing Debris 

SCC: 26 10 000 500 

Description 

Open burning of land clearing debris refers to the clearing of land for new construction and the 

burning of organic material (i.e., trees, shrubs and other vegetation). The clearing of land for the 

construction of new buildings and highways often results in debris consisting of trees, shrubs, 

and brush. This debris may be burned in place but it is usually collected in piles for burning. The 

burning of land clearing wastes may be practiced by private individuals, corporations, and 

government agencies (e.g., highway construction department). There are no federal laws 

restricting the open burning of land clearing wastes, although state or local laws may exist.

Residential open burning without a permit is prohibited in Maryland, COMAR 26.11.07, where 

trash and leaf collection is available. The basic difference between the regulation as it applies to 

counties in AQCRs III and IV and the rest of the state is the requirements under which the burn 

takes place, i.e., minimum setbacks from property lines, etc. In the more rural counties, areas 

with no available trash collection are more prevalent. MDE adopted a regulation that prohibits 

open burning during the peak ozone period (June to August). The seasonal prohibition only 

affects those counties that lie within serious and severe ozone nonattainment areas. Certain 

exemptions must be in place however so as not to adversely affect agriculture or restrict fire 

training and recreational activities. Commercial open burning without a permit is prohibited in 

Maryland. 

Pollutants 

VOC, NOx, SOx, CO, PM10 and PM2.5

Method and 

Data Sources 

The method used to calculate emissions, is presented in EIIP71, Chapter 16, Open Burning 

(Revised Final 2001). 

Activity 

The number of acres disturbed by residential, non-residential and roadway construction are 

estimated and then these values are added together to obtain a county-level estimate of total 

acres disturbed by land-clearing. County-level emissions from land clearing debris are then 

calculated by multiplying the total acres disturbed by construction by a weighted loading 

factor and emission factor. 

 

71 Emission Inventory Improvement Program 
 110

The BELD database in BEIS was used to determine the number of acres of hardwoods, 

softwoods, and grasses in each county. Average loading factors were weighted according to 

the percent contribution of each type of vegetation class to the total land area for each county. 

The loading factors for slash hardwood and slash softwood were further adjusted by a factor 

of 1.5 to account for the mass of tree that is below the soil surface that would also be subject 

to burning once the land is cleared. 

Fuel loading factors are as follows: 

Fuel Type Fuel Load Factor 

(tons/acre) 

Adjusted Load Factor 

(tons/acre) 

Hardwood 99 148.5 

Softwood 57 85.5 

Grass 4.5 4.5 

Average fuel loading factors were calculated as follows: 

(Acres HW-COi x LFAdj-HW) +(Acres SW-COi x LFAdj-SW) +(Acres GR-COi x LFAdj-GR) LF OB –LCD – COi Acres TOT-COi

LFOB –LCD – COi = Average Load Factor in County i 

Acres HW-COi = Acres of hardwood in County i from BELD database 

LFAdj-HW = Adjusted Load Factor for Hardwood 

Acres SW-COi = Acres of softwood in County i from BELD database 

LFAdj-SW = Adjusted Load Factor for Softwood 

Acres GR-COi = Acres of grasses in County i from BELD database 

LFAdj-GR = Adjusted Load Factor for Grasses 

Acres TOT-COi = Total Land Acres in County i 

Emission Factors 72

Emission factors in lbs. /ton were taken from AP-42 Table 2.5-1, Emission Factors for Open 

Burning of Municipal Refuse and are listed below: 

VOC 13 Lbs. VOC/ ton 

SOx 1.0 Lbs. SOx/ ton 

CO 85 Lbs. CO/ ton 

PM10 16 Lbs. PM10/ ton 

PM2.5 17 Lbs. PM2.5/ ton 

Ozone Season Daily (OSD) emissions calculated by multiplying annual emissions by 0.25 

then dividing by 92. 

 

72 Emissions factors for VOC NOx, CO, SO2, PM10 and PM2.5 were obtained from AP-42 Table 2.5-1. 
 111

Point Source 

Adjustments 

No subtraction of emissions from point sources is necessary. 

Adjustments 

for Controls 

No controls are available for this source category. 

Spatial and 

Temporal 

Allocations 

Spatial 

Data for spatial allocation is not available for this source. 

Temporal 

Data for temporal allocation is not available for this source. 

Emissions 

Calculation 

Annual Emissions 

AD R-NR-Road x LF OB –LCD – COi x EF OB i E OB –LCD – Ann = 2000 

E OB –LCD – Ann = Annual emissions from open burning of land clearing debris 

AD R-NR-Road = Acres disturbed from Residential, Non-residential and Roadway 

 construction in the county 

LF OB –LCD – COi = Average Load Factor in County i 

FL HW-SW-G = Fuel loading factor for hardwoods, softwoods, and grasses 

EF OB i = Open burning emission factor for pollutant i in lbs. / ton 

Ozone Season Daily Emissions 

E OB –LCD – Ann E OB –LCD – Day = 4 x 92 

E OB –LCD – Day = Ozone Season Daily emissions from open burning 

E OB –LCD – Ann = Annual emissions from open burning of land clearing debris 

4 = Number of seasons in the year 

92 = Days in the season 
 112

 

4.1.5.4 Open Burning – Residential Municipal Solid Waste 

SCC: 26 10 030 000 

Description 

Open burning is the unconfined burning of wood, leaves, land clearing debris, household waste, 

and agricultural crop waste. Household waste, often referred to as residential municipal solid 

waste (MSW), is a term for nonhazardous refuse produced by households (e.g., paper, plastics, 

metals, wood, glass, rubber, leather, textiles, and food wastes). 

Open burning without a permit is prohibited in Maryland where trash and leaf collection is 

available, COMAR 26.11.07. The basic difference between the regulation as it applies to 

counties in AQCRs III and IV and the rest of the state is the requirements under which the burn 

takes place, i.e., minimum setbacks from property lines, etc. In the more rural counties, areas 

with no available trash collection are more prevalent. MDE adopted a regulation that prohibits 

open burning during the peak ozone period (June to August). The seasonal prohibition only 

affects those counties that lie within serious and severe ozone nonattainment areas. Certain 

exemptions must be in place however so as not to adversely affect agriculture or restrict fire 

training and recreational activities. 

Pollutants 

VOC, NOx, SOx, CO, PM10, PM2.5, and Toxics 

Method and 

Data Sources 

The method used to calculate emissions is presented in a study/survey conducted by the MidAtlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU), titled “Open Burning in Residential Areas 

Emissions Inventory Development Report.”73

Activity 

The purpose of the survey was to obtain data for developing activity estimates and control 

information (e.g., bans on burning) that would form the basis of an improved open burning 

emission inventory for Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU) states and 

tribes for the year 2002. 

A rule effectiveness (RE) survey was also performed to estimate controlled emissions for 

areas that prohibit open burning. Household waste burning surveys were completed for 72 

respondents or jurisdictions, while yard waste surveys were conducted for 181 espondents. 

The respondents for this survey were typically local fire wardens or chiefs. Rule 

73 Open Burning in Residential Areas Emissions Inventory Development Reprt, Preparted by E.H. Pechan & 

Associates, Inc. for the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union, dated January 31, 2004. 
 113

effectiveness surveys related to residential MSW rules were conducted for 49 respondents, 

while RE surveys for yard waste burning rules were performed for 51 respondents. In 

obtaining survey responses, Pechan collected activity data and control information for 

areas classified as urban, suburban, and rural, or a combination of these designations 

(defined using data from the 2000 U.S. Census). Pechan also developed a control database 

for each open burning category that describes the recommended control efficiency (CE) 

and rule penetration (RP) values by state and county, and by subcounty, where applicable.

Open burning activity estimates recorded from the survey were used directly to estimate 

emissions for the surveyed jurisdictions. For the non-surveyed areas, including tribal lands, 

the default activity data derived from all survey responses were applied. Households are 

defined as detached single-family unit dwellings as provided by the 2000 U.S. Census.

Emission Factors 

Emission factors in lbs/ton total mass were taken from AP-42 Table 2.5-1, Emission 

Factors for Open Burning of Municipal Refuse and from a 1997 EPA research paper on 

open burning74 are listed below: 

Pollutant Emission Factor 

Lb/ton total mass burned 

VOC 8.556 

NOx 6 

CO 85 

PM10 38 

PM2.5 34.8 

SO2 1.0 

Point Source 

Adjustments 

No subtration of emissions from point sources is necessary. 

Adjustments 

for Controls 

If an area has controls or prohibitions on residential burning, controlled emissions were 

calculated from uncontrolled emissions using the following equation: 

Ec = Euc * [(1-(CE)(RP)(RE)] 

 

74 EPA. 1997. Evaluation of Emissions from the Open Burning Of Household Waste in Barrels. EPA-600/R-97-

134a. U.S. Enivironmental Protection Agency, Control Technologies Center. Research Triangle Park, North 

Carolina. 
 114

where: 

Ec = Controlled area source emissions 

Euc = Uncontrolled area source emissions 

CE = % Control efficiency/100 

RP = % Rule penetration/100 

RE = % Rule effectiveness/100 

The following sections describe how values for CE, RP and RE were derived from the 

survey. 

Rule Effectiveness 

Pechan evaluated differences in RE between rural/suburban and urban areas, as well as 

differences in RE for MSW and yard waste burning. Although one may expect that RE would be 

higher for urban than for suburban or rural areas, ANOVA of the survey results from these 

geographic subdivisions, as well as for the different open burning categories, did not show that 

RE values were drawn from distinct populations. Therefore, the final selection of RE reflects a 

value for all areas and all burning categories. 

There was a total of 26 RE survey responses that included information on the number of 

violating households. To calculate RE, Pechan used the number of households violating the rule, 

and the number of households expected to perform open burning for areas in the region where 

there is no rule (i.e., # households x fraction of open burning households by region from survey). 

The RE values obtained from the survey responses will be used for the specific State or 

jurisdiction surveyed. Non-surveyed areas could not be assigned a jurisdiction-specific RE, 

because no survey responses were obtained for those areas. Pechan did not develop statespecific 

RE values since we had no reason to believe that local jurisdictions in individual states 

implemented their rules differently than local jurisdictions in the rest of the MANE-VU region. 

To estimate a default RE value for the remaining areas, the survey data were statistically 

analyzed. After evaluating the data using the Census 2000 data, a mean value of 96.8 percent 

reflected the best estimator of central tendency. As such, Pechan applied a rule effectiveness of 

96.8 percent to all areas and for both MSW and yard waste burning (Pechan, 2002b).

Control Efficiency and Rule Penetration 

For those areas identified to have a control, CE is assumed to be 100 percent (since the 

control is typically a ban on burning activity). For MSW burning, with the exception of 

Pennsylvania, Pechan assigned 100 percent CE and 100 percent RP to urban and suburban areas 

in the MANE-VU region (i.e., even if the state did not have a statewide ban on burning). In 

Pennsylvania, unless a jurisdiction or county (e.g., Allegheny County) was determined via 

survey to have a ban, it will be assumed that suburban and rural areas allow open burning. For 

yard waste burning, Pechan assigned 100 percent CE and RP to all urban areas in the MANE-VU 

region. Yard waste emissions calculated for suburban and urban areas were assumed to be 
 115

uncontrolled, unless the survey data or other statewide or local control information indicated 

otherwise. For municipal yard waste burning, areas were assumed to either perform this activity 

and have associated emissions, or did not conduct burns and therefore were assigned zero 

emissions. 

In determining annual emissions for those areas with a seasonal ban, Pechan adjusted the RP 

by the length of the seasonal ban relative to the entire year. The RP value also depends on how 

the time period of the ban overlaps with the activity profile for the specific category of burning. 

For example, for brush waste burning, the survey data revealed an average activity profile as 

follows: Winter–20%; Spring–46%; Summer–6%; and Fall–28%. So, for an area that has a 

brush burning ban in the summer, although some percentage of burning is likely to be prevented 

during this season, we assume that 2 percent of the summer season brush burning in August is 

delayed until September when burning is permitted, resulting in an RP of 4 percent to apply to 

annual brush waste burning emissions. As mentioned in the discussion of temporal allocation 

profiles, this also has an affect on the monthly activity profile. A summer RP value of 4 percent 

would result in a revised temporal allocation profile to be: Winter–20%; Spring–46%; Summer– 

4%; and Fall–30%. 

Spatial and 

Temporal 

Allocations 

Spatial 

Pechan collected activity data and control information for areas classified as urban, 

suburban, and rural, or a combination of these designations (defined using data from the 

2000 U.S. Census). 

Temporal 

Activity estimates and associated emissions are calculated on an annual basis. Pechan 

proposes the following temporal allocation profiles to represent monthly, weekly, and daily 

activity profiles by SCC (see Tables II-2 through II-5). The monthly activity profiles were 

developed based on data obtained from the survey. The weekly and weekday/weekend 

profiles were developed based on engineering judgment. These profiles will be applied to 

annual activity for all areas of MANE-VU (i.e., variations in regional, State, or tribal areas 

are not accounted for). 

Temporal Allocation Profile Formats (monthly)

Month 

SCC Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 

2610030000 0.083 0.083 0.083 0.083 0.083 0.083 0.083 0.083 0.083 0.083 0.083 0.083 

2610000400 0.067 0.067 0.153 0.153 0.153 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.093 0.093 0.093 0.067 

2610040400 0.067 0.067 0.153 0.153 0.153 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.093 0.093 0.093 0.067 

2610000100 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.333 0.333 0.333 0.000 

Temporal Allocation Profile Formats (weekly)

Day of Week 
 116

Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun 

2610030000 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.222 0.222 

2610000400 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.222 0.222 

2610040400 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.000 0.000 

2610000100 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.222 0.222 

Temporal Allocation Profile Formats (daily; weekday)

Weekday Hour 

SCC 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 

2610030000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 

2610000400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 

2610040400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 

2610000100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 

Weekday Hour 

SCC 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 0000 

2610030000 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0 0 0 0 

2610000400 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0 0 0 0 

2610040400 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0 0 0 0 

2610000100 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0 0 0 0 

Temporal Allocation Profile Formats (daily; weekend day)

Weekend Day Hour 

SCC 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 

2610030000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 

2610000400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 

2610040400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 

2610000100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 

Weekend Day Hour 

SCC 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 0000 

2610030000 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0 0 0 0 

2610000400 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0 0 0 0 

2610040400 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0 0 0 0 

2610000100 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0 0 0 0 

Emissions 

Calculation 

Emissions were caculated at a census tract level and summed over a county for county level 

emissions. A county level sample emission calculation will not be presented here, however the 

equations for a particular census tract are presented below. All of the census tracts in a county 

would then be summed for county level emission estimates. 

The equation for estimating the mass of waste burned is: 

PUT EQUATION HERE 
 117

Wt MSW = Mass of waste burned per time period 

HH = Number of households that burn (Question 1, Part 2 of survey) 

Bt = Number of burns per time period (Question 3, Part 2) 

M = Mass of waste per burn (Question 5, Part 3) 

Uncontrolled emissions were then calculated using the following equation: 

EUNC = Wt MSW * EF 

where: 

EUNC = Uncontrolled area source emissions 

Wt MSW = Mass of waste burned per time period 

EF = Emission factor per pollutant 

Controlled emissions were then calculated using the following equation: 

EC = EUNC * [(1-(CE)(RP)(RE)] 

where: 

EC = Controlled area source emissions 

EUNC = Uncontrolled area source emissions 

CE = % Control efficiency/100 

RP = % Rule penetration/100 

RE = % Rule effectiveness/100 
 118

 

4.1.5.5 Open Burning – Residential Yard Waste 

 SCC: 26 10 000 100 (Leaf Debris) 

 SCC: 26 10 000 400 (Brush Debris) 

Description 

Open burning is the unconfined burning of wood, leaves, land clearing debris, household waste, 

and agricultural crop waste. Household waste, often referred to as residential municipal solid 

waste (MSW), is a term for nonhazardous refuse produced by households (e.g., paper, plastics, 

metals, wood, glass, rubber, leather, textiles, and food wastes). 

Open burning without a permit is prohibited in Maryland where trash and leaf collection is 

available, COMAR 26.11.07. The basic difference between the regulation as it applies to 

counties in AQCRs III and IV and the rest of the state is the requirements under which the burn 

takes place, i.e., minimum setbacks from property lines, etc. In the more rural counties, areas 

with no available trash collection are more prevalent. MDE adopted a regulation that prohibits 

open burning during the peak ozone period (June to August). The seasonal prohibition only 

affects those counties that lie within serious and severe ozone nonattainment areas. Certain 

exemptions must be in place however so as not to adversely affect agriculture or restrict fire 

training and recreational activities. 

Pollutants 

VOC, NOx, SOx, CO, PM10, PM2.5, and Toxics 

Method and 

Data Sources 

The method used to calculate emissions is presented in a study/survey conducted by the MidAtlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU), titled “Open Burning in Residential Areas 

Emissions Inventory Development Report.”75

Activity 

The purpose of the survey was to obtain data for developing activity estimates and control 

information (e.g., bans on burning) that would form the basis of an improved open burning 

emission inventory for Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU) states and 

tribes for the year 2002. 

A rule effectiveness (RE) survey was also performed to estimate controlled emissions for 

areas that prohibit open burning. Household waste burning surveys were completed for 72 

75 Open Burning in Residential Areas Emissions Inventory Development Reprt, Preparted by E.H. Pechan & 

Associates, Inc. for the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union, dated January 31, 2004. 
 119

respondents or jurisdictions, while yard waste surveys were conducted for 181 

respondents. The respondents for this survey were typically local fire wardens or chiefs. 

Rule effectiveness surveys related to residential MSW rules were conducted for 49 

respondents, while RE surveys for yard waste burning rules were performed for 51 

respondents. In obtaining survey responses, Pechan collected activity data and control 

information for areas classified as urban, suburban, and rural, or a combination of these 

designations (defined using data from the 2000 U.S. Census). Pechan also developed a 

control database for each open burning category that describes the recommended control 

efficiency (CE) and rule penetration (RP) values by state and county, and by subcounty, 

where applicable.

Open burning activity estimates recorded from the survey were used directly to estimate 

emissions for the surveyed jurisdictions. For the non-surveyed areas, including tribal lands, 

the default activity data derived from all survey responses were applied. Households are 

defined as detached single-family unit dwellings as provided by the 2000 U.S. Census.

Emission Factors 

Emission factors in lbs/ton total mass were taken from AP-42 Table 2.5-1, Emission 

Factors for Open Burning of Municipal Refuse and from a 1997 EPA research paper on 

open burning76 are listed below: 

Pollutant Emission Factor 

Lb/ton total mass burned 

VOC 8.556 

NOx 6 

CO 85 

PM10 38 

PM2.5 34.8 

SO2 1.0 

Point Source 

Adjustments 

No subtration of emissions from point sources is necessary. 

Adjustments 

for Controls 

 

76 EPA. 1997. Evaluation of Emissions from the Open Burning Of Household Waste in Barrels. EPA-600/R-97-

134a. U.S. Enivironmental Protection Agency, Control Technologies Center. Research Triangle Park, North 

Carolina. 
 120

If an area has controls or prohibitions on residential burning, controlled emissions were 

calculated from uncontrolled emissions using the following equation: 

Ec = Euc * [(1-(CE)(RP)(RE)] 

where: 

Ec = Controlled area source emissions 

Euc = Uncontrolled area source emissions 

CE = % Control efficiency/100 

RP = % Rule penetration/100 

RE = % Rule effectiveness/100 

The following sections describe how values for CE, RP and RE were derived from the 

survey. 

Rule Effectiveness 

Pechan evaluated differences in RE between rural/suburban and urban areas, as well as 

differences in RE for MSW and yard waste burning. Although one may expect that RE would be 

higher for urban than for suburban or rural areas, ANOVA of the survey results from these 

geographic subdivisions, as well as for the different open burning categories, did not show that 

RE values were drawn from distinct populations. Therefore, the final selection of RE reflects a 

value for all areas and all burning categories. 

There was a total of 26 RE survey responses that included information on the number of 

violating households. To calculate RE, Pechan used the number of households violating the rule, 

and the number of households expected to perform open burning for areas in the region where 

there is no rule (i.e., # households x fraction of open burning households by region from survey). 

The RE values obtained from the survey responses will be used for the specific State or 

jurisdiction surveyed. Non-surveyed areas could not be assigned a jurisdiction-specific RE, 

because no survey responses were obtained for those areas. Pechan did not develop statespecific 

RE values since we had no reason to believe that local jurisdictions in individual states 

implemented their rules differently than local jurisdictions in the rest of the MANE-VU region. 

To estimate a default RE value for the remaining areas, the survey data were statistically 

analyzed. After evaluating the data using the Census 2000 data, a mean value of 96.8 percent 

reflected the best estimator of central tendency. As such, Pechan applied a rule effectiveness of 

96.8 percent to all areas and for both MSW and yard waste burning (Pechan, 2002b). 

Control Efficiency and Rule Penetration 

For those areas identified to have a control, CE is assumed to be 100 percent (since the 

control is typically a ban on burning activity). For MSW burning, with the exception of 

Pennsylvania, Pechan assigned 100 percent CE and 100 percent RP to urban and suburban areas 

in the MANE-VU region (i.e., even if the state did not have a statewide ban on burning). In 

Pennsylvania, unless a jurisdiction or county (e.g., Allegheny County) was determined via 

survey to have a ban, it will be assumed that suburban and rural areas allow open burning. For 
 121

yard waste burning, Pechan assigned 100 percent CE and RP to all urban areas in the MANE-VU 

region. Yard waste emissions calculated for suburban and urban areas were assumed to be 

uncontrolled, unless the survey data or other statewide or local control information indicated 

otherwise. For municipal yard waste burning, areas were assumed to either perform this activity 

and have associated emissions, or did not conduct burns and therefore were assigned zero 

emissions. 

In determining annual emissions for those areas with a seasonal ban, Pechan adjusted the RP 

by the length of the seasonal ban relative to the entire year. The RP value also depends on how 

the time period of the ban overlaps with the activity profile for the specific category of burning. 

For example, for brush waste burning, the survey data revealed an average activity profile as 

follows: Winter–20%; Spring–46%; Summer–6%; and Fall–28%. So, for an area that has a 

brush burning ban in the summer, although some percentage of burning is likely to be prevented 

during this season, we assume that 2 percent of the summer season brush burning in August is 

delayed until September when burning is permitted, resulting in an RP of 4 percent to apply to 

annual brush waste burning emissions. As mentioned in the discussion of temporal allocation 

profiles, this also has an affect on the monthly activity profile. A summer RP value of 4 percent 

would result in a revised temporal allocation profile to be: Winter–20%; Spring–46%; Summer– 

4%; and Fall–30%. 

Spatial and 

Temporal 

Allocations 

Spatial 

Pechan collected activity data and control information for areas classified as urban, 

suburban, and rural, or a combination of these designations (defined using data from the 

2000 U.S. Census). 

Temporal 

Activity estimates and associated emissions are calculated on an annual basis. Pechan 

proposes the following temporal allocation profiles to represent monthly, weekly, and daily 

activity profiles by SCC (see Tables II-2 through II-5). The monthly activity profiles were 

developed based on data obtained from the survey. The weekly and weekday/weekend 

profiles were developed based on engineering judgment. These profiles will be applied to 

annual activity for all areas of MANE-VU (i.e., variations in regional, State, or tribal areas 

are not accounted for). 

Temporal Allocation Profile Formats (monthly)

Month 

SCC Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 

2610030000 0.083 0.083 0.083 0.083 0.083 0.083 0.083 0.083 0.083 0.083 0.083 0.083 

2610000400 0.067 0.067 0.153 0.153 0.153 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.093 0.093 0.093 0.067 

2610040400 0.067 0.067 0.153 0.153 0.153 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.093 0.093 0.093 0.067 

2610000100 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.333 0.333 0.333 0.000 

Temporal Allocation Profile Formats (weekly)
 122

Day of Week SCC

Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun 

2610030000 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.222 0.222 

2610000400 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.222 0.222 

2610040400 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.000 0.000 

2610000100 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.222 0.222 

Temporal Allocation Profile Formats (daily; weekday)

Weekday Hour 

SCC 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 

2610030000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 

2610000400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 

2610040400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 

2610000100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 

Weekday Hour 

SCC 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 0000 

2610030000 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0 0 0 0 

2610000400 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0 0 0 0 

2610040400 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0 0 0 0 

2610000100 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0 0 0 0 

Temporal Allocation Profile Formats (daily; weekend day)

Weekend Day Hour 

SCC 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800 0900 1000 1100 1200 

2610030000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 

2610000400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 

2610040400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 

2610000100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 

Weekend Day Hour 

SCC 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 0000 

2610030000 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0 0 0 0 

2610000400 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0 0 0 0 

2610040400 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0 0 0 0 

2610000100 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0 0 0 0 

Emissions 

Calculation 

Emissions were caculated at a census tract level and summed over a county for county level 

emissions. A county level sample emission calculation will not be presented here, however the 

equations for a particular census tract are presented below. All of the census tracts in a county 

would then be summed for county level emission estimates. 

The equation for estimating the mass of waste burned is: 
 123

Where: 

Wt MSW = Mass of waste burned per time period 

HH = Number of households that burn (Question 1, Part 2 of survey)

Bt = Number of burns per time period (Question 3, Part 2) 

M = Mass of waste per burn (Question 5, Part 3) 

Uncontrolled emissions were then calculated using the following equation: 

EUNC = Wt MSW * EF 

where: 

EUNC = Uncontrolled area source emissions 

Wt MSW = Mass of waste burned per time period 

EF = Emission factor per pollutant 

Controlled emissions were then calculated using the following equation: 

EC = EUNC * [(1-(CE)(RP)(RE)] 

where: 

EC = Controlled area source emissions 

EUNC = Uncontrolled area source emissions 

CE = % Control efficiency/100 

RP = % Rule penetration/100 

RE = % Rule effectiveness/100 
 124

4.1.5.6 Cremation – Animal and Human 

 SCC: 31 502 102 

Description 

Propane-fired burners (afterburner and ignition) are typically used at cemeteries for human body 

and animal cremation. Burners are usually rated at 2,115,000 Btu per hour capacity. Newer units 

installed in thelate 1980's are equipped with a modulating ignition burner. When afterburner 

temperatures reach about 1800 F (980 C), the ignition burner modulates to a low-fire mode that 

will reduce the Btu per hour usage. 

When the crematory reaches an operating temperature of 1,250 F (680 C) the body container is 

placed on the combustion chamber grate and the ignition burner is fired to attain a target 

combustion temperature sufficient for the proper reduction of human remains. The chamber 

preheat by the afterburner reaches 1,250 F (680 C) in about 30 to 45 minutes prior to ash 

removal. When the body container is introduced into the combustion chamber, and the burner is 

ignited, cremation begins at about 1600 to 1800 F (870 to 980 C). Flame impingement on the 

body takes two to three minutes; cremation occurs for about two hours. The remains are then 

raked towards the ignition burner for about two minutes. Cooldown follows for 45 minutes to 1.5 

hours.

Pollutants 

Air Toxics (Criteria Pollutants were not calculated) 

Method and 

Data Sources 

The method used to calculate emissions, is presented in “Documentation for the 1996 Base Year 

National Toxics Inventory for Area Sources” prepared by Eastern Research Group, Inc. (May 31, 

2001) and distributed by U.S. EPA Emissions, Monitoring and Analysis Division, Emission 

Factor and Inventory Group. 

Activity 

In Maryland crematories are regulated under COMAR. COMAR now requires all 

crematories to obtain a permit to operate and any person who owns or operates an 

crematory must obtain certification from MDE and renew the certification annually. 

MDE/ARMA maintains a registry of all crematories within the State. Because of the 

requirement for a permit to operate, and the operator certification requirements, staff used 

the sum of the crematories in the registry as representing the total area source emissions 

from crematories of all types emitting less than 10 tons/VOC, 100 tons/yr CO and 50 tons 

per year NOx. 
 125

Emission Factors 

Emission factors these hazardous air pollutants, except formaldehyde, were taken from the 

State of California Air Resources Board Test Report No. C-90-00477. The emission factor 

used for formaldehyde was reported in the USEPA FIRE78 system database. 

Emission factors were converted to a pound per ton basis using the procedure provided by 

the Emission Standards Division79. National activity was provided by the Emissions 

Standards Division based on an assumed body weight of 150 pounds and information 

reported by the Cremation Association of North America80 that 21.13 percent of bodies 

were cremated and that there were 2,322,265 deaths in the United States in 199681. 

Animal and Human Cremation 

Pollutant Emission Factor 

Lbs. pollutant / ton cremated 

arsenic 4.00E-04 

beryllium 1.84E-05 

cadmium 1.48E-04 

chromium 3.99E-04 

formaldehyde 2.89E-09 

nickel 5.09E-04 

POM as 16-PAH 9.63E-04 

POM as 7-PAH 1.03E-09 

Mercury 4.39E-02 

Point Source 

Adjustments 

No subtration of emissions from point sources is necessary. 

Adjustments 

for Controls 

 

77 State of California Air Resources Board, Engineering Evaluation Branch, Monitoring and Laboratory Division. 

“Evaluation Test on Two Propane Fired Crematories at Camellia Lawn Cemetary.” Test Report No. C-90-004. 

October 29, 1992 

78 U.S. EPA. Factor Information Retrieval (FIRE) System Database, Version 5.1a. Research Triangle Park, NC. 

September 1995. 

79 Crume, Richard, U.S. EPA, Emission Standards Division. Note to Anne Pope, U.S. EPA/Emissions Monitoring 

and Analysis Division. Comments on Human and Animal Cremation information in the “Baseline Emission 

Inventory of HAP Emissions from MACT Sources – Interim Final Report,” September 18, 1998. October 30, 1998. 

80 Cremation Association of North America. 1996 Statistics as found on the Internet Cremation Society, Cremation 

Stats Nationwide webpage: www.cremation.org/stats.htm 81 Ventura, S. et al. “Births and Deaths: United States, 1996.” Monthly Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 64, No. 1, 

Supplement 2. Setpember 11, 1997. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Dieseas Control 

and Prevention, National Center for Health and Statistics. 
 126

No controls are available for this source category. 

Spatial and 

Temporal 

Allocations 

Spatial 

Data for spatial allocation is not available for this source. 

Temporal 

Data for temporal allocation is not available for this source. 

Emissions 

Calculation 

The equation for estimating emissions from crematories is: 

where: 

E CREM = Annual emissions from crematories 

TON cty = Tons cremated per year in county 

EF = Emission Factor per pollutant (lbs/ton) 

2002 Sample Calculation (Harford County)

Arsenic Annual Emissions: 

TON cty = 26 

EF = 0.0004 lbs Arsenic/Ton Cremated 

(26) x (0.0004) E CREM = (2000 lbs/ton) 

E CREM = 5.20E-06 tons Arsenic per Year 
 127

4.1.5.7 Municipal Solid Waste Landfills 

SCC: 26 20 030 000 

Description 

Municipal solid waste landfills receive household and commercial trash. VOC emissions are 

produced from volatilization, chemical reaction and biological decomposition of waste. Methane 

and Carbon dioxide are the primary constituents of landfill gas, and are produced during 

anaerobic decomposition of cellulose and proteins in the landfilled waste. 98.7 percent of 

landfill emissions are methane and carbon dioxide according to the Volatile Organic Compounds 

Species Data Manual, an EPA publication. In addition to methane and carbon dioxide, nonmethane organic carbons (NMOCs) are produced as a small fraction of the landfill gas emissions 

(less than 1%). NMOCs include hazardous air pollutants and reactive VOCs. 

Pollutants 

VOC 

Method and 

Data Sources 

The method used to calculate emissions, is presented in AP-42, Chapter 2.4, Municipal Solid 

Waste Landfills and EIIP82, Volume III, Chapter 15, Landfills, dated September 1997. 

Emission estimation assumptions were also made using supporting documents Standards of 

Performance for New Stationary Sources (NARA, 1991a) and Emission Guidelines for Control 

of Existing Sources (NARA, 1997b). 

To estimate uncontrolled emissions of the various compounds present in landfill gas, total 

landfill gas emissions must first be estimated. Emissions of landfill gas depend on several 

factors including: (1) the size, configuration, and operating conditions of the landfill; and (2) the 

characteristics of the refuse such as moisture content, age, and composition. Uncontrolled CH4

emissions may be estimated for individual landfills by using a theoretical first-order kinetic 

model of methane production developed by the EPA. A computer program that uses this model 

is known as the Landfill Gas Emissions Model (LandGEM). The model equation is as follows:

QCH4 = LO R (e-kc - e-kt) (1) 

 

Where: 

QCH4= Methane generation rate at time t, m3/yr; 

 

82 Emission Inventory Improvement Program 
 128

Lo = Methane generation potential, m3 CH4 / Mg (megagrams) refuse; 

R = Average annual refuse acceptance rate during active life, Mg/yr; 

e = Base log, unitless; 

k = Methane generation rate constant, yr-1;

c = Time since landfill closure, years (c = 0 for active landfills); and 

t = Time since the initial refuse placement, yrs. 

Site-specific landfill information is generally available for variables R, c, and t. When refuse 

acceptance rate information is scant or unknown, R can be estimated by dividing the refuse in 

place by the age of the landfill. Also, nondegradable refuse should be subtracted from the refuse 

in place to prevent over estimation of CH4 generation. The average annual acceptance rate 

should only be estimated by this method when there is inadequate information available on the 

actual annual acceptance rate. 

The following LandGEM parameters are needed to estimate emissions from a landfill: 

 The methane generation rate (k), 

 The potential methane generation capacity (Lo), 

 The number of years past closure that the model will estimate emissions, 

 The estimated percentage composition of methane and carbon dioxide in the gas (the default 

value is a 50/50 split), 

 The concentration of nonmethane organic compounds (NMOC) found in the landfill gas, 

 The concentrations of toxic air pollutants found in the landfill gas, and whether the landfill 

has been used for disposal of hazardous waste (co-disposal). 

 The years the landfill has been in operation (including the closure year), 

 The design capacity of the landfill, 

The Landfill Gas Emissions Model has several different default values for k, Lo and NMOC 

concentration. The EIIP document recommends using AP-42 default values for k, Lo and 

NMOC concentration when site-specific information is not known. The AP-42 default value for 

k (0.04/yr) was used for Maryland since it has normal or above normal precipitation, rather than 

the default value. This recommendation is based on a comparison of gas-yield forecasts with 

landfill gas recovery data. The LandGEM contains a proposed regulatory default value for total 

VOCs of 595 ppmv expressed as hexane for non-codisposal and 2,420 ppmv for codisposal. 

However, there is a wide range for total VOC values from landfills. The proposed regulatory 

default value for VOC concentration was developed for regulatory compliance purposes and to 

provide the most cost-effective default values on a national basis for the regulation. Therefore, if 

the landfill is known to contain only municipal solid waste or have very little organic 

commercial/industrial wastes, then the mean value of all VOC concentrations, 595 ppmv as 

hexane should be used. This was done for Maryland. The AP-42 default values used in the 

LandGEM to develop Maryland’s landfill inventory are shown in the table below: 
 129

Landgem Model Parameters AP-42 Default Values 

Lo : 100.00 m3

 / Mg Methane Generation Potential 

k : 0.0400 1/yr Decay Rate/Rate of Decomposition 

NMOC : 595.00 ppmv Non-methane Concentration 

Methane : 50.00 % volume 

Carbon Dioxide : 50..00 % volume 

Activity 

Data was obtained from MDE’s Solid Waste Program and from the landfill facilites 

directly. 

Emission Factors 

 All factors are incorparted into the LandGEM itself. 

Point Source 

Adjustments 

The Brown Station Sites A & B, Sandy Hill Landfill, Montgomery County RRF, and Newland 

Park Landfill are considered Point Sources. LandGEM model runs for these landfills are not 

included in the area source emission estimates for landfills. 

Emission reductions were calculated for landfills that used control technology to reduce 

emissions. Controlled emissions from landfills were calculated in the following manner: 

Adjustments for 

Controls 

Equation:

E CON-LF = {E UNC-LF x (1 – CEFF)} + {E UNC-LF x C EFF x [1 – (D EFF x RE)]} 

Where: 

E CON-LF = Controlled emissions from landfills 

E UNC-LF = Uncontrolled emissions from landfills (generated from the LandGEM model) 

C EFF = Landfill collection efficiency (EPA default = 75%) 

D EFF = Control device destruction efficiency (98%) 

RE = Rule effectiveness (EPA default 80%) 
 130

Spatial and 

Temporal 

Allocations 

Data for spatial and temporal allocation is not available for this source. 
 131

4.1.6 SMALL STATIONARY SOURCE FOSSIL FUEL USE 

4.1.6.1 Small Electric Utility Boilers 

All small electric utility boilers are inventoried in the point source category. The list of small 

boilers from Inventory of Power Plants in the United States, DOE/EIA-0095(88) was obtained 

and indicated that all small electric boilers were included in the point source inventory. 

4.1.6.2 Other Fuel Consumption 

Coke and process gas emissions will be inventoried as point sources. 
 132

4.1.6.3 Fuel Oil Combustion 

SCC: 21 04 011 000 (residential kerosene) 

SCC: 21 03 011 000 (commercial/institutional kerosene) 

SCC: 21 04 004 000 (residential distillate oil) 

SCC: 21 03 004 000 (commercial/institutional distillate oil) 

SCC: 21 02 004 000 (industrial distillate oil) 

SCC: 21 03 005 000 (commercial/institutional residual oil) 

SCC: 21 02 005 000 (industrial residual oil) 

Description 

Data collection for fuel oil consumption covers the use of both distillate and residual oil. 

Distillate oil includes fuel oil grades 1,2 and 4. Diesel fuel and kerosene also can be considered 

as distillate oils. Residential and commercial/institutional sources are the largest consumers of 

distillate oil, nationwide. Residual oil includes fuel oil grades 5 and 6. In most areas residual oil 

is not used by residential sources, but industrial and commercial/institutional users may consume 

significant amounts. 

Pollutants 

PM10, PM2.5, SOx, NOx, CO, VOC 

Method and 

Data Sources 

Activity 

Total sales statistics of kerosene, distillate oil, and residual oil in the State of Maryland 

were obtained from the Annual Report on Sales of Fuel Oil and Kerosene, 2002, published 

by Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy83. 

Emission Factors 

Emission factors were obtained from AP-4284, Tables 1.3-1 and 1.3-3 (hand-fed units). 

Uncontrollled Emission Factors – 

 AP-42 Tables 1.3-1 and 1.3-3 

Residential Commercial Commercial Industrial Industrial Commercial Industrial 

Distillate Distillate Residual Distillate Residual Residual 1% S Residual 1% S

 

83 Total residential distillate oil use in the State of Maryland in 2002 from U.S Department of Energy, Energy 

Information Administration, Office of Oil and Gas, Petroleum Marketing Monthly, "Annual Report on Sales of Fuel 

Oil and Kerosene, 2002". 

84 Emission Factors from AP-42 Tables 1.3-1 and 1.3-3 
 133

lbs/Kgal lbs/Kgal lbs/Kgal lbs/Kgal lbs/Kgal lbs/Kgal lbs/Kgal 

PM10 1.080 1.080 13.494 1.000 18.714 7.703 10.683 

PM2.5 0.830 0.830 5.011 0.250 12.189 2.861 6.958 

SOx 43.200 43.200 318.000 43.200 318.000 159.000 159.000 

NOx 18.000 20.000 55.000 20.000 55.000 55.000 55.000 

CO 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.000 

VOC 0.713 0.340 1.130 0.200 0.280 1.130 0.280 

Point Source 

Adjustments 

No subtration of emissions from point sources is necessary. 

Adjustments 

for Controls 

No controls are available for this source category. 

Spatial and 

Temporal 

Allocations 

Spatial 

This information on total sales of kerosene, distillate oil and residual oil was broken down 

to the county level using a spatial allocation factor documented and recommended by 

EIIP85 in an Area Source Method Abstract for Residential and Commercial/Institutional 

Fuel Oil and Kerosene combustion. 

MDE developed an allocation factor from local and state totals of annual heating-degree 

days and population with fuel oil to spatially allocate fuel oil consumption. The method is 

A “heating-degree day” is a unit of measure used to indicate how cold it has been over a 

24-hour period. Daily heating-degree days are calculated as the difference between the 

base value of 65°F and the mean temperature for the day (mean of the high and low 

temperatures for the day). 

Annual heating degree days are the sum of the daily heating degree days. Heating degree 

data is available from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA).86

 

85 Emissions Inventory Improvement Program (EIIP) Area Source Method Abstract – Residential and 

Commercial/Institutional Fuel Oil and Kerosene Combustion, dated April 2002 

86 http://www.noaa.gov (home page) or http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ol/climate/climateproducts.html#PUBS (for a list 

of available data) 
 134

4.1.6.4 Coal Combustion 

SCC: 21 04 002 000 (Residential Coal) 

SCC: 21 03 002 000 (Commercial/Institutional Coal) 

Description 

Residential 

Coal 

This source category covers air emissions from coal combustion in the residential sector. 

Bituminous coal, mined here in Maryland, represents the bulk of the coal used residentially for 

space heating in the State. Although mined nearby in Pennsylvania, readily available, and 

cleaner burning, anthracite coal is not used much in Maryland because of its expense. 

Pollutants 

PM10, PM2.5, SOx, NOx, CO, VOC 

Method and 

Data Sources 

Activity 

The following assumptions were made in the computation of emissions from coal 

combustion from the residential sources. 

(i) Number of Dwelling Units using Coal 

The number of dwelling units using coal for space heating for 2002 was obtained from 1990 

Census Profile Series, Social and Economic Characteristics of Population and Housing. The 

number of new housing units authorized for construction between 1990 and 2002 was 

obtained from the Maryland Office of Planning – New Residential Units Authorized for 

Construction by Building Permits (http://www.op.state.md.us). MDE estimated that no new 

housing units would be equipped to burn coal as a home heating fuel. 

COMAR 26.11.09.04 prohibits the use of solid fuel-burning equipment that has a rated heat 

input of less than 35 million BTU per hour. 

(ii) Residential Coal Activity Consumption Data 

The State Energy Data Report, Consumption Estimates, by the Energy Information 

Administration, provided information on estimated coal consumption. The report indicates 

that in Maryland mostly bituminous coal was used in 2002. It was assumed, therefore, that 

bituminous coal was consumed by most of the hand-fired residential coal sources in the State 

of Maryland. 
 135

Emission Factors 

Emission factors were obtained from AP-42, Tables 1.1-3 and 1.1-19 (hand-fed units). 

Coal Emission Factors 

NOx 

(lbs./kgal) 

CO 

(lbs./kgal) 

VOC 

(lbs./kgal) 

PM 10 

(lbs./kgal) 

SOx 87

(lbs./kgal) 

Residential 9.10 275.00 10.00 6.20 62.00 

Point Source 

Adjustments 

No subtration of emissions from point sources is necessary. 

Adjustments 

for Controls 

No controls are available for this source category. 

Spatial and 

Temporal 

Allocations 

Spatial 

MDE developed an allocation factor from local and state totals of annual heating-degree 

days and housing units heating with coal to spatially allocated coal consumption. The 

method is documented and recommended by EIIP88 in an Area Source Method Abstract 

for natural gas and LPG combustion. Because the emission factor was specifically adjusted

to reflect seasonal emissions through heating degree days, no further seasonal adjustment 

factor is necessary. 

 

A “heating-degree day” is a unit of measure used to indicate how cold it has been over a 

24-hour period. Daily heating-degree days are calculated as the difference between the 

base value of 65°F and the mean temperature for the day (mean of the high and low 

temperatures for the day). 

Annual heating-degree days are the sum of the daily heating-degree days. Heating degree 

data is available from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA).89

87 MDE assumed an average sulfur content in coal of 2% 

88 Emissions Inventory Improvement Program (EIIP) Area Source Method Abstract – Natural Gas and LPG 

Combustion, dated April 2002 

89 http://www.noaa.gov (home page) or http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ol/climate/climateproducts.html#PUBS (for a list 

of available data) 
 136

 ∑ =

AllCountiesInState

County County

InventoryCounty InventoryCounty

InventoryCounty

HDD CHU

HDD CHU SAF

)*(

*

 

Where: 

SAF INVENTORY COUNTY = Spatial apportioning factor for inventory county 

HDD INVENTORY COUNTY = Annual heating degree days for inventory county 

CHU INVENTORY COUNTY = Housing units using coal in inventory county 

HDD COUNTY = Annual heating degree days for each county in the state 

CHU COUNTY = Housing units using coal for each county in the state 

The spatial apportioning factor is used to allocate the state fuel total to the county level using 

the following equation: 

Coal INVENTORY COUNTY = SAF INVENTORY COUNTY x Coal TOTAL STATE

Where: 

Coal INVENTORY COUNTY = Total Coal fuel consumed in the inventory county 

Coal TOTAL STATE = Total Coal fuel consumed in the inventory county 

Temporal 

MDE assumed that all residential coal combustion is used for space heating purposes. The 

total coal consumed in the county can be allocated by month or period using proportions of 

annual and monthly (or period) heating-degree days. 

HDD MONTH Residential Fuel MONTH = Residential Fuel ANNUAL x HDD ANNUAL

where: 

Residential Fuel MONTH = Space heating fuel use for inventory month 

Residential Fuel ANNUAL = Space heating fuel use for inventory year 

 HDD MONTH = Heating degree days for inventory month 

 HDD ANNUAL = Heating degree days for inventory year 

Emissions 

Calculation 

Ozone Season Daily Emissions 

Equation:

(EF COAL i x Coal Space Heat - J ) HDD Co Oz Season

2000 x

E COAL = HDD Co Annual

Ozone DAYS
 137

E COALG = Ozone Season Daily emissions from residential coal combustion 

EF COAL i = Emission factor for coal combustion for pollutant i 

Coal Space Heat - J = Coal consumed for space heating in county j 

HDD Co Oz Season = Number of heating degree days in county for ozone season 

HDD Co Annual = Number of heating degree days in county in the calendar year 2002 

Ozone DAYS = Number of days in the ozone season: 214 Residential; 168 Commercial 

Residential Coal Combustion Sample Calculation (Allegany County) (tons / ozone season day)

Total Residential Coal Consumption – State of Maryland 8,360 tons 

To calculate spatial apportioning factor for Allegany County: 

HDD INVENTORY COUNTY x CHU INVENTORY COUNTY SAF ALLEGANY COUNTY = ∑ ALL COUNTIES IN STATE (HDD COUNTY x CHU COUNTY) 

SAF ALLEGANY COUNTY = 0.045531 
 138

To calculate tons of coal used in Allegany County: 

 Residential Coal ALLEGANY COUNTY = SAF ALLEGANY COUNTY x Coal TOTAL STATE

 Residential Coal ALLEGANY COUNTY = 0.045531 x 8,360 

 Residential Coal ALLEGANY COUNTY = 380.6408 tons 

Coal used for space heating in ozone season in Allegany County 

HDD PERIOD Residential Space Heating Fuel PERIOD = Space Heating Fuel ANNUAL x HDD ANNUAL

1093 Residential Space Heating Fuel PERIOD = 380.6408 x 5234 

Residential Space Heating Fuel PERIOD = 79.48804 tons 

Equation:

Residential Coal VOC Ozone Season Day Emission Calculation for Allegany County 

(EF COAL i x Coal Space Heat - J ) 

E (2000 x 214) COAL = 

(10.0 x 79.48804 ) E COAL = (2000 x 214) 

E COAL = 0.0019 tons VOC / Ozone season day 
 139

Description – Commercial and Institutional Coal 

 

Commercial and Institutional sources of coal combustion above the point source threshold are 

included in the point source portion of the inventory. The following table lists area source 

emissions from commercial and institutional sources smaller than the threshold values. 

Methods and 

Data Sources 

The following assumptions were made in the computation of emissions from coal combustion 

from the commercial and institutional sources not included in the point source inventory. 

Activity 

(i) Coal Consumption Data 

The State Energy Data Report (SEDR) estimated that approximately 68,000 tons/year of total 

coal was used commerically by Maryland in 2002. 

(ii) Number of Dwelling Units using Coal 

The number of dwelling units using coal for space heating for 2002 was obtained from 1990 

Census Profile Series, Social and Economic Characteristics of Population and Housing. The 

number of new housing units authorized for construction between 1990 and 2002 was 

obtained from the Maryland Office of Planning – New Residential Units Authorized for 

Construction by Building Permits (http://www.op.state.md.us). MDE estimated that no new 

housing units would be equipped to burn coal as a home heating fuel. 

COMAR 26.11.09.04 prohibits the use of solid fuel-burning equipment that has a rated heat 

input of less than 35 million BTU per hour. 

Emission Factors 

Emission factors were obtained from AP-42, Tables 1.1-3 and 1.1-19 (average of overfeed 

and underfeed stoker). 

Coal Emission Factors 

NOx 

(lbs./kgal) 

CO 

(lbs./kgal) 

VOC 

(lbs./kgal) 

PM 10 

(lbs./kgal) 

SOx 90

(lbs./kgal) 

Commercial / 

Institutional 8.50 8.50 0.675 6.10 69 

 

90 MDE assumed an average sulfur content in coal of 2% 
 140

Point Source 

Adjustments 

No subtration of emissions from point sources is necessary. 

Adjustments 

for Controls 

No controls are available for this source category. 

Spatial and 

Temporal 

Allocations 

Spatial 

Spatial and temporal allocation to this source category were calculated in the same manner 

as the residential coal combustion category. 

Temporal 

Spatial and temporal allocation to this source category were calculated in the same manner 

as the residential coal combustion category. 

Emissions 

Calculation 
 141

4.1.6.5 Natural Gas Combustion 

SCC: 21 04 060 000 (Residential Natural Gas) 

SCC: 21 03 060 000 (Commercial/Institutional Natural Gas) 

Description 

This source category covers air emissions from natural gas combustion in the residential and 

commercial/institutional sectors for space heating, water heating, and cooking. This category 

includes small boilers, furnaces, heaters and other heating units that are not inventoried as point 

sources. Residential and commercial sectors comprise housing units; wholesale and retail 

businesses; health institutions; social and educational institutions; and Federal, state and local 

government institutions (e.g., military installations, prisons, office buildings). Natural gas is one 

of the major fuels used throughout the country. It is used mainly for power generation, for 

industrial process steam and heat production, and for domestic and commercial space heating. It 

is also used for domestic cooking and hot water heating. 

Pollutants 

PM10, PM2.5, SOx, NOx, CO, VOC 

Method and 

Data Sources 

The following assumptions were made in the computation of the emissions from natural gas 

combustion. 

Activity 

(i) Number of Dwelling Units using Natural Gas 

The number of dwelling units using natural gas for space heating for 2002 was obtained 

from 1990 Census Profile Series, Social and Economic Characteristics of Population and 

Housing. The number of new housing units authorized for construction between 1990 and 

2002 was obtained from the Maryland Office of Planning – New Residential Units 

Authorized for Construction by Building Permits (http://www.op.state.md.us). The total 

number of additional housing units constructed in the county was apportioned to type of 

home heating fuel by the same ratio as the 1990 Census figures. 

(ii) Residential and Commercial/Institutional Natural Gas Consumption Data 

Total residential and commercial/institutional natural gas consumption data in the State of 

Maryland for 2002 was obtained from surveying the following companies: Baltimore Gas 

and Electric (Constellation Energy Group), Washington Gas Energy Services (Maryland 
 142

Division), Chesapeake Utilities Corporation, Columbia Gas of Maryland, Easton Utility 

Commission, and Elkton Gas Company. The companies provided natural gas sales 

statistics for the year 2002 in therms or cubic feet for all counties in their service area for 

the residential, commercial, and industrial categories. These statistics were then converted 

into million cubic feet using a conversion factor of 1 therm equals 100 cubic feet. 

Emission Factors 

(iii) Emission Factors – Natural Gas 

Emission factors for combustion of natural gas in commercial boilers are presented in 

Table 1.4-1 and 1.4-2 of Section 1.4 of AP-42. The emission factors for PM are assumed 

to be less than 1.0 micrometers in diameter. Therefore the PM emisson facotrs preseneted 

may be used to estimate PM10, PM2.5 or PM1. Total PM is the sum of filterable and 

condensable PM. AP-42 Tables 1.4-1 - 1.4-2. 

Natural Gas Emission Factors 

Nox 

(lbs./106

 scf) 

CO 

(lbs./106 scf) 

VOC 

(lbs./106 scf) 

PM 10 

(lbs./106 scf) 

PM 2.5 

(lbs./106 scf) 

SOx 

(lbs./106 scf) 

Residential 94 40 5.50 1.90 1.90 0.60 

Commercial 94 84 5.50 1.90 1.90 0.60 

Point Source 

Adjustments 

No subtration of emissions from point sources is necessary. 

Adjustments 

for Controls 

No controls are available for this source category. 

Spatial and 

Temporal 

Allocations 

Spatial 

The natural gas survey of suppliers provided MDE with county totals for natural gas 

consumption. Therefore MDE did not have to use an allocation factor derived from local 

and state totals of annual heating degree days and housing units heating with natural gas to 

spatially allocated natural gas consumption to the county level. 

1

 The VOC emission factor is 11.0 with 34% methane. The number listed is the nonmethane emission factor. 

2

 The VOC emission factor is 5.80 with 52% methane. The number listed is the nonmethane emission factor. 
 143

Temporal 

In addition to space heating, natural gas is often used for cooking and water heating. For 

ozone and other seasonal inventories, consumption for cooking and water heating may be 

assumed to be constant through the year, but fuel used for space heating must be 

apportioned according to heating needs. 

To separate residential space heating natural gas usage from cooking and water heating, 

MDE used data from the State Energy Data Report, Consumption Estimates, Energy 

Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, U.S. Department of 

Energy. Specifically data was collected from Table 15 – Natural Gas Deliveries to 

Residential Customers, by State, 1998-2002. The residential deliveries for the month with 

the lowest deliveries can be assumed to be only for cooking and water heating. The 

percentage of residential natural gas consumption for cooking and water heating may then 

be calculated: 

Annual Non-Space 12 * Lowest Monthly Fuel Use 

Heating Percent = Annual Fuel Use * 100 

Annual Non-Space 12 * 1635 

Heating Percent = 80,447 * 100 

Annual Non-Space 

Heating Percent = 24.389 % 

The annual non-space heating percent can be calculated in a similar manner for 

commercial/institutional natural gas usage. The percentage of commercial/institutional natural 

gas consumption for non-space heating may then be calculated: 

Annual Non-Space 12 * Lowest Monthly Fuel Use 

Heating Percent = Annual Fuel Use * 100 

Annual Non-Space 12 * 2440 

Heating Percent = 65323 * 100 

Annual Non-Space 

Heating Percent = 44.823 % 

This percentage may be applied to the inventory area’s total residential and/or 

commercial/institutional natural gas consumption to calculate the non-space heating portion 

of usage. This portion can be subtracted from the annual total, and the remaining 

consumption, which is being used for space heating, can be allocated by month or period 

using proportions of annual and monthly or period heating degree days. 

HDD MONTH Space Heat Fuel MONTH = Space Heat Fuel ANNUAL x HDD ANNUAL

Where: 
 144

Space Heat Fuel MONTH = Space heating fuel use for inventory month 

Space Heat Fuel ANNUAL = Space heating fuel use for inventory year 

 HDD MONTH = Heating degree days for inventory month 

 HDD ANNUAL = Heating degree days for inventory year 

Emissions 

Calculation 

Emission Calculation – Residential Ozone Season Daily Emissions

Equation:

Days

iNatGas HotWaterAp Jp

CoAnnual

iNatGas SpaceHeat J CoOzSeason

NatGas

Ozone

EF NG

HDD

EF NG HDD

E

⎥

⎦

⎤ ⎢

⎣

⎡ +⎥

⎦

⎤ ⎢

⎣

⎡

=

− − − −

2000

*

*

2000

*( )

E NatGas = Ozone Season Daily emissions from natural gas combustion 

EF NatGas-i = Emission factor for natural gas combustion for pollutant i 

NG Space Heat - J = Natural gas consumed for space heating in county j 

HDD Co Oz Season = Number of heating degree days in county for ozone season 

HDD Co Annual = Number of heating degree days in county in the calendar year 2002 

NG Hot water/App - J = Natural gas consumed for during ozone season by hot water and 

appliances in county j 

Ozone DAYS = Number of days in the ozone season: 214 Residential; 168 Commercial 

Total Residential Natural Gas Consumption – Baltimore City91 14,483 M ft3

Percent natural gas used for cooking & appliances in the State of Maryland92

Total Natural Gas 

Delivered 

Lowest Monthly Delivery 

of Natural Gas 

Percent of Natural Gas 

used for Cooking & 

Water Heating 

Res Comm Res Comm Res Comm 

State of 

Maryland 80,447 65323 1635 2440 24.389 % 44.823 % 

Percent natural gas used for cooking & appliances in Baltimore City 

 Residential NG Hot water/App - J = 24.389 % x NG BALTIOMORE COUNTY 

 Residential NG Hot water/App - J = 24.389 % x 14,483 

 

3

 Natural gas consumption data gathered from MDE survey – Baltimore County data from BGE 

4

 Lowest summer monthly total is assumed to be for cooking and appliances. 
 145

 Residential NG Hot water/App - J = 3,532.130 M ft3

 

Natural gas used for space heating in Baltimore County 

 Residential NG Space Heat - J = 14,483 – 3,532.130 M ft3

 Residential NG Space Heat - J = 10,951 M ft3

Natural gas used for space heating in ozone season in Baltimore City 

HDD PERIOD Residential Space Heating Fuel PERIOD = Space Heating Fuel ANNUAL x HDD ANNUAL

605 Residential Space Heating Fuel PERIOD = 10,951 x 3884 

Residential Space Heating Fuel PERIOD = 1,705.807 M ft3

Natural gas used for hot water and appliances in ozone season in Baltimore City 

Months ozone season Residential Hot Water Fuel PERIOD = Hot Water Fuel ANNUAL x Months Year 

7 Residential Hot Water Fuel PERIOD = 3532.130 x 12 

Residential Hot Water Fuel PERIOD = 2,060.409 M ft3

Equation:

VOC Ozone Season Day Emission Calculation 

(EF NG i x NG Space Heat - J ) + (EF NG i x N Hot water/App - J ) 

E (2000 x 214) NatGas = 

(5.5 x 1,705.807) + (5.5 x 2,060.409) E NatGas = (2000 x 214) 

E NatGas = 0.0484 tons VOC / Ozone season day 

The same equation and methodology can be used to estimate emission of various pollutants. 

 
 146

4.1.6.6 Liquified Petroleum Gas Combustion 

SCC: 21 04 007 000 (Residential LPG) 

SCC: 21 03 007 000 (Commercial/Institutional LPG) 

Description 

This source category covers air emissions from liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) combustion in the 

residential and commercial sectors for space heating, water heating, or cooking. LPG includes 

propane, propylene, butane, and butylenes. The product used for domestic heating is composed 

primarily of propane. This category includes small boilers, furnaces, heaters and other heating 

units that are not inventoried as point sources. Residential and commercial sectors comprise 

housing units; wholesale and retail businesses; health institutions; social and educational 

institutions; and Federal, state and local government institutions (e.g., military installations, 

prisons, office buildings). 

Pollutants 

PM10, PM2.5, SOx, NOx, CO, VOC 

Method and 

Data Sources 

 

The following assumptions were made in the computation of the emissions from liquified 

petroleum gas (LPG) combustion. 

Activity 

1. Number of Dwelling Units using LPG 

The number of dwelling units using LPG for space heating for 2002 was obtained from 

1990 Census Profile Series, Social and Economic Characteristics of Population and 

Housing. The number of new housing units authorized for construction between 1990 and 

2002 was obtained from the Maryland Office of Planning – New Residential Units 

Authorized for Construction by Building Permits (http://www.op.state.md.us). The total 

number of additional housing units constructed in the county was apportioned to type of 

home heating fuel by the same ratio as the 1990 Census figures. 

2. Residential and Commercial LPG Activity Consumption Data 

Total residential and commercial LPG consumption data for space heating in the State of 

Maryland (LPG ST) for 2002 were obtained from State Energy Data Report, Consumption 

Estimates, Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, 

U.S.Department of Energy. 
 147

Emission Factors 

Emission factors for combustion of LPG in commercial boilers are presented in Table 1.5-

1 of Section 1.5 of AP-42 (EPA, 1998a). The LPG emission factor for PM may be assumed 

to represent PM 10 emissions. Because no emission factors were located for the combustion 

of LPG for residential consumption, emission factors for commercial boilers may be used 

for residential emissions. PM 10 and SOx emission factors listed below are averages of the 

commercial emission factors for boilers that use propane and butane. The SOx emission 

factors reported below were calculated using the AP-42 emission factor and multiplied by 

the sulfur content of the fuel (S = 0.18). 

LPG Emission Factors 

NOx 

(lbs./kgal) 

CO 

(lbs./kgal) 

VOC 

(lbs./kgal) 

PM 10 

(lbs./kgal) 

PM 2.5 

(lbs./kgal) 

SOx 

(lbs./kgal) 

Residential 14 1.9 0.5 0.45 0.0 0.0171 

Commercial 14 1.9 0.5 0.45 0.0 0.0171 

Point Source 

Adjustments 

No subtration of emissions from point sources is necessary. 

Adjustments 

for Controls 

No controls are available for this source category. 

Spatial and 

Temporal 

Allocations 

Spatial 

MDE developed an allocation factor from local and state totals of annual heating degree days 

and housing units heating with liquid propane gas to spatially allocated liquid propane gas 

consumption. The method is documented and recommended by EIIP93 in an Area Source 

Method Abstract for natural gas and LPG combustion. 

A “heating degree day” is a unit of measure used to indicate how cold it has been over a 24-

hour period. Daily heating degree days are calculated as the difference between the base 

value of 65°F and the mean temperature for the day (mean of the high and low temperatures 

for the day). 

 

93 Emissions Inventory Improvement Program (EIIP) Area Source Method Abstract – Natural Gas and LPG 

Combustion, dated April 2002 
 148

Annual heating degree days are the sum of the daily heating degree days. Heating degree data 

is available from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).94

HDD INVENTORY COUNTY x LP-HU INVENTORY COUNTY SAF INVENTORY COUNTY = ∑ ALL COUNTIES IN STATE (HDD COUNTY x LP-HU COUNTY) 

Where: 

SAF INVENTORY COUNTY = Spatial apportioning factor for inventory county 

HDD INVENTORY COUNTY = Annual heating degree days for inventory county 

LP-HU INVENTORY COUNTY = Housing units using LP gas for inventory county 

HDD COUNTY = Annual heating degree days for each county in the state 

LP-HU COUNTY = Housing units using LP gas for each county in the state 

The spatial apportioning factor is used to allocate the state fuel total to the county level 

using the following equation: 

LPG INVENTORY COUNTY = SAF INVENTORY COUNTY x LPG TOTAL STATE

Where: 

LPG INVENTORY COUNTY = Total LPG fuel consumed in the inventory county 

LPG TOTAL STATE = Total LPG fuel consumed in the inventory county 

Temporal 

In addition to space heating, liquid propane gas is often used for cooking and water heating. 

For ozone and other seasonal inventories, consumption for cooking and water heating may be 

assumed to be constant through the year, but fuel used for space heating must be apportioned 

according to heating needs. 

To separate residential space heating usage from cooking and water heating, MDE used data 

from the State Energy Data Report, Consumption Estimates, Energy Information 

Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, U.S. Department of Energy. Data 

was obtained from the follow reports: 

1. Water-Heating Energy Consumption in U.S. Households by South Census Region 2000 

2. Appliances Energy Consumption in U.S. Households by South Census Region 2000 

3. Total Energy Consumption in U.S. Households by South Census Region 2000 

4. Data from Maryland Office of Planning - New Residential Units Authorized for 

Construction by Building Permits 

 

The percentage of liquid propane gas consumption for cooking and water heating may then 

be calculated by developing a ratio between the amount of LPG used for hot water, 

appliances, and the total amount of LPG consumed (space heating + hot water + appliances). 

 

94 http://www.noaa.gov (home page) or http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ol/climate/climateproducts.html#PUBS (for a list 

of available data) 
 149

Also, 2002 residential LPG usage was estimated by taking the percent of new housing units 

constructed in 2000 and applying it to 2001 and 2002 new housing construction data from the 

Maryland Department of Planning. 

Percent of LPG used for amount of LPG used for hot water and appliances 

cooking & appliances = total amount of LPG consumed 

(100 + 43) = 572 

= 0.25 

Therefore 25 percent of the annual LPG consumed is used for non-space heating and an 

individual county’s residential LPG consumption total for hot water and appliances can 

be calculated as follows: 

LPG Hot water/App - J = 25% x LPG INVENTORY COUNTY 

Where: 

LPG Hot water/App - J = LPG consumed for hot water and appliances in county j 

This percentage may be applied to the inventory area’s total residential liquid propane gas 

consumption to calculate the cooking and water heating portion of usage. This portion can be 

subtracted from the annual total, and the remaining consumption, which is being used for space 

heating, can be allocated by month or period using proportions of annual and monthly or period 

heating degree days. 

HDD MONTH Residential Fuel MONTH = Residential Fuel ANNUAL x HDD ANNUAL

where: 

Residential Fuel MONTH = Space heating fuel use for inventory month 

Residential Fuel ANNUAL = Space heating fuel use for inventory year 

 HDD MONTH = Heating degree days for inventory month 

 HDD ANNUAL = Heating degree days for inventory year 

Emissions 

Calculation 

Emission Calculation

Ozone Season Daily Emissions 

Equation:
 150

(EF LPG i x LPG Space Heat - J ) HDD Co Oz Season (EF LPG i x LPG Hot water/App - 

J ) 

2000 

x 

HDD Co Annual

+

2000 E LPG = 

Ozone DAYS

E LPG = Ozone Season Daily emissions from liquid propane gas combustion 

EF LPG i = Emission factor for LPG combustion for pollutant i 

LPG Space Heat - J = LPG consumed for space heating in county j 

HDD Co Oz Season = Number of heating degree days in county for ozone season 

HDD Co Annual = Number of heating degree days in county in the calendar year 2002 

LPG Hot water/App - J = LPG consumed for during ozone season by hot water and appliances in 

county j 

Ozone DAYS = Number of days in the ozone season: 214 Residential; 168 Commercial 

Residential LPG Combustion Sample Calculation (Baltimore City) (tons / ozone season day)

Total Residential LPG Consumption – State of Maryland 56,532 kgal 

To calculate spatial apportioning factor for Baltimore City: 

HDD INVENTORY COUNTY x NHU INVENTORY COUNTY SAF BALTIMORE CITY = ∑ ALL COUNTIES IN STATE (HDD COUNTY x NHU COUNTY) 

SAF BALTIMORE CITY = 0.07543338 

To calculate kilogallons of liquified petroleum gas (LPG) used in Baltimore County: 

 Residential LPG BALTIMORE CITY = SAF BALTIMORE COUNTY x LPG TOTAL STATE

 Residential LPG BALTIMORE CITY = 0.07543338 x 56,532 

 Residential LPG BALTIMORE CITY = 4,264.4 kilogallons 

LPG used for cooking & appliances in Baltimore City 

 Residential LPG Hot water/App - J = 25% x LPG BALTIOMORE COUNTY 

 Residential LPG Hot water/App - J = 25% x 4,264.4 

 Residential LPG Hot water/App - J = 1,066.1 kilogallons 

LPG used for space heating in Baltimore County 

 Residential LPG Space Heat - J = 4,264.4 – 1,066.1 

 Residential LPG Space Heat - J = 3,198.3 
 151

LPG used for space heating in ozone season in Baltimore City 

HDD PERIOD Residential Space Heating Fuel PERIOD = Space Heating Fuel 

ANNUAL

x HDD ANNUAL

0.00 Residential Space Heating Fuel PERIOD = 3,198.3 x 3884 

Residential Space Heating Fuel PERIOD = 0.00 kgal 

LPG used for hot water and appliances in ozone season in Baltimore County 

Months ozone season Residential Hot Water Fuel PERIOD = Hot Water Fuel ANNUAL x Months Year 

7 Residential Hot Water Fuel PERIOD = 1,066.1 x 12 

Residential Hot Water Fuel PERIOD = 621.89 kgal 

Equation:

VOC Ozone Season Day Emission Calculation 

(EF LPG i x LPG Space Heat - J ) + (EF LPG i x LPG Hot water/App - J ) 

E (2000 x 214) LPG = 

(0.5 x 0.00 ) + (0.5 x 621.89) E LPG = (2000 x 214) 

E LPG = 0.00073 tons VOC / Ozone season day 
 152

 

4.1.6.7 Wood Combustion 

 SCC: 21 04 008 000 (Residential Wood Combustion) 

Description 

This source category covers air emissions from wood combustion in the residential sectors 

primarily for space heating and aesthetics. This MANE-VU RWC inventory includes emission 

estimates for indoor wood-burning equipment (e.g. fireplaces, woodstoves, pellet stoves, 

furnaces/boilers) and outdoor woodburning equipment (e.g. outdoor fireplaces, fire pits, woodfired barbecues, chimineas).

Pollutants 

PM10, SOx, NOx, CO, VOC, and Toxics 

Method and 

Data Sources 

The method used to calculate emissions is presented in a study/survey conducted by the MidAtlantic Regional Air Management Association (MARAMA), titled “Residential Wood 

Combustion Emission Inventory.”95

Activity 

In order to improve the RWC inventory for MANE-VU, a survey was developed and 

implemented in the region. The data sources used to construct the inventory include 

census tract-level housing data from the 2000 census. At the census tract-level, housing 

units are broken out into two categories: singlefamily units (including both detached and 

attached units up to two units) and multi-family units (all other housing units, including 

mobile homes). In previous technical memoranda, Pechan described the development of 

these data and the methods used to designate MANE-VU census tracts into one of three 

categories: urban, suburban, and rural. The rural category was further broken out into 

forested and non-forested categories. 

The survey results were converted to emissions per survey response, and were then used to 

develop an emissions model for the source category. For indoor wood burning equipment, 

the survey was designed to obtain information on equipment type. Indoor equipment 

includes fireplaces, woodstoves (both conventional and certified), furnace/boilers and 

pellet stoves. However, due to concerns regarding the loss of statistical precision in 

estimating equipment level emissions, estimates at the equipment level were not made. 

95 Residential Wood Combustion Emission Inventory, Preparted by E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc. for the MidAtlantic Regional Air Management Association, dated June 22, 2004. 
 153

Emissions were estimated at a more general level: outdoor and indoor equipment. Outdoor 

equipment includes barbeques, fireplaces, fire pits, and chimineas. 

During this project, Pechan prepared six technical memoranda (TM) to document different 

phases of the project. The reader should consult these documents, located on the MidAtlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU) website www.mane-vu.org or on the 

Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association’s (MARAMA’s) website 

www.marama.org for details on each component of the project. The technical memoranda 

and important follow-up notes are as follows: 

• TM#1- MANE-VU Residential Wood Combustion EI Project: Sample Frame 

Development – this TM described the development of the sample frame to be used 

during the project. Note that the sample frame had incorrect values of the number of 

homes in the MANE-VU Region. This issue was resolved prior to data analysis and 

inventory development. The correct values are shown in Table 1 below. The total 

number of MANE-VU single-family households was 12,660,767 and the total number 

of multi-family units was 12,265,129; 

• TM#2 - MANE-VU Residential Wood Combustion EI Project: Format for Activity Data 

in the Wood Consumption Model – This TM described the data formats for developing 

the wood consumption model from the survey data, including temporal profiles. Note 

that for indoor equipment, most of the methods were not used since equipment-specific 

consumption estimates were not used to develop emission estimates (instead, the 

general linear model presented in TM#5 was used); 

• TM#3 - MANE-VU Residential Wood Combustion EI Project: Pilot Survey and Final 

Survey Instrument – This TM provided the results of the pilot survey and the final 

survey instrument (questionnaire) for the survey); 

• TM#4 - Results of MANE-VU Residential Wood Combustion Activity Survey – This 

TM provided statistical summaries of the survey results; 

• TM#5 - MANE-VU Residential Wood Combustion Survey Data Analysis and Emission 

Inventory Inputs – this TM provided a description of the methods used to analyze the 

survey data, the development of activity variables to estimate emissions from indoor 

and outdoor equipment, and the emission factors to be applied. It was during the 

review of this TM that a different method was developed to estimate emissions for 

indoor equipment based on emission estimates constructed from each survey response 

(instead of estimating equipment level activity, which was originally envisioned for 

this project). This new method avoided the lowering of statistical precision (error) in 

the extrapolation of survey data, since individual responses were not divided into 

multiple equipment types. A description of the development of the general linear model 

for estimating emissions from indoor equipment was incorporated into the final TM. 

Outdoor equipment emissions were estimated using a user fraction (UF) and annual 

consumption (AC) estimate developed from the survey data; and 

• TM#6 - MANE-VU Residential Wood Combustion Emission Inventory – this TM 

provided the results of the emission inventory constructed from the number of 

households in the 2000 Census (no adjustments to reflect 2002 housing changes were 

made) and the activity variables and emission factors documented in TM#5. During a 
 154

review of the draft TM#6, reviewers questioned the wood density value used by 

Pechan to construct the activity variables in TM#5 (2.1 tons/cord; based on the high 

end of the range reported for oak species). Pechan reviewed the primary types of wood 

reported by the survey respondents. Oak/hickory was the most popular choice provided 

in the survey and very little softwood (e.g., pine, hemlock) was reported. The next most 

popular choice was “other hardwood”. Pechan developed a weighted estimate of wood 

density from the survey responses of 1.8 tons/cord that was used to scale the emission 

estimates by a factor of 0.86 (1.8/2.1). 

Emission Factors 

Emission factors for wood combustion in residential fireplaces are presented in Table 1.9-1 

Section 1.9 of AP-42. The wood combustion emission factor for PM may be assumed to 

represent PM 10 emissions. Because no emission factors were located for the combustion of 

wood for commercial consumption, emission factors for residential fireplaces were used to 

estimate commercial emissions. 

Residential Wood Combustion Emission Factors 

NOx 

(lbs./ton) 

CO 

(lbs./ton) 

VOC 

(lbs./ton) 

PM 10 

(lbs./ton) 

SOx 

(lbs./ton) 

Residential 2.6 252.6 229 34.6 0.4 

Point Source 

Adjustments 

No subtration of emissions from point sources is necessary. 

Adjustments 

for Controls 

No controls are available for this source category. 

Spatial and 

Temporal 

Allocations 

Spatial 

To produce county-level temporal profiles, the same process used to go from response 

level profiles to group-level profiles was used to go from group profiles to county profiles. 

Activity or emissions for each census tract were assigned to each temporal unit based on 

the tract level temporal profiles. These values were then summed across all tracts in the 

county and normalized to give activity fractions. 
 155

Temporal 

Temporal allocation profiles were also developed for this project using the residential 

wood survey data. Profiles were first developed for each sample group. Activity (for 

outdoor equipment) or emissions (for indoor equipment) for each respondent was divided 

among the different temporal units (e.g., diurnal, weekly, monthly), based on their 

response to the temporal survey questions. For example, if a respondent reported only 

burning wood on weekdays, the activity value divided by 5 was assigned to each weekday, 

with zero activity assigned to Saturday and Sunday. For the diurnal profiles, the survey 

data indicated whether respondents burned wood in the morning, evening, or both. Since it 

is unlikely that emissions take place only in the morning and evening hours, activity was 

allocated to the entire 24-hour period by assigning 75% of morning activity to the hours of 

6 a.m. to 12 p.m. and 25% of the morning activity to the hours 12 midnight to 6 p.m. The 

hours of 6 p.m. to 12 noon were assigned 75% of the evening activity; and 25% of the 

evening activity went to the hours 12 midnight to 6 a.m. 

Once a fraction of the total activity was assigned to each temporal unit for each survey 

response, the temporal unit activity was summed across all respondents in that sample 

group. (i.e., survey frame cell; sample groups used for the temporal profiles are the same as 

those use to develop model parameters.) The resulting activity values were used to 

calculate activity fractions (i.e., activity for Monday was divided by the sum of activity for 

Monday through Sunday). The resulting profiles were then assigned to each census tract 

based on the sample group (survey frame cell). 

Monthly Temporal Allocation Files

FIPS 

ST 

FIPS 

CNTY May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb March April 

INDOOR EQUIPMENT 

24 001 0.0201 0.0061 0.0053 0.0059 0.0330 0.0703 0.1329 0.1895 0.2107 0.1835 0.1018 0.0408

24 003 0.0300 0.0079 0.0004 0.0004 0.0155 0.0679 0.1351 0.2086 0.2263 0.1826 0.0954 0.0299

24 005 0.0192 0.0051 0.0004 0.0004 0.0154 0.0676 0.1330 0.2111 0.2343 0.1868 0.0997 0.0269

24 009 0.0302 0.0069 0.0003 0.0003 0.0196 0.0821 0.1376 0.1881 0.2271 0.1751 0.0992 0.0336

24 011 0.0411 0.0108 0.0049 0.0049 0.0213 0.0747 0.1464 0.1912 0.1869 0.1594 0.1101 0.0483

24 013 0.0381 0.0096 0.0015 0.0015 0.0197 0.0801 0.1412 0.1878 0.2108 0.1688 0.1021 0.0388

24 015 0.0272 0.0063 0.0012 0.0012 0.0201 0.0792 0.1387 0.1913 0.2234 0.1748 0.1015 0.0349

24 017 0.0264 0.0059 0.0004 0.0004 0.0192 0.0798 0.1365 0.1922 0.2298 0.1773 0.0995 0.0324

24 019 0.0396 0.0104 0.0052 0.0052 0.0214 0.0739 0.1464 0.1923 0.1866 0.1596 0.1109 0.0485

24 021 0.0270 0.0062 0.0003 0.0003 0.0192 0.0807 0.1367 0.1908 0.2296 0.1770 0.0999 0.0324

24 023 0.0135 0.0028 0.0001 0.0001 0.0308 0.0830 0.1328 0.1922 0.2346 0.1795 0.0992 0.0315

24 025 0.0258 0.0059 0.0002 0.0002 0.0186 0.0785 0.1361 0.1942 0.2311 0.1790 0.0991 0.0313

24 027 0.0171 0.0037 0.0002 0.0002 0.0171 0.0728 0.1326 0.2046 0.2397 0.1855 0.0988 0.0275

24 029 0.0354 0.0091 0.0062 0.0062 0.0220 0.0718 0.1465 0.1953 0.1853 0.1591 0.1130 0.0500

24 031 0.0283 0.0084 0.0005 0.0005 0.0132 0.0612 0.1342 0.2179 0.2238 0.1861 0.0978 0.0278

24 033 0.0288 0.0084 0.0005 0.0005 0.0141 0.0642 0.1351 0.2134 0.2234 0.1845 0.0985 0.0286

24 035 0.0420 0.0110 0.0048 0.0048 0.0213 0.0751 0.1465 0.1905 0.1870 0.1592 0.1095 0.0483

24 037 0.0232 0.0050 0.0016 0.0016 0.0203 0.0787 0.1377 0.1930 0.2259 0.1755 0.1026 0.0349
 156

Monthly Temporal Allocation Files

FIPS 

ST 

FIPS 

CNTY May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb March April 

24 039 0.0388 0.0102 0.0053 0.0053 0.0214 0.0735 0.1464 0.1929 0.1865 0.1598 0.1115 0.0485

24 041 0.0405 0.0106 0.0050 0.0050 0.0214 0.0744 0.1464 0.1917 0.1867 0.1594 0.1104 0.0485

24 043 0.0282 0.0067 0.0007 0.0007 0.0192 0.0793 0.1377 0.1918 0.2257 0.1761 0.1006 0.0334

24 045 0.0454 0.0122 0.0035 0.0035 0.0200 0.0758 0.1455 0.1900 0.1908 0.1616 0.1063 0.0454

24 047 0.0454 0.0127 0.0016 0.0016 0.0189 0.0790 0.1444 0.1864 0.1981 0.1655 0.1059 0.0405

24 510 0.0155 0.0090 0.0017 0.0017 0.0106 0.0548 0.1384 0.2232 0.2074 0.1892 0.1241 0.0245

OUTDOOR EQUIPMENT 

24 001 0.11361 0.16657 0.20437 0.18379 0.12888 0.05809 0.02881 0.02123 0.01978 0.00000 0.02695 0.02802

24 003 0.13179 0.16662 0.19877 0.17039 0.12977 0.04442 0.02922 0.01872 0.01575 0.00000 0.04004 0.03449

24 005 0.12837 0.16509 0.19193 0.16790 0.12382 0.05275 0.03363 0.02165 0.01721 0.00000 0.03996 0.03403

24 009 0.11321 0.16773 0.21049 0.18790 0.13325 0.05402 0.02540 0.01941 0.01934 0.00000 0.02486 0.02731

24 011 0.10593 0.16687 0.20836 0.19049 0.12970 0.06266 0.02771 0.02177 0.02134 0.00000 0.02094 0.02514

24 013 0.11553 0.16720 0.20701 0.18443 0.13134 0.05428 0.02702 0.01995 0.01907 0.00000 0.02736 0.02840

24 015 0.11000 0.16659 0.20563 0.18655 0.12881 0.06069 0.02865 0.02168 0.02057 0.00000 0.02431 0.02673

24 017 0.11655 0.16681 0.20465 0.18238 0.12990 0.05500 0.02820 0.02045 0.01902 0.00000 0.02871 0.02896

24 019 0.10548 0.16661 0.20714 0.18996 0.12868 0.06400 0.02848 0.02226 0.02157 0.00000 0.02102 0.02511

24 021 0.11607 0.16641 0.20270 0.18141 0.12834 0.05690 0.02938 0.02117 0.01932 0.00000 0.02900 0.02899

24 023 0.10116 0.16661 0.20852 0.19317 0.12850 0.06721 0.02835 0.02284 0.02252 0.00000 0.01790 0.02357

24 025 0.12098 0.16625 0.20030 0.17722 0.12792 0.05386 0.03000 0.02077 0.01831 0.00000 0.03280 0.03082

24 027 0.12475 0.16568 0.19613 0.17253 0.12590 0.05323 0.03180 0.02119 0.01774 0.00000 0.03642 0.03245

24 029 0.10113 0.16672 0.20914 0.19358 0.12895 0.06678 0.02800 0.02265 0.02247 0.00000 0.01770 0.02350

24 031 0.13241 0.16548 0.19262 0.16615 0.12544 0.04830 0.03262 0.02049 0.01614 0.00000 0.04228 0.03528

24 033 0.13175 0.16539 0.19237 0.16636 0.12508 0.04913 0.03286 0.02073 0.01633 0.00000 0.04194 0.03509

24 035 0.10592 0.16713 0.20975 0.19138 0.13071 0.06167 0.02693 0.02135 0.02122 0.00000 0.02051 0.02500

24 037 0.10505 0.16657 0.20711 0.19017 0.12854 0.06444 0.02856 0.02237 0.02168 0.00000 0.02076 0.02497

24 039 0.10571 0.16636 0.20580 0.18898 0.12776 0.06475 0.02920 0.02262 0.02163 0.00000 0.02157 0.02531

24 041 0.10549 0.16682 0.20825 0.19066 0.12950 0.06317 0.02784 0.02191 0.02146 0.00000 0.02069 0.02501

24 043 0.11722 0.16613 0.20092 0.17965 0.12735 0.05707 0.03022 0.02146 0.01919 0.00000 0.03026 0.02953

24 045 0.11599 0.16691 0.20535 0.18312 0.13025 0.05505 0.02790 0.02036 0.01910 0.00000 0.02815 0.02871

24 047 0.12227 0.16445 0.19054 0.17033 0.12113 0.05972 0.03535 0.02351 0.01886 0.00000 0.03655 0.03217

24 510 0.12772 0.16163 0.17411 0.15695 0.11060 0.06637 0.04384 0.02736 0.01896 0.00000 0.04492 0.03553

 

Weekly Temporal Allocation Files

FIPS ST FIPS 

CNTY 

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday 

INDOOR EQUIPMENT 

24 001 0.13598 0.13598 0.13598 0.13598 0.13598 0.16005 0.16005

24 003 0.11604 0.11604 0.11604 0.11604 0.11604 0.20989 0.20989

24 005 0.12313 0.12313 0.12313 0.12313 0.12313 0.19219 0.19219

24 009 0.12450 0.12450 0.12450 0.12450 0.12450 0.18875 0.18875

24 011 0.12238 0.12238 0.12238 0.12238 0.12238 0.19406 0.19406
 157

Weekly Temporal Allocation Files

FIPS ST FIPS 

CNTY 

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday 

24 013 0.12112 0.12112 0.12112 0.12112 0.12112 0.19719 0.19719

24 015 0.12648 0.12648 0.12648 0.12648 0.12648 0.18380 0.18380

24 017 0.12558 0.12558 0.12558 0.12558 0.12558 0.18605 0.18605

24 019 0.12332 0.12332 0.12332 0.12332 0.12332 0.19169 0.19169

24 021 0.12565 0.12565 0.12565 0.12565 0.12565 0.18588 0.18588

24 023 0.13346 0.13346 0.13346 0.13346 0.13346 0.16634 0.16634

24 025 0.12496 0.12496 0.12496 0.12496 0.12496 0.18760 0.18760

24 027 0.12650 0.12650 0.12650 0.12650 0.12650 0.18374 0.18374

24 029 0.12617 0.12617 0.12617 0.12617 0.12617 0.18458 0.18458

24 031 0.11428 0.11428 0.11428 0.11428 0.11428 0.21429 0.21429

24 033 0.11579 0.11579 0.11579 0.11579 0.11579 0.21053 0.21053

24 035 0.12180 0.12180 0.12180 0.12180 0.12180 0.19549 0.19549

24 037 0.12892 0.12892 0.12892 0.12892 0.12892 0.17769 0.17769

24 039 0.12380 0.12380 0.12380 0.12380 0.12380 0.19051 0.19051

24 041 0.12278 0.12278 0.12278 0.12278 0.12278 0.19305 0.19305

24 043 0.12502 0.12502 0.12502 0.12502 0.12502 0.18744 0.18744

24 045 0.11804 0.11804 0.11804 0.11804 0.11804 0.20490 0.20490

24 047 0.11800 0.11800 0.11800 0.11800 0.11800 0.20500 0.20500

24 510 0.12785 0.12785 0.12785 0.12785 0.12785 0.18038 0.18038

OUTDOOR EQUIPMENT

24 001 0.05066 0.05066 0.05066 0.05066 0.05066 0.37335 0.37335 

24 003 0.05127 0.05127 0.05127 0.05127 0.05127 0.37182 0.37182 

24 005 0.05036 0.05036 0.05036 0.05036 0.05036 0.37410 0.37410 

24 009 0.05125 0.05125 0.05125 0.05125 0.05125 0.37187 0.37187 

24 011 0.05056 0.05056 0.05056 0.05056 0.05056 0.37359 0.37359 

24 013 0.05105 0.05105 0.05105 0.05105 0.05105 0.37237 0.37237 

24 015 0.05055 0.05055 0.05055 0.05055 0.05055 0.37362 0.37362 

24 017 0.05088 0.05088 0.05088 0.05088 0.05088 0.37280 0.37280 

24 019 0.05041 0.05041 0.05041 0.05041 0.05041 0.37397 0.37397 

24 021 0.05065 0.05065 0.05065 0.05065 0.05065 0.37337 0.37337 

24 023 0.05027 0.05027 0.05027 0.05027 0.05027 0.37432 0.37432 

24 025 0.05073 0.05073 0.05073 0.05073 0.05073 0.37318 0.37318 

24 027 0.05055 0.05055 0.05055 0.05055 0.05055 0.37363 0.37363 

24 029 0.05033 0.05033 0.05033 0.05033 0.05033 0.37417 0.37417 

24 031 0.05069 0.05069 0.05069 0.05069 0.05069 0.37327 0.37327 

24 033 0.05062 0.05062 0.05062 0.05062 0.05062 0.37344 0.37344 

24 035 0.05070 0.05070 0.05070 0.05070 0.05070 0.37324 0.37324 

24 037 0.05038 0.05038 0.05038 0.05038 0.05038 0.37405 0.37405 

24 039 0.05029 0.05029 0.05029 0.05029 0.05029 0.37427 0.37427 

24 041 0.05053 0.05053 0.05053 0.05053 0.05053 0.37369 0.37369 

24 043 0.05054 0.05054 0.05054 0.05054 0.05054 0.37364 0.37364 

24 045 0.05091 0.05091 0.05091 0.05091 0.05091 0.37272 0.37272 

24 047 0.04982 0.04982 0.04982 0.04982 0.04982 0.37544 0.37544 

24 510 0.04852 0.04852 0.04852 0.04852 0.04852 0.37871 0.37871 
 158

Emissions 

Calculation 

A sample calculation for annual activity is provided below for a specified census tract and SCC: 

Activity (tons/yr) = (HUs x UFs x As) + (HUo x UFo x A0) (equation 1) 

Where: 

HUs = single-family housing units; 

UFs = single-family housing units user fraction for equipment type (SCC); 

As = single-family housing units annual activity (tons/yr); 

HUo = other housing units; 

UFo = other housing units user fraction for equipment type (SCC); and 

Ao = other housing units annual activity (tons/yr). 

For each SCC, the annual activity can be aggregated from the census tract to the county or state 

levels using the FIPS code in Table 3a. If, during the analysis of survey data, Pechan finds a 

good correlation between wood consumption and annual HDD, the activity variable will take the 

form of tons/HDD-yr (where HDD are annual heating-degree days). The calculation of annual 

activity for a specified census tract and SCC would take the form shown in equation 2 below: 

Activity (tons/yr) = [HUs x UFs x (As x HDD)] + [HUo x UFo x (A0 x HDD)] (equation 2) 

Where: 

HUs = single-family housing units; 

UFs = single-family housing units user fraction for equipment type (SCC); 

As = single-family housing units annual activity (tons/HDD-yr); 

HDD = annual heating-degree days for the census tract; 

HUo = other housing units; 

UFo = other housing units user fraction for equipment type (SCC); and 

Ao = other housing units annual activity (tons/HDD-yr). 
 159

4.1.7 FUGITIVE SOURCES 

Other area sources include forest fires, slash and prescribed burning, agricultural burning, 

structure fires, orchard heaters, leaking underground storage tanks and natural organic sources. 

Although often intermittent in nature, many of these sources can produce large quantities of air 

pollutant emissions. 

4.1.7.1 Residential Construction Activity 

SCC: 23 11 010 000 

Description 

This source category covers fugitive dust emissions from residential construction activities. 

Pollutants 

PM10 and PM2.5

Method and 

Data Sources 

Activity 

For residential construction, housing permit data for single-family units, two-family units, 

and apartments were obtained at the county level from the U.S. Department of 

Commerce’s (DOC) Bureau of the Census. Adjusted county permit data to equal regional 

housing start data that was also obtained from the Bureau of the Census. 

Estimated the number of buildings in each category, and then estimated the total acres 

disturbed by construction by applying conversion factors to the housing start data for each 

category as follows: 

• Single-family 1⁄4 acre/building 

• Two-family 1⁄3 acre/building 

• Apartment 1⁄2 acre/building 

Housing construction PM10 emissions are calculated using an emission factor of 0.032 

tons PM10/acre/month, the number of housing units created, a units-to-acres conversion 

factor, and the duration of construction activity. The duration of construction activity for 

houses is assumed to be 6 months. 

Apartment construction emissions are calculated separately using an emission factor of 

0.11 tons PM10/acre/month. A duration of 12 months was assumed for apartment 

construction. 
 160

For areas in which basements are constructed to estimate the cubic yards of dirt moved per 

house, an average value of 2000 square feet is assumed for both single family and twofamily homes. Multiplying the average total square feet by an average basement depth of 8 

feet and adding in 10 percent of the cubic feet calculated for peripheral dirt removed 

produces an estimate of the cubic yards of earth moved during residential construction. The 

percentage of one-family houses with basements was obtained from the DOC. The 

percentage of houses per Census region (Northeast, Midwest, South, and West) that 

contain full or partial basements is applied to the housing start estimates for each of these 

respective regions. The best available control measures (BACM) Level 2 equation 

(emission factor of 0.011 tons PM10/acre/month plus 0.059 tons PM10/1000 cubic yards 

of on-site cut/fill) is applied once the number of acres disturbed due to the estimated 

number of houses built with basements is determined. 

Emission Factors 

Single-family 

Construction 

Two-family 

Construction 

Multi-family 

Construction 

ton PM10/acre/month ton PM10/acre/month ton PM10/acre/month 

PM 10 

Emission 

Factor 

0.032 0.032 0.11 

Duration of 

Activity 6 months 6 months 12 months 

Point Source 

Adjustments 

No subtration of emissions from point sources is necessary. 

Adjustments 

for Controls 

No controls are available for this source category. 

Spatial and 

Temporal 

Allocations 

Spatial 

Data for spatial allocation is not available for this source. 

Temporal 

Data for temporal allocation is not available for this source. 
 161

Emissions 

Calculation 

E RC I = E RC – SFH + E RC – 2FAM + E RC – MF 

where: 

E RC i = Emissions of pollutant i in tons per year from residential construction activity 

 E RC - SFH = Emissions of pollutant i in tons per year from residential single-family 

home construction activity 

 E RC – 2FAM = Emissions of pollutant i in tons per year from residential two-family home 

construction activity 

 E RC – MF = Emissions of pollutant i in tons per year from residential multi-family 

construction activity 

and: 

E RC – SFH = E RC – SFH, w BM + E RC – SFH , w/o BM 

where: 

E RC – SFH, w BM = Emissions of pollutant i in tons per year from residential single-family 

home construction activity of homes with basements 

E RC – SFH, w/o BM = Emissions of pollutant i in tons per year from residential single-family 

home construction activity of homes without basements 

HSSFH x (1- HS SFH,w BM) x (AD RC – SFH ) x (PD RC – SFH) x EF RC – SFH E RC – SFH, w/o BM = 2000 

where: 

E RC – SFH, w/o BM = Emissions of pollutant i in tons per year from residential single-family 

home construction activity 

 HS SFH = Residential single-family housing starts 

 HS SFH, w BM = Percent of residential single-family housing starts with basements 

 AD RC - SFH = Acres disturbed per housing type (residential single-family) 

 PD RC - SFH = Average project duration in months 

 EF RC – SFH i = Emissions factor in tons PM10/acre/month for pollutant i 
 162

E RC – SFH, w BM = Emissions from residential construction + Emissions from basement excavation 

[HSSFH x HS SFH,w BM x (AD RC – SFH ) x (PD RC – SFH) x EF RC – SFH] + 

E [HSSFH x HS SFH,w BM x AHS RC – SFH x ABD RC – SFH x PDE RC – SFH x EF Acres-Disturb] RC – SFH, w BM = 

2000 

where: 

 E RC – SFH, w BM = Emissions of pollutant i in tons per year from residential single-family 

home construction activity 

 HS SFH = Residential single-family housing starts 

 HS SFH, w BM = Percent of residential single-family housing starts with basements 

 AD RC - SFH = Acres disturbed per housing type (residential single-family) 

 PD RC - SFH = Average project duration in months 

 EF RC – SFH i = Emissions factor in tons PM10/acre/month for pollutant i 

 AHS RC - SFH = Average residential single-family house size 

 (national default = 2000 ft2

) 

 ABD RC - SFH = Average basement depth for residential single-family homes 

 (national default = 8 ft) 

 PDE RC – SFH = Peripheral dirt excavated for residential single-family homes 

 (national default = 10 percent) 

 EF Acres-Disturb = Emissions factor for the acres disturbed during basement excavation 

activities during residential single-family home construction in tons 

PM10/1000 cubic yards 
 163

4.1.7.2 Heavy Construction Activity 

SCC: 28 10 001 000 

Description 

Emissions produced from the construction of nonresidential buildings are estimated using the 

value of construction put in place. The national value of construction put in place is obtained 

from the Bureau of the Census96. The national value of construction put in place is allocated to 

the state level using non-residential building construction employment data within NAIC 2333 

obtained from 2002 County Business Patterns97. The state value of construction put in place is 

allocated to the county level using non-residential building construction employment data within 

NAIC 2333 obtained from the 2002 County Business Patterns98 for the State of Maryland. 

Pollutants 

PM10 and PM2.5

Method and 

Data Sources 

Activity 

ARMA used data from the U.S. Census Bureau on the national value of construction put in 

place. The national value of construction put in place is allocated to the state level and 

then to the county level using non-residential building construction employment data 

within NAIC 2333 obtained from 2002 County Business Patterns. 

A conversion factor of 1.6 acres/106

 dollars ($) is applied to the construction valuation 

data. This conversion factor is developed by adjusting the1992 value of 2 acres/$106

 to 

2002 and 2000 constant dollars using the Price and Cost Indices for Construction. The 

duration of construction activity for nonresidential construction is estimated to be 11 

months. 

Employee numbers were taken from County Business Patterns 2002 - Maryland, NAIC 

2333, Non-residential Building Construction. Some county employment data is 

represented by a letter code indicating a range for the number of employees for that SIC. 

In this case the arithmetic average number of employees per letter code per county was 

 

96 Bureau of Census, Table 1. Annual Value of Construction Put in Place in the United States: 1997 – 2001; 

http://www.census.gov/const/c30/tab101.txt 97 U.S. Census Bureau, County Business Patterns, 2002 http://censtats.census.gov/cbpnaic/cbpnaic.shtml Select U.S. 

then 2002 then Compare for the “Construction” Industry then Compary NAIC 2333 98 U.S. Census Bureau, County Business Patterns, 2002 http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/24000.html Select county 

then “Browse more data sets” then County Business Patterns Economic Profile for 2002 – Repeat for each county. 
 164

adjusted so that the state total employment in a NAIC matched the sum of the number of 

employees reported per county. 

Emission Factors 

PM 10 PM 2.5

(tons/acre/month) (tons/acre/month) 

Emissions 0.11 20% of PM 10

Duration of Project 11 months 

Point Source 

Adjustments 

No subtration of emissions from point sources is necessary. 

Adjustments 

for Controls 

No controls are available for this source category. 

Spatial and 

Temporal 

Allocations 

Spatial 

Data for spatial allocation is not available for this source. 

Temporal 

Data for temporal allocation is not available for this source. 

Emissions 

Calculation 

Number of Employees within 

Value of Construction NAIC 2333 in Maryland 

Work in Maryland = 

Value of Construction 

Work in the U.S. x Number of Employees within 

NAIC 2333 in the U.S. 

Value of Construction Work 

in the U.S. $167,084,000,000.00 

Number of Employees 

within NAIC 2333 in the 

U.S. 

855,483 
 165

Number of Employees 

within NAIC 2333 in 

Maryland 

19,267 

Value of Construction 19,267 

Work in Maryland = $167,084,000,000.00 x 855,483 

Value of Construction 

Work in Maryland = $3,763,029,105 

HCj x CF HC x EF HC i x DC HC E HC i = 365 

where: 

E HC,i = Emissions of pollutant i in tons per day from heavy construction 

HC J = Value of heavy construction (million dollars) in county j in 2002 

CF HC = Conversion factor (acres/million dollars) for heavy construction (1.6 ) 

EF HC i = Emissions factor in tons per acre per month for pollutant i 

DC HC = Duration of construction activity (11 months) 

2002 Sample Calculation Heavy Construction (Anne Arundel County)

HCj x CF HC x EF HC i x DC HC E HC i = 365 

196.68 x 1.6 x 0.11(PM 10) x 11 E HC i = 365 

E HC i = 1.04 tons/day PM 10
 166

4.1.7.3 Road Construction Activity 

SCC: 28 10 001 000 

Description 

This source category covers fugitive dust emissions from road construction activity. PM10

emissions produced by road construction are estimated using an emission factor for heavy 

construction and the State capital outlay for new road construction. 

Pollutants 

PM10 and PM25

Method and 

Data Sources 

Activity 

To estimate the acres disturbed by road construction, the Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA) State expenditure data for capital outlay according to the following six 

classifications was obtained: 

• Interstate, urban; 

• Interstate, rural; 

• Other arterial, urban; 

• Other arterial, rural; 

• Collectors, urban; and 

• Collectors, rural 

Dollar expenditures are converted to miles contructed using data obtained from the North 

Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) on the $/mile spent on various road 

construction projects. For interstate expenditures, used an average of $4 million/mile 

corresponding to freeways and interstate projects listed for: 1) new location; 2) widen 

existing 2-lane shoulder section; and 3) widen existing 4-lane w/ median. For 

expenditures on other arterial and collectors, used an average of $1.9 million/mile 

corresponding to all other projects (excluding freeways and interstate projects) listed for: 

1) new location; 2) widen existing 2-lane shoulder section; and 3) widen existing 4-lane 

w/ median. 

Miles are converted to acres for each of the 6 road types using the following estimates of 

acres disturbed per mile: 

• Interstate, urban and rural; Other arterial, urban - 15.2 acres/mile 

• Other arterial, rural - 12.7 acres/mile 

• Collectors, urban - 9.8 acres/mile 

• Collectors, rural - 7.9 acres/mile 
 167

Emission Factors 

An PM10 emission factor of 0.42 tons/acre/month is used to account for the large amount 

of dirt moved during the construction of roadways. The duration of construction activity 

for road construction is estimated to be 12 months. 

PM25 emissions are estimated by applying a particle size multiplier of 0.20 to PM10

emissions. 

Soil Moisture Level 

To account for the soil moisture level, base emissions were multiplied by 24 divided by the 

precipitation-evaporation (PE) value. Precipitation-Evaporation (PE) values were obtained 

from Thornthwaite’s PE Index. Average PE values for each State were estimated based on 

PE values for specific climatic divisions within a State. 

Silt Content 

To account for the silt content, base emissions were multiplied by percent dry silt content 

in soil divided by 9 percent. County-level dry silt values were applied to PM10 emissions 

for each county.. 

Point Source 

Adjustments 

No subtration of emissions from point sources is necessary. 

Adjustments 

for Controls 

For construction emissions, a control efficiency of 50 percent is used for both PM10 and PM2.5

for PM nonattainment areas. 

Spatial and 

Temporal 

Allocations 

Spatial 

State-level estimates of acres disturbed are distributed to counties according to the 

housing starts per county, estimated for the residential construction category. 

Temporal 

Data for temporal allocation is not available for this source. 
 168

Emissions 

Calculation 

Exp x MCi x ADi x EF RC i x DUR E RC, i = 2000 x 365 

where: 

E RC,i = Emissions of pollutant i in tons per day from road construction 

Exp RC,i = Expenditures per road type i 

MC RC,i = Miles contructed per road type i 

AD i = Acres disturbed per road type i 

EF RC i = Emissions factor (tons per acre per month for pollutant i) 

DUR = Duration of project (months) 

 
 169

4.1.7.4 Agricultural Land Preparation 

 SCC: 28 01 000 003 

Description 

The land preparation source category includes estimates of the airborne soil particulate emissions 

produced during the preparation of agricultural lands for planting and after harvest activities. 

Operations included in this methodology are discing, tilling, leveling, chiseling, plowing, and 

other mechanical operations used to prepare the soil. Dust emissions are produced by the 

mechanical disturbance of the soil by the implement used and the tractor pulling it. Soil 

preparation activities tend to be performed in the early spring and fall months. 

Particulate emissions from land preparation operations are computed by multiplying an emission 

factor (EF) by an activity factor. The agricultural tilling emission factor provided in the 4th 

edition of U.S. EPA’s AP-42 document is used to estimate soil preparation emissions. The 

activity factor is based on the number of acres of each crop in production for each county in the 

State. Because different crops need different operations to prepare the soil, each crop also has its 

own acre-pass value. Acre-passes are the number of passes, per acre, that are typically needed to 

prepare a field for planting a particular crop. By combining the crop acreage, crop specific acrepass data, and the agricultural tilling emission factor, we estimate the particulate matter produced 

by agricultural land preparation operations. 

Agricultural soil preparation particulate dust emissions are estimated for each crop in each 

county in Maryland using the following equation: 

Emissions CROP = Emission Factor x Acres CROP x Acre-passes/acre CROP

The crop emissions for each county are summed to produce the county and statewide 

particulate matter (PM) and PM emission estimates. 

Pollutants 

PM10 and PM2.5

Method and 

Data Sources 

Activity 

The acreages used for estimating soil preparation emissions were collected from the 

Maryland Cooperative Extension Service and the Maryland Agricultural Statistics Service. 

A summary of crop acreage harvested in 2002 from individual county agricultural 

commissioner reports was used to calculate emissions. 
 170

In computing land preparation PM emissions, acre-passes are the number of passes 

typically performed to prepare a crop for planting. These operations may occur following 

harvest, or closer to planting, and can include discing, tilling, land leveling, and other 

operations. Each crop is different in the type of soil operations performed and when they 

occur. MDE used acre-pass estimates compiled by the California Air Resources Board 

(CARB). For the crops that were not explicitly updated, we either applied an updated crop 

profile from a similar crop, or used one of the existing CARB profiles. Table 3.4-a

Summary of Crop Acre-Passes, presented in Section 3.4, provides a listing of the crop 

acre-passes used in California. 

Emission Factors 

The emission factor used to estimate the dust emissions from agricultural land preparations 

is from U.S. EPA’s AP-4299. This emission factor was developed in 1981 based on test 

data measured in California and Kansas by Midwest Research Institute. Because of a lack 

of more detailed estimates, this single emission factor is used for all land preparation 

operations, all locations, and all seasons. The form of the emission factor is: 

Emission Factor (lbs PM/acre-pass) = k (4.8) (s)0.6

Where: 

k = particle size fraction of interest (EPA default = 0.042 for PM2.5 or 0.21 for PM10) 

s = average percent soil silt content (EPA default = 18%) 

For PM the value of ‘k’ used in California is 0.148. This is based on the EPA estimate that 

33% of the total particulate entrained to the air during agricultural operations is 30 microns 

or less. Of this, analysis of California soil samples indicates that about 45% of the 30 

micron or less sized particles are 10 microns or less in aerodynamic size (i.e., PM ). So, the 

California PM particle size multiplier is 0.148 (i.e., 0.33 x 0.45 = 0.148). Maryland 

decided to use the EPA default values listed above for the particle size fraction. For the 

percent soil silt value, the EPA default value of 18% soil silt is used for most counties. 

PM 2.5 PM 10

(Lbs. PM2.5 /acre-pass) (Lbs. PM10 /acre-pass) 

Emission Factor 1.141968254 5.709841268 

The EPA emission factor does not include an association between soil moisture and 

emissions. Because it is known that dust emissions are reduced when soil moisture is 

higher, California ARB staff has incorporated an emission correction during the wettest 

months of the year. The correction was based on some limited agricultural dust source test 

data, as well as the control factor used for watering at construction sites and their best 

judgement. During December and March, California ARB reduced the emission factor by 

 

99 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, AP-42, Section 11.2.2, 

Fourth Edition. September 1985. 
 171

25% from the standard uncorrected value. In January and February, often the wettest 

months, the emission factor is reduced by 50%. This produces a seasonal emissions profile 

that is more consistent with California’s actual ambient air dust levels, and also better 

reflects that soil preparation operations typically do not occur while the soil is excessively 

wet or muddy. 

Precipitation data for calendar year 2002 in Maryland is presented in Section 3.4, Table 

3.4-b 2002 Precipitation Data, since Maryland does not have a correlation between soil 

moisture and emissions, the emission factors were not redacted.

Point Source 

Adjustments 

No subtration of emissions from point sources is necessary. 

Adjustments 

for Controls 

No controls are available for this source category. 

Spatial and 

Temporal 

Allocations 

Spatial 

Crop acreages are collected on a county basis. 

Temporal 

Data for temporal allocation is not available for this source in Maryland. 

In collecting updated acre-pass data, California also collected detailed information on 

when agricultural operations occur. Using these data, it was possible to create detailed 

temporal profiles that help to indicate when PM emissions from land preparations may be 

highest. The more detailed background document includes detailed crop calendars for each 

crop with updated information. For all of the acre-pass and crop calendar information, the 

farmers and other agricultural experts of the San Joaquin Valley were instrumental in 

helping us to update our crop information. 
 172

Emissions 

Calculation 

EF ALP i x A I x AP I E ALP i = 2000 

where: 

E ALP = Annual PM emissions of pollutant i in tons per day from agricultural land 

preparations. 

EF ALP i = Emissions factor in pounds per acre-pass for pollutant i 

A i = Acres of crop I harvested in county j in 2002 

AP i = Acre-passes per acres for crop i 

2002 Sample Calculation Agricultural Land Preparation (Anne Arundel County)

EF ALP PM2.5 x [(A wheat x AP wheat) + (A corn-gr x AP corn-gr) + (A corn-silage x AP corn-silage) + (A

E hay x AP hay) + (A soy x AP soy) + (A barley x AP barley) + (A tobacco x AP tobacco)] ALP PM2.5 = 

2000 

1.141968254 x [(2500 x 1) + (5700 x 4) + (0 x 4) + (3100 x 1) + (5200 x 6) + (175 x 1) + (100 x 0)] E ALP PM2.5 = 2000 

1.141968254 x 60475 E ALP PM2.5 = 2000 

E ALP PM2.5 = 34.530 tons per year of PM2.5 
 173

4.1.7.5 Paved Roads 

SCC: 22 94 000 000 

Description 

This source category covers fugitive dust emissions from activity on paved roads. 

Pollutants 

PM10 and PM2.5

Method and 

Data Sources 

Activity 

The basis for the activity data for fugitive dust emissions from paved roads is the statelevel vehicle miles traveled per paved road type and the state-level vehicle miles traveled 

per unpaved road per road type. 

Emission Factors 

The emission factor for paved roads is calculated from an empirical formula from AP-42 

and then is adjusted for precipitation. 

AP-42 Paved Roads Emission Factor Formula 

EF PAVED RD = PSDPVD x (PVSILT/2) 0.65 x (WEIGHT/3) 1.5 

where: 

EF PAVED RD Paved road dust emission factor for all vehicle classes combined (grams per mile) 

PSDPVD Base emission factor for particles of less than 10 microns in diameter from paved 

road dust (default value = 7.3 grams PM 10 per mile) 

PVSILT Road surface silt loading factor in grams per square mile 

WEIGHT Average weight of all vehicle types combined in tons 

And where: 

PVSILT varies by road type and the average daily traffic volume (ADTV) that has been 

assigned the default values presented below: 
 174

Road Surface Silt 

Loading Constants 

ADTV 

 < 500 

ADTV 

500 - 5,000 

ADTV 

5,000 – 10,000 

ADTV 

 > 10,000 

 gram/mile 2 gram/mile 2 gram/mile 2 gram/mile 2

PVSILT 0.60 0.20 0.06 0.03 

WEIGHT An average default value of 6,360 pounds (3.19 tons) has been assigned 

for all vehicles. 

Calculate Paved Roads Emission Factors 

EF PAVED-LOCAL < 500 = [PSDPVD x (PVSILT/2) 0.65

 x (WEIGHT/3) 1.5 ] - C 

EF PAVED-LOCAL < 500 = [7.3 x (0.60 / 2) 0.65

 x (3.18 / 3)1.5 ] – 0.2119 

EF PAVED-LOCAL < 500 = 3.430692 gram/mile 2

EF PAVED_ADTV 500 – 5000 = [PSDPVD x (PVSILT/2) 0.65

 x (WEIGHT/3) 1.5 ] - C 

EF PAVED_ADTV 500 – 5000 = [7.3 x (0.2 / 2) 0.65

 x (3.18 / 3)1.5 ] – 0.2119 

EF PAVED_ADTV 500 – 5000 = 1.571635 gram/mile 2

EF PAVED_ADTV 5000 – 10,000 = [PSDPVD x (PVSILT/2) 0.65 x (WEIGHT/3) 1.5 ] - C 

EF PAVED_ADTV 5000 – 10,000 = [7.3 x (0.06 / 2) 0.65

 x (3.18 / 3)1.5 ] – 0.2119 

EF PAVED_ADTV 5000 – 10,000 = 0.603575 gram/mile 2

EF PAVED_ADTV >10000 = [PSDPVD x (PVSILT/2) 0.65 x (WEIGHT/3) 1.5 ] - C 

EF PAVED_ADTV >10000 = [7.3 x (0.03 / 2) 0.65

 x (3.18 / 3)1.5 ] – 0.2119 

EF PAVED_ADTV >10000 = 0.307786 gram/mile 2

Adjust Emission Factor for Precipitation 

EF PAVED ADJ = EF PAVED x CF RAIN 

Where: 

EF PAVED ADJ = Adjusted Paved Road Emission Factor (grams/mile) 

EF PAVED = PM size-specific emission factor (grams/mile) for paved roads 

CF RAIN = Correction Factor for Rain/Precipitation 

And Where: 
 175

CF RAIN = 1 - (P / 4N ) 

Where: 

CF RAIN = Correction Factor for Rain/Precipitation 

p = number of days in a given month with greater than 0.01 inches of rainfall 

(data collected from monthly climatological data files from National 

Weather Service stations near or in the county of reference.) 

N= number of days in the averaging period (e.g., 365 for annual, 91 for 

seasonal, 30 for monthly). 

MDE altered the precipitation adjustment equation by collecting data on the number of days in a 

given year that greater than 0.01 inches of rainfall fell and removing the x 12 from the equation. 

CF RAIN = 1 – (104 / (4 x 365)) 

CF RAIN = 0.928767 

Calculate Paved Roads Emission Factors Adjusted for Precipitation 

EF PAVED-LOCAL < 500 ADJ = EF PAVED_LOCAL x CF RAIN

EF PAVED-LOCAL < 500 ADJ = 3.430692 x 0.928767 

EF PAVED-LOCAL < 500 ADJ = 3.186314 gram/mile 2

EF PAVED_ADTV 500 - 5000 ADJ = EF PAVED_LOCAL x CF RAIN

EF PAVED_ADTV 500 - 5000 ADJ = 1.571635 x 0.928767 

EF PAVED_ADTV 500 - 5000 ADJ = 1.459683 gram/mile 2

EF PAVED_ADTV 5000- 10,000 ADJ = EF PAVED_LOCAL x CF RAIN

EF PAVED_ADTV 5000- 10,000 ADJ = 0.603575 x 0.928767 

EF PAVED_ADTV 5000- 10,000 ADJ = 0.560581 gram/mile 2

EF PAVED_ADTV >10,000 ADJ = EF PAVED_LOCAL x CF RAIN

EF PAVED_ADTV >10,000 ADJ = 0.310239 x 0.928767 

EF PAVED_ADTV >10,000 ADJ = 0.285861 gram/mile 2
 176

Equation:

 EM PAVED RD, i = ∑ ( VMT ADTV, i x EF PAVED_ADTV ADJ, i x ( 1- CE x RE x RP) x 1.10231E-06 ) 

where: 

EM PAVED RD,i = Sum of PM10 emissions in tons per year for paved roads in county i 

VMT ,i = VMT ( million miles of Vehicle Miles Traveled for county i ) 

EF PAVED_ADTV ADJ, i = Paved road emission factor adjusted for precipitation in county I 

 (grams/mile) 

CE = Control efficiency of 0% applied to Urban and Rural roads 

RE = Rule effectiveness of 100% applied to Urban and Rural roads 

RP = Rule penetration of 100% applied to Urban and Rural roads 

1 gram = 1.10231E-06 tons 

2002 Sample Calculation Paved Roads (Anne Arundel County)

EM PAVED RD, i = [( VMT_ADTV < 500,i x EF PAVED-LOCAL < 500 ADJ ) + ( VMT_ADTV 500 - 5000,i x EF 

PAVED_ADTV 500 - 5000 ADJ ) + ( VMT_ADTV 5000 – 10,000,i x EF PAVED_ADTV 5000- 10,000 ADJ ) 

+ ( VMT_ADTV >10,000,i x EF PAVED_ADTV >10,000 ADJ )] x ( 1- CE x RE x RP) x

1.10231E-06 

EM PAVED RD, i = [(355524175 x 3.186314) + (167099106 x 1.459683) + (279697255 x

0.560581) + (4.64E+09 x 0.285861)] x (1 – 0 x 1 x 1) x 1.10231E-06 

EM PAVED RD, i = 3,152.509 tons per year of PM 10 or (3,152.509 / 365) = 8.64 tons per day of PM 

10 
 177

4.1.7.6 Unpaved Roads 

SCC: 22 96 000 000 

Description

This source category covers fugitive dust emissions from activity on unpaved roads. 

The activity data needed to calculate emissions from unpaved roads was not available. Methods 

are still being researched as to how to properly gather this data. MDE cannot submit any 

emissions for this source category at the present time. 
 178

4.1.8 FIRE SOURCES 

Other area sources include forest fires, slash and prescribed burning, agricultural burning, 

structure fires, orchard heaters, leaking underground storage tanks and natural organic sources. 

Although often intermittent in nature, many of these sources can produce large quantities of air 

pollutant emissions. 

4.1.8.1 Vehicle Fires 

SCC: 28 10 001 000 

Description 

This emission guidance report covers air emissions from accidental vehicle fires. Vehicles 

included are any commercial or private mode of transportation that is authorized for use on 

public roads. 

Pollutants 

PM10, NOx, CO, VOC 

Method and 

Data Sources 

 

Activity 

Local data was collected from state or local fire marshals and public safety departments. 

See the spatial apportioning section for available information 

sources. 

Emission Factors 

Emission factors are available for open burning of automobile components including 

upholstery, belts, hoses, and tires (AP-42, Section 2.5 Open Burning) (EPA, 1996)100. The 

amount of vehicle material burned (the fuel loading) in a vehicle fire must be estimated to 

use these factors. A conservative assumption is that an average vehicle has 500 pounds of 

components that can burn in a fire, based on a 3,700 pound average vehicle weight 

(CARB, 1995)101. Maryland used a more conservative assumption based on a 2,000 pound 

average vehicle weight. 

Pollutant Lbs/ton burned

 

100 EPA. 1996. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors--Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources. Fifth 

Edition, AP-42. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. (GPO 055-

000-00251-7). Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

101 CARB. 1995. Emission Inventory Procedural Manual, Vol. III: Methods for Assessing Area Source Emissions. 

California Environmental Protection Agency: Air Resources Board. 
 179

 VOC 32 

 NOx 4 

 CO 125 

PM10-PRI 100 

Point Source 

Adjustments 

No subtraction of emissions from point sources is necessary. 

Adjustment for 

Controls 

No controls are available for this source category. 

Spatial and 

Temporal 

Allocations 

Spatial 

The activity data for vehicle fires was collected at a county-level. No other method to 

spatially profile the vehicle fire source category was used. 

Temporal 

Data for temporal allocation is not available for this source. 

Emissions 

Calculation 

VBj x FLF VF x EF VF i E VF, i = 2000 x 365 

where: 

E VF,i = Emissions of pollutant i in tons per day from vehicle fires 

VB J = Vehicles burned in county j in 2002 

FLF VF = Fuel loading factor (tons/vehicle burned) for vehicle fires (500 lbs/2000 lb auto) 

EF VF i = Emissions factor in pounds per ton burned for pollutant i 

2002 Sample Calculation Forest Fires (Anne Arundel County)

VBj x FLF VF x EFVF, I E VF, i = 2000 x 365 

500 x (500/2000) x 4 E VF, i = 2000 x 365 

E VF, i = 0.0007 tons NOx per day emitted from vehicle fires in Anne Arundel County in 20002 
 180

4.1.8.2 Forest Fires 

SCC: 28 10 001 000 

Description 

Forest fires in certain rural areas can produce very large, short term organic emissions. 

Pollutants 

PM10 and PM2.5

Method and 

Data Sources 

Activity 

ARMA used data from the Maryland Forest, Park and Wildlife Service102 on the number 

of fires and acreage burned per county. Emission factors were obtained from AP-42, Tabl

13.1-2. A fuel loading factor (tons of growth burned per acre) of 11 tons/acre was obtained 

from Table 13.1-1 (Eastern Region) of 

e 

AP-42 Wildfires and Prescribed Burning, October 

1996. An activity level of 7 days a week from Procedures, Table 5.8-1 was used. The 2002 

fire data from the Forest, Park and Wildlife Service showed no apparent increase in 

number or size of forest fires in the ozone season, thus no seasonal adjustment was used. 

Emission Factors 

VOC NOx CO PM TOT

(Lbs./ton) (Lbs./ton) (Lbs./ton) (Lbs./ton) 

Emissions 24.0 4.0 140.0 17.0 

Fuel loading factor: 11.0 Tons/acre burned 

Point Source 

Adjustments 

No subtration of emissions from point sources is necessary. 

Adjustments 

for Controls 

No controls are available for this source category. 

 

102 Forest fire data collected from Mr. Bob Hartlove, Acting Fire Supervisor for the Maryland Forest Service 
 181

Spatial and 

Temporal 

Allocations 

Spatial 

The activity data for forest fires was collected at a county-level. No other method to 

spatially profile the forest fire source category was used. 

Temporal 

Data for temporal allocation is not available for this source. 

Emissions 

Calculation 

ABj x EF FF i x FLF FF E FF I = 2000 x 365 

where: 

E FF,i = Emissions of pollutant i in tons per day from forest fires 

FLF FF = Fuel loading factor (tons/acre burned) for forest fires (11.0) 

AB J = Acres burned by wildfire in county j in 2002 

EF FF i = Emissions factor in pounds per acre or pounds per ton for pollutant i 

2002 Sample Calculation Forest Fires (Anne Arundel County)

AB E FF i = j x EFf,i x FLF FF

2000 x 365 

where: 
 182

 

E FF i = (0.3 acres burned 103 x 11 tons per acre 104 x 24.0 lbs. VOC per ton) / (2000 x 365) 

105 

E FF i = 0.0001 tons per day of VOC emitted from forest fires in Anne Arundel County in 

 2002 

103 Number of acres burned by wildfire in Anne Arundel County in 2002 from Maryland Forest, Parks and Wildlife 

Service . 

104 Fuel loading factor from AP-42, Table 13.1-1. 105 Emission factor from AP-42, Table 13.1-2. 
 183

4.1.8.3 Slash/Prescribed Burning 

SCC: 28 10 015 000 (prescribed burn) 

SCC: 28 10 005 000 (slash burn) 

Description 

Waste from logging operations is often burned under controlled conditions to reduce the 

potential fire hazard in forests and to remove brush that can serve as a host for destructive 

insects. Prescribed burning is used as a forest management practice to establish favorable 

seedbeds, remove competing underbrush, accelerate nutrient cycling, control tree pests and 

contribute other ecological benefits. 

Pollutants 

PM10 and PM2.5

Method and 

Data Sources 

Activity 

Emissions from this source were calculated using data from the Maryland Forest Service 

for prescribed burning by county and type of material burned. Emission and fuel loading 

factors for marsh grass was assumed to be the same as that for unspecified field crops in 

AP-42, Table 2.5-5, and the factor for pine was supplied by staff at the Maryland Forest 

Service. 

Emission Factor 

VOC CO NOx PM TOT

(Lbs./ton) (Lbs./ton) (Lbs./ton) (Lbs./ton)

Marsh Grass 

Emissions Factors 18.0 117.0 NA 21.0 

Fuel loading factor 2.0 tons/acre 

Pine Slash 

 Emission factor 19.0 140.0 4.0 17.0 

Fuel loading factor: 30.0 tons/acre 
 184

Point Source 

Adjustments 

No subtration of emissions from point sources is necessary. 

Adjustments 

for Controls 

No controls are available for this source category. 

Spatial and 

Temporal 

Allocations 

Spatial 

The activity data for prescribed burning was collected at a county-level. No other method 

to spatially profile the prescribed burning source category was used. 

Temporal 

Because prescribed burning is done at different times of the year, ARMA used no seasonal 

adjustment factor. The activity level is seven days per week. 

Emissions 

Calculation 

ABj x EF PB i x FLF J E PB i = 2000 x 365 

where: 

E PB,i = Emissions of pollutant i in tons per day from prescribed burning 

FLF J = Fuel loading factor for type of material burned j (for marsh grass the factor is 2 

tons per acre and for pine slash it is 30 tons per acre burned) 

AB J = Acres burned in county j in 2002 

EF PB,i = Emission factor for pollutant k 

2002 Sample Calculation Slash/Prescribed Burning (Worcester County)

ABj x EF PB i x FLF J E PB i = 2000 x 365 

(20 acres of pine slash burned x 19 lbs. VOC per ton x 30 tons per acre burned) E PB i = 2000 x 365 

E PB i = 0.016 tons VOC /day 

Slash burning calculations are done in a similar manner. 
 185

4.1.8.4 Agricultural Burning 

SCC: 21 01 500 000 

Description 

This source category covers agricultural burning practices used to clear and/or prepare land for 

planting. Operations included under this category are stubble burning, burning of agricultural 

crop residues, and burning of standing field crops as part of harvesting (e.g., sugar cane). 

Pollutants 

PM10 and PM2.5 

Method and 

Data Sources 

Emissions from this source were assigned to the open burning category because the county 

permits issued in 2002 did not require information distinguishing the amount of agricultural 

waste to be burned versus other materials. 

4.1.8.5 Structure Fires 

SCC: 28 10 030 000 

Description 

Building fires produce short-term emissions of organic compounds. 

Pollutants 

PM10 and PM2.5

Method and 

Data Sources 

MDE staff used emission factors, fuel loading factors and methodology documented in EIIP106, 

Structure Fires, dated July 1999. 

Activity 

The Maryland State Fire Marshal's office provided the number of structure fires by county. 

 

106 Emission Inventory Improvement Program 
 186

Emission Factors 

VOC NOx CO PM TOT

(Lbs./ton) (Lbs./ton) (Lbs./ton) (Lbs./ton) 

Emissions 11.0 1.4 60.0 10.8 

Fuel loading factor: 1.15 Tons/fire 

Point Source 

Adjustments 

No subtration of emissions from point sources is necessary. 

Adjustments 

for Controls 

No controls are available for this source category. 

Spatial and 

Temporal 

Allocations 

Spatial 

The activity data for structure fires was collected at a county-level. No other method to 

spatially profile the prescribed burning source category was used. 

Temporal 

Because structure fires occur at different times of the year, ARMA used no seasonal 

adjustment factor. The activity level is seven days per week. 

Emissions 

Calculation 

SFj x EF SF i x FLF SF E SF i = 2000 x 365 

where: 

E FF,i = Emissions of pollutant i in tons per day from structure fires 

FLF FF = Fuel loading factor (tons/acre burned) for structure fires 

SF J = Structure fires in county j in 2002 
 187

EF SF,i = Emission factor for pollutant i in tons per day from structure fires 

ARMA used an activity level of 7 days a week with no seasonal variation as given in Table 5.8-1 

in the EIIP document. 

2002 Sample Calculation Structure Fires (Baltimore City)

Equation:

SFj x EF SF i x FLF SF E SF i = 2000 x 365 

2386107 x 11 108 x 1.15 

109 E SF i = 

2000 x 365 

E SF i = 0.0413 tons VOC / day 

 

107 Number of structure fires in Baltimore City in 2002 from Maryland State Fire Marshal's Office . 108 Emission factor from EIIP Structure Fires. 109 Fuel loading factor from EIIP Structure Fires 
4.1.8.6 Orchard Heaters 

SCC: 28 01 520 000 

Description 

In areas of the country where frost threatens orchards, heaters may be used in cold portions of the 

growing season. 

Pollutants 

PM10 and PM2.5

Method and 

Data Sources 

Calls to several orchards in Washington and Frederick Counties (where most of the orchards in 

Maryland are located), revealed that no heaters were used. One orchard used fans to move air on 

still nights when there would be danger of frost to fruit tree blossoms. Therefore, orchard heaters 

are not included in Maryland's 2002 baseline inventory. 

 188
 189

ons. 

 

4.1.9 AMMONIA SOURCES 

Ammonia (NH3) is a pungent colorless gaseous compound of nitrogen and hydrogen that is very 

soluble in water and can be condensed into a liquid by cold and pressure. Ammonia gas reacts in 

the atmosphere with NOx or SOx to produce ammonium nitrate or ammonium sulfate, major 

PM2.5 components in the United States. 

In preparing an ammonia inventory, it is worthwhile to prioritize which of the many potential 

ammonia sources should receive attention. Previous studies conducted by Battye 110 and the 

State of California Air Resources Bureau (CARB), provide lists of ammonia sources that can be 

used to evaluate which sources are present within a region. These sources may then be ranked in 

terms of priority for estimating emissi

Currently, there is a significant amount of uncertainty concerning the contribution of soil to 

ammonia emission levels. High quality emission factors for this category do not exist, and even 

the physics of ammonia-surface exchange is not well understood. Soils emit and uptake ammonia 

so it is difficult to evaluate the net contribution, emissions may be potentially significant in some 

regions if the uptake is not substantial. Indeed, the literature shows that a soil-plant canopy 

system can be a source of ammonia emissions under certain conditions and a sink under other 

conditions. Because of this uncertainty, the State of Maryland has decided not to include 

emissions from soils. 

This section contains the ammonia emission inventory for 

• Agricultural Livestock Production Operations 

• Agricultural Fertilizer Application, 

• Human activity. 

110 Battye, R., Battye, W., C. Overcash, C., Fudge, S., 1994. Development and Selection of Ammonia Emission 

Factors, Final Report. EC/R Incorporated for U.S. EPA, EPA/600/R-94/190 (Prepared for William Benjey). 
4.1.9.1 Cows (Milk Cows, Beef Cows, Heifers, and Steers) 

SCC: 28 05 020 000 (Cows Composite) 

Description 

These animals, and all livestock, are sources of ammonia emissions due to the biological 

decomposition of their waste products 

Pollutants 

NH3

Method and 

Data Sources 

Conceptually, the method for estimating emissions from cattle is simple: count the number of 

animals, then multiply this by the average emissions per animal, and the resulting value provides 

the emissions. The CMU-NH3 Inventory (version 2.0) program utilizes this approach, a 

methodology approved by the EPA for developing the emissions inventory for other categories 

Activity 

Activity levels were collected from the USDA Census of Agriculture data for 1997. 

Emission Factors 

Emission factors were collected from a paper published by Battye,110 et al. in 1994 and are 

presented in the table below: 

Emission Factors and Source 

Livestock 

Category 

Emission 

Factor 

Source of 

Emission Factor 

Milk cows 39.72 Kg/ cow/ year Battye, et al. (1994) 

Beef cows 39.72 Kg/ cow/ year Battye, et al. (1994) 

Heifers 9.67 Kg/ heifer/ year Battye, et al. (1994) 

Steers 11.65 Kg/ steer/ year Battye, et al. (1994) 

Point Source 

Adjustments 

No subtraction of emissions from point sources is necessary. 

Adjustment for 

Controls 

No controls are available for this source category. 

Spatial and 

Temporal 

Allocations 

 190
Spatial 

The activity data was collected at a county-level. No other method to spatially profile the 

source category was used. 

Temporal 

Data for temporal allocation is not available for this source. 

Emissions 

Calculation 

Equation:

1999 TPY ammonia emissions for cows in an individual county

EM COWS-99 Total = 1999 EMBC + 1999 EMMC + 1999 EMHF + 1999 EMST

Where: 

EM COWS-99 Total = Total NH3 emissions from cows, all categories 

 EMBC = 1999 Uncontrolled emissions from beef cows 

 EMMC = 1999 Uncontrolled emissions from milk cows 

 EMHF = 1999 Uncontrolled emissions from heifers 

 EMST = 1999 Uncontrolled emissions from steers 

 Where: 

EM BC = (ACBC * EFBC) 

EM MC = (ACBC * EFMC) 

EM HF = (ACBC * EFHF) 

EM ST = (ACBC * EFST) 

 Where: 

 ACBC = Activity level (number) of beef cows 

 ACMC = Activity level (number) of milk cows 

 ACHF = Activity level (number) of heifers 

 ACST = Activity level (number) of steers 

 EFBC = Emission factor for beef cows 

 EFMC = Emission factor for milk cows 

 EFHF = Emission factor for heifers 

 EFST = Emission factor for steers 

 191
4.1.9.2 Hogs and Pigs 

SCC: 28 05 025 000 (Swine Composite) 

Description 

These animals, and all livestock, are sources of ammonia emissions due to the biological 

decomposition of their waste products. 

Pollutants 

NH3

Method and 

Data Sources 

Conceptually, the method for estimating emissions from cattle is simple: count the number of 

animals, then multiply this by the average emissions per animal, and the resulting value provides 

the emissions. The CMU-NH3 Inventory (version 2.0) program utilizes this approach, a 

methodology approved by the EPA for developing the emissions inventory for other categories 

Activity 

Activity levels were collected from the USDA Census of Agriculture data for 1997. 

Emission Factors 

Emission factors were collected from a paper published by Battye,110 et al. in 1994 and are 

presented in the table below: 

Emission Factors and Source 

Livestock 

Category 

Emission 

Factor 

Source of 

Emission Factor 

Hogs 9.2 Kg/ hog/ year Battye, et al. (1994) 

Pigs 9.2 Kg/ pig/ year Battye, et al. (1994) 

Steers 11.65 Kg/ steer/ year Battye, et al. (1994) 

Point Source 

Adjustments 

No subtraction of emissions from point sources is necessary. 

Adjustment for 

Controls 

No controls are available for this source category. 

 192
Spatial and 

Temporal 

Allocations 

Spatial 

The activity data was collected at a county-level. No other method to spatially profile the 

source category was used. 

Temporal 

Data for temporal allocation is not available for this source. 

Emissions 

Calculation 

Equation:

1999 TPY ammonia emissions for swine in an individual county

EM SWINE-99 Total = 1999 EMHOGS + 1999 EMPIGS 

Where: 

EM SWINE-99 Total = Total NH3 emissions from swine, all categories 

EMHOGS = 1999 Uncontrolled emissions from hogs 

EMPIGS = 1999 Uncontrolled emissions from pigs 

 Where: 

EM HOGS = (ACHOGS * EFHOGS) 

EM PIGS = (ACPIGS * EFPIGS) 

 Where: 

 ACHOGS = Activity level (number) of hogs 

 ACPIGS = Activity level (number) of pigs 

 EFHOGS = Emission factor for hogs 

 EFPIGS = Emission factor for pigs 

 193
4.1.9.3 Chickens (Pullets, Layers, and Broilers) 

SCC: 28 05 030 000 (Chickens Composite) 

Description 

These animals, and all livestock, are sources of ammonia emissions due to the biological 

decomposition of their waste products. 

Pollutants 

NH3

Method and 

Data Sources 

Conceptually, the method for estimating emissions from cattle is simple: count the number of 

animals, then multiply this by the average emissions per animal, and the resulting value provides 

the emissions. The CMU-NH3 Inventory (version 2.0) program utilizes this approach, a 

methodology approved by the EPA for developing the emissions inventory for other categories 

Activity 

Activity levels were collected from the USDA Census of Agriculture data for 1997. 

Emission Factors 

Emission factors were collected from a paper published by Battye,110 et al. in 1994 and are 

presented in the table below: 

Emission Factors and Source 

Livestock 

Category 

Emission 

Factor 

Source of 

Emission Factor 

Pullets 0.269 Kg/ pullet/ year Battye, et al. (1994) 

Layers 0.598 Kg/ layer/ year Battye, et al. (1994) 

Broilers 0.167 Kg/ broiler/ year Battye, et al. (1994) 

Point Source 

Adjustments 

No subtraction of emissions from point sources is necessary. 

Adjustment for 

Controls 

No controls are available for this source category. 

 194
Spatial and 

Temporal 

Allocations 

Spatial 

The activity data was collected at a county-level. No other method to spatially profile the 

source category was used. 

Temporal 

Data for temporal allocation is not available for this source. 

Emissions 

Calculation 

Equation:

1999 TPY ammonia emissions for chickens in an individual county

EM CHICKENS-99 Total 

= 

1999 EMPULLET + 1999 EMLAYER + 1999 EMBROILER 

Where: 

EM CHICKENS-99 Total = Total NH3 emissions from chickens, all categories 

 EMPULLET = 1999 Uncontrolled emissions from pullets 

 EMLAYER = 1999 Uncontrolled emissions from layers 

 EMBROILER = 1999 Uncontrolled emissions from broilers 

 Where: 

EM PULLET = (ACPULLET * EFPULLET) 

EM LAYER = (ACLAYER * EFLAYER) 

EM BROILER 

= 

(ACBROILER * EFBROILER) 

 Where: 

 ACPULLET = Activity level (number) of pullet chickens 

 ACLAYER = Activity level (number) of layer chickens 

 ACBROILER = Activity level (number) of broiler chickens 

 EFPULLET = Emission factor for pullet chickens 

 EFLAYER = Emission factor for layer chickens 

 EFBROILER = Emission factor for broiler chickens 

 195
4.1.9.4 Sheep 

SCC: 28 05 040 000 (Sheep Composite) 

Description 

These animals, and all livestock, are sources of ammonia emissions due to the biological 

decomposition of their waste products. 

Pollutants 

NH3

Method and 

Data Sources 

Conceptually, the method for estimating emissions from cattle is simple: count the number of 

animals, then multiply this by the average emissions per animal, and the resulting value provides 

the emissions. The CMU-NH3 Inventory (version 2.0) program utilizes this approach, a 

methodology approved by the EPA for developing the emissions inventory for other categories 

Activity 

Activity levels were collected from the USDA Census of Agriculture data for 1997. 

Emission Factors 

Emission factors were collected from a paper published by Battye,110 et al. in 1994 and are 

presented in the table below: 

Emission Factors and Source 

Livestock 

Category 

Emission 

Factor 

Source of 

Emission Factor 

Sheep 3.37 Kg/ sheep/ year Battye, et al. (1994) 

Point Source 

Adjustments 

No subtraction of emissions from point sources is necessary. 

Adjustment for 

Controls 

No controls are available for this source category. 

 196
 197

Spatial and 

Temporal 

Allocations 

Spatial 

The activity data was collected at a county-level. No other method to spatially profile the 

source category was used. 

Temporal 

Data for temporal allocation is not available for this source. 

Emissions 

Calculation 

Equation:

1999 TPY ammonia emissions for sheep in an individual county

EM SHEEP 

= 

ACSHEEP * EFSHEEP

Where: 

EM SHEEP = Total NH3 emissions from sheep, all categories 

ACSHEEP = Activity level (number) of sheep 

EFSHEEP = Emission factor for sheep 
4.1.9.5 Goats (Angora and Milk) 

SCC: 28 05 045 001(Goats Composite) 

Description 

These animals, and all livestock, are sources of ammonia emissions due to the biological 

decomposition of their waste products. 

Pollutants 

NH3

Method and 

Data Sources 

Conceptually, the method for estimating emissions from cattle is simple: count the number of 

animals, then multiply this by the average emissions per animal, and the resulting value provides 

the emissions. The CMU-NH3 Inventory (version 2.0) program utilizes this approach, a 

methodology approved by the EPA for developing the emissions inventory for other categories 

Activity 

Activity levels were collected from the USDA Census of Agriculture data for 1997. 

Emission Factors 

Emission factors were collected from a paper published by Battye,110 et al. in 1994 and are 

presented in the table below: 

Emission Factors and Source 

Livestock 

Category 

Emission 

Factor 

Source of 

Emission Factor 

Angora goats 2.2 Kg/ goat/ year Battye, et al. (1994) 

Milk goats 2.2 Kg/ goat/ year Battye, et al. (1994) 

Point Source 

Adjustments 

No subtraction of emissions from point sources is necessary. 

Adjustment for 

Controls 

No controls are available for this source category. 

198
Spatial and 

Temporal 

Allocations 

Spatial 

The activity data was collected at a county-level. No other method to spatially profile the 

source category was used. 

Temporal 

Data for temporal allocation is not available for this source. 

Emissions 

Calculation 

Equation:

1999 TPY ammonia emissions for goats in an individual county

EM GOATS-99 Total 

= 

1999 EMAG + 1999 EMMG 

Where: 

EM GOATS-99 Total = Total NH3 emissions from goats, all categories 

 EMAG = 1999 Uncontrolled emissions from angora goats 

 EMMG = 1999 Uncontrolled emissions from milk goats 

 Where: 

EM AG = (ACAG * EFAG) 

EM MG 

= 

(ACAG * EFAG) 

 Where: 

 ACAG = Activity level (number) of angora goats 

 ACMG = Activity level (number) of milk goats 

 EFAG = Emission factor for angora goats 

 EFMG = Emission factor for milk goats 

199
4.1.9.6 Horses 

SCC: 28 05 035 000 (Horses) 

Description 

These animals, and all livestock, are sources of ammonia emissions due to the biological 

decomposition of their waste products. 

Pollutants 

NH3

Method and 

Data Sources 

Conceptually, the method for estimating emissions from cattle is simple: count the number of 

animals, then multiply this by the average emissions per animal, and the resulting value provides 

the emissions. The CMU-NH3 Inventory (version 2.0) program utilizes this approach, a 

methodology approved by the EPA for developing the emissions inventory for other categories 

Activity 

Activity levels were collected from the USDA Census of Agriculture data for 1997. 

Emission Factors 

Emission factors were collected from a paper published by Battye,110 et al. in 1994 and are 

presented in the table below: 

Emission Factors and Source 

Livestock 

Category 

Emission 

Factor 

Source of 

Emission Factor 

Horses 12.2 Kg/ horse/ year Battye, et al. (1994) 

Point Source 

Adjustments 

No subtraction of emissions from point sources is necessary. 

Adjustment for 

Controls 

No controls are available for this source category. 

Spatial and 

Temporal 

Allocations 

Spatial 

The activity data was collected at a county-level. No other method to spatially profile the 

source category was used. 

200
Temporal 

Data for temporal allocation is not available for this source. 

Emissions 

Calculation 

Equation:

1999 TPY ammonia emissions for horses in an individual county

EM HORSE = ACHORSE * EFHORSE

Where: 

EM HORSE = Total NH3 emissions from horses, all categories 

ACHORSE = Activity level (number) of horses 

EFHORSE = Emission factor for horses 

201
4.1.9.7 Ducks, Geese and Turkeys 

SCC: 28 05 035 001 (Ducks) 

SCC: 28 05 035 002 (Turkeys) 

SCC: 28 05 035 003 (Geese) 

Description 

These animals, and all livestock, are sources of ammonia emissions due to the biological 

decomposition of their waste products. 

Pollutants 

NH3

Method and 

Data Sources 

Conceptually, the method for estimating emissions from cattle is simple: count the number of 

animals, then multiply this by the average emissions per animal, and the resulting value provides 

the emissions. The CMU-NH3 Inventory (version 2.0) program utilizes this approach, a 

methodology approved by the EPA for developing the emissions inventory for other categories 

Activity 

Activity levels were collected from the USDA Census of Agriculture data for 1997. 

Emission Factors 

Emission factors were collected from a paper published by Battye,110 et al. in 1994 and are 

presented in the table below: 

Emission Factors and Source 

Livestock 

Category 

Emission 

Factor 

Source of 

Emission Factor 

Ducks 0.117 Kg/ duck/ year Battye, et al. (1994) 

Geese 0.890 Kg/ duck/ year Battye, et al. (1994) 

Turkeys 0.858 Kg/ duck/ year Battye, et al. (1994) 

Point Source 

Adjustments 

No subtraction of emissions from point sources is necessary. 

Adjustment for 

Controls 

No controls are available for this source category. 

202
Spatial and 

Temporal 

Allocations 

Spatial 

The activity data was collected at a county-level. No other method to spatially profile the 

source category was used. 

Temporal 

Data for temporal allocation is not available for this source. 

Emissions 

Calculation 

Equation:

1999 TPY ammonia emissions for ducks in an individual county

EM DUCKS = ACDUCKS * EFDUCKS

Where: 

EM DUCKS = Total NH3 emissions from ducks, all categories 

ACDUCKS = Activity level (number) of ducks 

EFDUCKS = Emission factor for ducks 

203
4.1.9.8 Agricultural Fertilizer Application 

 SCC: 28 01 700 001 (Fertilizer Composite) 

Description: 

 

Fertilizer application is typically considered to be the second or third most important source on a 

national level, depending on whether the inventory includes soil emissions. Existing inventories 

usually estimate the contribution from fertilizer application to be 10-20% of the national total. 

Substantial progress was made in improving spatial and temporal resolution of emissions in this 

category. 

Activity level data for fertilizer application are for 1995 from the Association of American Plant 

and Food Control Officials (AAPFCO), which reports fertilizer sales to farmers at the county 

level. This is an improvement on some existing inventories, which are based on sales of fertilizer 

to dealers rather than to farmers. The dealers may subsequently sell the fertilizer to farmers in 

other locations, resulting in an inaccurate spatial distribution of activity levels. A better 

approximation (in the absence of actual application data) is to use sales from dealers to farmers. 

The AAPFCO datasets contain county-level resolution for the top producing states for each crop 

(usually about 30 states), and state-level resolution for the other states. USGS also has countylevel records of fertilizer application for years up until 1991. For states where the AAPFCO 

dataset only contained state-level resolution, the USGS dataset was used to allocate the 

AAPFCO state-level data to county-level. 

Although there are almost 200 different commercial fertilizers used in the United States, roughly 

13 of them account for the majority of fertilizer use. Emission factors for these 13 were obtained 

from Battye et al. (1994) and Asman et al. (1992). Quantities of the rest of the fertilizers have 

been combined into a ‘miscellaneous’ category, and assigned an emission factor equal to the 

average emission factor for all major fertilizers. The amount of fertilizer in the ‘miscellaneous’ 

category is typically less than 3-4% of the total. 

Finally, ammonia emissions from fertilizer application have a strong temporal component that 

has previously been ignored; yearly averages have been used in existing inventories. 

Significantly more fertilizer is applied in the spring and fall than in the summer and winter, 

corresponding to crop cycles. To improve temporal allocation, USDA data on crop planting 

times and fertilizer application times and rates were used to generate a monthly distribution of 

fertilizer application (USDA, 1997; USDA-ERS, 1991; USDA-ERS, 1996; USDA-ERS, 1996-

1997; USDA-NASS, 1992-1997a; USDA-NASS, 1992-1997b; USDA-NASS, 1992-1997c; 

USDA-NASS, 1992-1997d; USDA-NASS, 1992-1997a; USDA-NASS, 1995; USDA-NASS, 

1997). Results show that assuming a yearly average for this category results in a substantial error 

for most months of the year. 

Pollutants 

NH3

204
Method and 

Data Sources 

Conceptually, the method for estimating emissions from mobile sources is simple: collect data on 

the amount of fertilizer sold to farmers in a specific county, then multiply this by the per cent of 

ammonia released per fertilizer application, and the resulting value provides the emissions. The 

CMU-NH3 Inventory (version 2.0) program utilizes this approach, a methodology approved by 

the EPA for developing the emissions inventory for other categories. 

Activity 

Activity levels, amount of fertilizer sold to farmers per county, were collected from the 

Association of American Plant and Food Control Officials (AAPFCO). 

Emission Factors 

Emission factors were collected from a paper published by Battye,110 et al. in 1994 and are 

presented in the table below: 

Emission Factors and Source 

Fertilizer Type 

Per Cent NH3 Released to 

the Atmosphere 

Source of 

Emission Factor 

Ammonium nitrate 0.01 Battye, et al. (1994) 

Ammonium sulfate 0.01 Battye, et al. (1994) 

Ammonium thiosulfate 0.02 Battye, et al. (1994) 

Calcium ammonium nitrate 0.08 Battye, et al. (1994) 

Nitrogen solutions 0.025 Battye, et al. (1994) 

Urea 0.02 Battye, et al. (1994) 

Diammonium phosphate 0.08 Battye, et al. (1994) 

Monoammonium phosphate 0.15 Battye, et al. (1994) 

Liquid ammonium polyphosphate 0.04 Battye, et al. (1994) 

Potassium nitrate 0.04 Battye, et al. (1994) 

Miscellaneous 0.04 Battye, et al. (1994) 

Potassium nitrate 0.02 Battye, et al. (1994) 

Miscellaneous 0.15 Battye, et al. (1994) 

Mix 0.04 Battye, et al. (1994) 

Point Source 

Adjustments 

No subtraction of emissions from point sources is necessary. 

Adjustment for 

Controls 

No controls are available for this source category. 

Spatial and 

Temporal 

Allocations 

205
Spatial 

The activity data was collected at a county-level. No other method to spatially profile the 

source category was used. 

Temporal 

Finally, ammonia emissions from fertilizer application have a strong temporal component that 

has previously been ignored; yearly averages have been used in existing inventories. 

Significantly more fertilizer is applied in the spring and fall than in the summer and winter, 

corresponding to crop cycles. To improve temporal allocation, USDA data on crop planting 

times and fertilizer application times and rates were used to generate a monthly distribution of 

fertilizer application (USDA, 1997; USDA-ERS, 1991; USDA-ERS, 1996; USDA-ERS, 

1996-1997; USDA-NASS, 1992-1997a; USDA-NASS, 1992-1997b; USDA-NASS, 1992-

1997c; USDA-NASS, 1992-1997d; USDA-NASS, 1992-1997a; USDA-NASS, 1995; USDANASS, 1997). Results show that assuming a yearly average for this category results in a 

substantial error for most months of the year. 

Emissions 

Calculation 

Equation:

1999 TPY ammonia emissions for agricultural fertilizer sources in an individual county

EM FERT-99 Total = 

EMAmmNit + EMAmmSul + EMAmmThio + EMCalAmmNit + EMNitSol + EMUrea

+ EMDiAmmPhos + EMMonoAmmPhos + EMLiqAmmPhos + EMPotNit + EMMisc + 

EMMix

Where: 

EM MOBILE-99 Total = Total NH3 emissions from agricultural fertilizer application, all categories 

EMAmmNit = Emissions from Ammonium Nitrate fertilizer 

EMAmmSul = Emissions from Ammonium Sulfate fertilizer 

EMAmmThio = Emissions from Ammonium Thiosulfate fertilizer 

EMCalAmmNit = Emissions from Calcium Ammonium Nitrate fertilizer 

EMNitSol = Emissions from Nitrogen Solutions fertilizer 

EMUrea = Emissions from Urea fertilizer 

EMDiAmmPhos = Emissions from Diammonium Phosphate fertilizer 

EMMonAmmPhos = Emissions from Monoammonium Phosphate fertilizer 

EMLiqAmmPhos = Emissions from Liquid Ammonium Polyphosphate fertilizer 

EMPotNit = Emissions from Potassium Nitrate fertilizer 

EMMisc = Emissions from Miscellaneous fertilizer 

EMMix = Emissions from Mixed fertilizer 

 Where: 

EM AmmNit = (ACAmmNit * Per Cent Released AmmNit) 

EMAmmSul = (ACAmmSul * Per Cent Released AmmSul) 

EMAmmThio (ACAmmThio * Per Cent Released AmmThio) 

EMCalAmmNit = (ACCalAmmNit * Per Cent Released CalAmmNit) 

EMNitSol = (ACNitSol * Per Cent Released NitSol) 

EMUrea (ACUrea * Per Cent Released Urea) 

206
EMDiAmmPhos = (ACDiAmmPhos * Per Cent Released DiAmmPhos) 

EMMonAmmPhos = (ACMonAmmPhos * Per Cent Released 

MonAmmPhos) 

EMLiqAmmPhos = (ACLiqAmmPhos * Per Cent Released LiqAmmPhos) 

EMPotNit = (ACPotNit * Per Cent Released PotNit) 

EMMisc (ACMisc * Per Cent Released Misc) 

EMMix = (ACMix * Per Cent Released Mix) 

 Where: 

 ACAmmNit = Activity level (amount of Ammonium Nitrate fertilizer 

applied per county) 

 Per Cent Released AmmNit = Per Cent of NH3 released during fertilizer application 

207
4.1.9.9 Human Breath and Perspiration 

SCC: 28 10 010 000 (Human Perspiration) 

Description 

Ammonia emissions from human breath and perspiration comprise a few percent of the national 

ammonia emission inventory.

Pollutants 

NH3

Method and 

Data Sources 

Conceptually, the method for estimating emissions from human breathe and perspiration is 

simple: count the number of people, then multiply this by the average emissions per person, and 

the resulting value provides the emissions. The CMU-NH3 Inventory (version 1.2) program 

utilizes this approach, a methodology approved by the EPA for developing the emissions 

inventory for other categories. 

Activity 

The US Census (U.S. Census Bureau, 1999) was used to obtain activity level data for this 

category. 

Emission Factors 

Emission factors were collected from a paper published by Battye,110 et al. in 1994 and are 

presented in the table below: 

Emission Factors and Source 

Emission Category 

Emission 

Factor 

Source of 

Emission Factor 

Human Breathe and Perspiration 0.44 Kg/ person/ year Battye, et al. (1994) 

Point Source 

Adjustments 

No subtraction of emissions from point sources is necessary. 

Adjustment for 

Controls 

No controls are available for this source category. 

Spatial and 

Temporal 

Allocations 

Spatial 

The activity data was collected at a county-level. No other method to spatially profile the 

source category was used. 

208
209

Temporal 

Data for temporal allocation is not available for this source. 

Emissions 

Calculation 

Equation:

1999 TPY ammonia emissions from human breathe and perspiration in an individual county

EM HUMAN B&P = ACHUMAN * EFHUMAN B&P

Where: 

EM HUMAN B&P = Total NH3 emissions from human breathe and perspiration 

ACHUMAN = Activity level (number) of people per county 

EFHUMAN B&P = Emission factor for human breathe and perspiration 
5.0 NONROAD SOURCES

5.1 NONROAD VEHICLES/ENGINES 

This section contains the nonroad source emission inventory for volatile organic compounds 

(VOCs), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and carbon monoxide (CO) and if possible carbon dioxide 

(CO2), sulfur oxides (SOX), particulate matter (PM), ammonia (NH3), and toxic air pollutants. 

Nonroad mobile sources include motorized vehicles and equipment that are normally not 

operated on public roadways to provide transportation. For nonroad mobile sources, the source 

categories of interest are aircraft, locomotives, marine vessels and the source types included in 

EPA’s NONROAD model. Nonroad mobile sources are broken up into the following categories: 

• lawn and garden equipment 

• airport service equipment 

• logging equipment 

• recreational marine equipment 

• light commercial equipment 

• industrial equipment 

• construction equipment 

• agricultural or farm equipment 

• recreational land vehicles or equipment 

• railroads 

• commercial aviation 

• air taxis 

• general aviation 

• military aviation 

• commercial marine vessels 

The Department used two methodologies approved by the EPA for developing the 2002 

emissions inventory for nonroad categories. One of the methodologies used consisted of 

employing EPA’s NONROAD Emission Inventory Model111. In a memorandum112, dated June 

16, 2003, EPA allowed the use of the draft NONROAD Model and associated default inputs in 

the development of inventories supporting State Implementation Plans (SIPs). The second 

methodology entailed the use of EPA emission factors. 

Sample calculations presented below are for illustrative purposes only and may not reflect actual 

emissions. 

210

 

111 NONROAD2005 112 USEPA Memorandum , dated June 16, 2003, from Gene Tierney or the Air Quality and Modeling Centery and 

Leila H. Cook of the Transportation and Regional Programs Division; to Regional Mobile Source Program Manages 

and Staff. 
5.2 NONROAD MODEL 

As stated previously, the 2002 emissions estimate for all nonroad equipment categories listed 

above except commercial marine, railroad locomotives, and aviation emissions were 

determined by running EPA’s NONROAD MOBILE Model, as suggested by EPA guidance. 

The model includes more than 80 basic and 260 specific types of nonroad equipment, and 

further stratifies equipment types by horsepower rating. Fuel types include gasoline, diesel, 

compressed natural gas (CNG), and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). 

The NONROAD model consists of three separate components: a graphical user interface 

written in Visual Basic, the core model written in Fortran, and a reporting utility written in 

Microsoft ACCESS. The install utility supplied with the model easily installs all three 

components of the model onto a personal computer. 

The primary purpose of the user interface is to provide the user with an easy method to 

specify the options for a model run. With simple Windows-type screens and pull-down 

menus, the user can quickly set up, execute, and view a modeling scenario. Once the model 

options are specified, the user can then run the Fortran core model from within the interface, 

and then can move directly to the reporting utility to view and summarize the modeling 

results. 

The core model of NONROAD, written in Fortran, contains all of the algorithms used by the 

model for calculating emissions estimates. The core model can be operated as a stand-alone 

application; however, as a stand-alone application it requires some basic knowledge of the 

DOS operating system. Also, note that while the user interface runs the core model for one 

specified set of conditions, it cannot run multiple runs in batch mode. Multiple runs can be 

performed by creating and running a batch file in DOS or in a DOS window in a Windows 3.1 

or 95 environment. 

The reporting utility, written using Microsoft’s ACCESS database software, is used to create 

standardized reports using output data generated in the core model. Like the graphical user 

interface, the reporting utility is a fully operational Windows program, with pull-down menus, 

designed as a separate module in order to take advantage of the many reporting and 

formatting options available when using a database application. Although the reporting utility 

is written in ACCESS, it is a stand-alone application, and you do not need to know how to use 

ACCESS to generate reports.

The NONROAD model estimates emissions for six exhaust pollutants: hydrocarbons (HC), 

NOx, carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), sulfur oxides (SOX), and PM. The user 

selects among five different types for reporting HC — as total hydrocarbons (THC), total 

organic gases (TOG), non-methane organic gases (NMOG), non-methane hydrocarbons 

(NMHC), or volatile organic compounds (VOC). Particulate matter can be reported as PM of 

10 microns or less (PM10) or PM of 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5). The model also estimates 

emissions of non-exhaust HC for four modes — diurnal, refueling spillage, vapor 

displacement, and crankcase emissions. All emissions are reported as short tons (i.e., 2000 

lbs). Ammonia (NH3) emissions from NONROAD Model equipment were post-processed 

outside of the actual model.

211
The NONROAD model estimates emissions for each specific type of nonroad equipment by 

multiplying the following input data estimates: 

• Equipment population for base year (or base year population grown to a future year), 

distributed by age, power, fuel type, and application; 

• Average load factor expressed as average fraction of available power; 

• Available power in horsepower; 

• Activity in hours of use per year; and 

• Emission factor with deterioration and/or new standards. 

The emissions are then temporally and geographically allocated using appropriate allocation 

factors. 

There are several input files that provide necessary information to calculate and allocate 

emissions estimates. These input files correspond to the basic data needed to provide the 

calculations: emission factors, base year equipment population, activity, load factor, average 

lifetime, scrappage function, growth estimates, and geographic and temporal allocation. 

Default values are provided for all input files. The user can replace the default data files when 

better information becomes available, either from EPA for national defaults or from local 

sources for locality-specific data. The input files are also modifiable to test control strategies. 

MDE input files that differ from the EPA national defaults are presented in Section 4.7 – 

NONROAD Model Appendices.’ 

Input parameters for the NONROAD Model are listed below: 

2002 NONROAD MODEL INPUTS 

Winter Spring Fall 

All Maryland Counties All Maryland Counties All Maryland Counties 

Temp MIN 28.29 43.87 47.68 

Temp MAX 48.29 67.25 66.72 

Temp AVG 38.70 55.83 58.03 

RVP 12.6 9.6 9.3 

Diesel S % 0.2318 0.2318 0.2318 

Gas Sulfur % 0.0162 0.0162 0.0162 

CNG/LPG Sulfur % 0.003 0.003 0.003 

Marine Dsl sulfur % 0.2637 0.2637 0.2637 

O2 Weight % 2.1 2.1 2.1 

State II Control % 0 0 0 

212
2002 NONROAD MODEL SUMMER INPUTS 

Summer Summer Summer 

(Transport Region) (MWCOG Counties) (BNNA Counties) 

Temp MIN 65.55 69.80 65.55 

Temp MAX 87.60 92.50 87.60 

Temp AVG 76,80 81.40 76,80 

RVP 6.6 6.9 6.6 

Diesel S % 0.2318 0.2283 0.2318 

Gas Sulfur % 0.0162 0.0129 0.0162 

CNG/LPG Sulfur % 0.003 0.003 0.003 

Marine Dsl sulfur % 0.2637 0.2638 0.2637 

O2 Weight % 2.1 2.1 2.1 

State II Control % 0 0 0 

The transport region includes the following counties: Allegany, Caroline, Dorchester, Garrett, Kent, Queen Anne’s, St Mary’s, 

Somerset, Talbot, Washington, Wicomico, Worcester 

The MWCOG region includes the following counties: Calvert, Charles, Frederick, Montgomery, Prince Georges 

The BNAA region includes the following counties: Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Carroll, Harford, Howard, Baltimore City, Cecil 

Details of this model can be found in its user guide named “User’s Guide for the EPA 

Nonroad Emissions Model Draft NONROAD 2002” (EPA420-P-02-013; December 2002) 

available from the EPA. 

Ammonia emissions from NONROAD Model equipment were estimated by running the NR 

Model Reporting Tool for one county (Anne Arundel). The reporting tool provided the total 

fuel used per source classification code (SCC). Seasonal reports were used to ensure that all 

SCC were captured. EPA-supplied NH3 emission factors for gasoline and diesel fuel were 

used to estimate emissions on the SCC level for the county. A ratio of NH3 to CO2 emissions 

was obtained per SCC for the county. This ratio was then applied to all the counties in 

Maryland to estimate ammonia emissions for the state. 

213
5.2.1 NONROAD Model Equipment 

SCC: 22 60 004 000 (2-Stroke) 

22 65 004 000 (4-Stroke) 

22 67 004 000 (LPG) 

22 70 004 000 (Diesel) 

Description 

NONROAD Model equipment includes a variety of types of machinery used in the maintenance 

of lawns and gardens. Examples of the types of equipment included in this category are 

trimmers/edgers/brush cutters, lawn mowers, leaf blowers, rear engine riding mowers, front 

mowers, chainsaws (<4HP), shredders (<5HP), tillers (<5HP), lawn and garden tractors, wood 

splitters, snow blowers, chippers/stump grinders, commercial turf equipment, and other lawn and 

garden equipment. Emissions result from operation of the internal combustion engines that 

power the equipment. 

Pollutants 

PM10, PM2.5, SOx, NOx, CO, VOC, NH3 

Method and 

Data Sources 

Data sources 

A. " User’s Guide for the EPA Nonroad Emissions Model Draft NONROAD 2002" 

prepared for EPA by ENVIRON International Corporation under EPA Contract No. 

DW47926801 dated December 2002. This report, EPA420-P-02-013, constitutes the 

User’s Guide to the NONROAD model. The report contains an overview of the 

model, equipment types, pollutants reported, geographic an temporal coverage, the 

model components, model inputs, and output options. The guide documents how to 

install and run the model and the associated reporting utility. 

B. http://www.epa.gov/oms/nonrdmdl.htm 

Methods sources 

Based upon EPA's requirements for determining nonroad emissions, the Department ran 

the NONROAD model to determine the emission estimate for 2002. MDE-ARMA opted 

to choose seasonal (Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter) period totals as the output files from 

the model. These period totals were divided by the number of days in a season to reflect 

an average daily emission level for each season. 

Point Source 

Adjustments 

No subtration of emissions from point sources is necessary. 

Adjustments 

for Controls 

The NONROAD model automatically applies controls, when applicable, for a given year. 

214
Spatial and 

Temporal 

Allocations 

Spatial 

The NONROAD model spatially allocates equipment populations through the REGION 

data packet and the emissions through the ALLOC data packet. 

The REGION input file specifies the state or county to model. When you initially install 

the NONROAD model, you are prompted to identify the state where you are located. This 

step sets up the population and allocation factor data files for your state.

The ALLOC input file defines the spatial allocation files read by the model. 

Temporal 

The NONROAD model temporally allocates activity to the differenent seasons through the 

SEASONALITY, MONTHLY, and DAILY data packets. 

The first temporal allocation, identified by the packet identifier /MONTHLY/, provides the 

monthly adjustment factors used by the model to calculate the fraction of annual activity 

occurring in the given month. For periods longer than a single month (e.g. season), the 

factors from each month spanned by the period are summed. The second, identified as 

/DAILY/, provides the day-of-the-week adjustments. The weekend and weekday 

allocations should sum to one for an entire week (i.e. 1 = 5 × weekday fraction + 2 × 

weekend fraction).

The seasonal and monthly activity allocation fractions for the NONROAD engine 

emissions modeling is further documented in Report No. NR-004, dated December 9, 

1997. The weekday and weekend day temporatl allocation of activity in the NONROAD 

model is further documented in Report No. NR-015113, dated March 31, 1999. 

Emissions 

Calculation 

The NONROAD calculations rely on emission factors--estimates of the amount of pollution 

emitted by a particular type of equipment during a unit of use. Typically, emission factors for 

nonroad sources are reported in grams per horsepower-hour (g/hp-hr), but they also may be 

reported in grams per mile, grams per hour, and grams per gallon. These emission factors are 

stored in NONROAD’s data input files. NONROAD adjusts these emission factors as necessary 

to account for the effects of fuel sulfur. Emission changes with the age of the engine, often called 

‘deterioration,’are also applied by the model. The core model of NONROAD, written in Fortran, 

contains all of the algorithms used by the model for calculating emissions estimates using the 

input file listed above. 

215

 

113 Nonroad Engine Emission Modeling Team, Assessment and Modeling Division, EPA, Office of Mobile Sources 
5.3 RAILROADS 

 SCC: 22 85 002 005 (Line Haul) 

 SCC: 22 85 002 010 (Yard Engines) 

Description 

Railroad locomotives used in the United States are primarily of two types: electric and dieselelectric. Electric locomotives are powered by electricity generated at stationary power plants. 

Emissions are produced only at the electrical generation plant, which is considered a point source 

and therefore not included here. Diesel-electric locomotives, on the other hand, use a diesel 

engine and an alternator or generator to produce the electricity required to power its traction 

motors. Emissions produced by these diesel engines are of interest in emission inventory 

development. Other sources of emissions from railroad operations include the small gasoline 

and diesel engines used on refrigerated and heated rail cars. These engines are thermostatically 

controlled, working independently of train motive power, and fall in the category of nonroad 

equipment, addressed elsewhere in this document. 

Locomotives can perform two different types of operations: Line Haul (SCC: 2285002005) and 

Yard (SCC: 2285002010). Line haul locomotives, which perform the line haul operations, 

generally travel between distant locations, such as from one city to another. Yard locomotives, 

which perform yard operations, are primarily responsible for moving railcars within a particular 

railway yard. 

Pollutants 

PM, SOx, NOx, CO, VOC 

Method and 

Data Sources: 

The following thirteen railroad companies operate in Maryland and were asked to provide the 

amount of fuel used in 2002, and the distribution of the company's track mileage by Maryland 

County: 

1. AMTRAK (National Railroad Passenger Corporation) 

2. Canton Railroad Company 

3. Wheeling & Lake Erie Railway Company 

4. CSX Transportation, Incorporated 

5. Eastern Shore Railroad, Incorporated 

6. Maryland & Delaware Railroad Company 

7. Maryland Midland Railway, Incorporated 

8. Norfolk and Southern Railway Company 

9. Patapsco & Back Rivers Railroad Company 

10. Western Maryland Scenic Railroad 

11. Winchester and Western Railroad Company 

12. MARC (Under the Maryland Transit Administration) 

13. Walkersville Southern Railroad 

For CSX and Norfolk railroad operating statistics contained in R-1 reports obtained from the 

Surface Transportation Board under the Office of Economics, Environmental Analysis and 

Administration were used to add in estimating the amount of fuel used within the state. 

216
MDE received fuel usage and track mileage data from all the railroads. Fuel usage was 

proportioned to each county by the amount of track miles each company utilized in a county. 

Activity 

A survey of railroad petroleum consumption and track mileage was conducted. 

Emission Factor 

Emission factors were obtained from the EPA's Procedures for Emission Inventory 

Preparation, Volume IV: Mobile Sources, 1992. 

Line Haul Yard

VOC 0.0213 lbs/gal VOC 0.0509 lbs/gal 

NOx 0.4931 lbs/gal NOx 0.5044 lbs/gal 

CO 0.0626 lbs/gal CO 0.0894 lbs/gal 

SO2 0.0360 lbs/gal SO2 0.0360 lbs/gal 

PM10 0.0148 lbs/gal PM10 0.0203 lbs/gal 

PM25 0.0133 lbs/gal PM25 0.0183 lbs/gal 

SO2 emissions were calculated based on a sulfur content of 0.25% by weight. 

EPA estimates that yard locomotives operate 365 days per year (assuming that when a yard 

engine is taken in for repairs it is replaced during this period) and consumes an average of 228 

gallons per day. 

Point Source 

Adjustments 

No subtration of emissions from point sources is necessary. 

Adjustments 

for Controls 

No controls are available for this source category. 

Spatial and 

Temporal 

Allocations 

Spatial 

Emission estimates are based on fuel consumption. Company supplied state total fuel 

usage was allocated to the county level by the propotion of track miles used in a particular 

county. 

Temporal 

Data for temporal allocation is not available for this source. 

217
Emissions 

Calculation 

When specific county information was not provided, the following equations were used to 

compute the amount of fuel consumed by each railroad in each Maryland County. 

M CTY G CTY = M ST

* G ST

 Where: 

 M CTY = mileage of company tracks in the county 

 M ST = mileage of company tracks in the state 

 G ST = amount of total fuel used in gallons by the company in the state 

 G CTY = amount of total fuel used in gallons by the company in the county 

The following equation was used to calculate the emissions for line haul locomotives from each 

railroad company operating in a county. 

Fuel CTY x EF LH E LH – i – CTY j = 2000 x 365 

 Where: 

 E LH – i – CTY j = Emissions from line haul railroad locomotives for pollutant i in County 

j 

 Fuel CTY j = Total amount of fuel consumed by every railroad operating in the 

calculated county 

 Fuel CTY j = (Gcty1 + Gcty2 + ... + Gcty12) 

 EF LH = line haul locomotive emission factor for a given pollutant 

The following equation was used to calculate the emissions for yard locomotives from each 

railroad company operating in a county. 

N YL – i – CTY j x 228 x EF YL E YL – i – CTY j = 2000 

 Where: 

 E YL – i – CTY j = Emissions from yard locomotives for pollutant i in County j 

 N YL – i – CTY j = number of yard locomotives operated by each railroad company in 

county j 

 N YL – i – CTY j = (Ncty1 + Ncty2 + ... + Ncty12) 

 EF YL = Yard locomotive emission factor for a given pollutant 

218
219

Sample Calculations:

2002 Montgomery County Emissions 

Line Haul Emission Estimate 

AMTRAK, CSX, and MARC operated line haul locomotives in the county. AMTRAK also 

operated one yard (switcher) locomotive in the county. 

Amount of fuel used in gallons by AMTRAK’s line haul locomotives in Montgomery County: 

Gcty1 = 25,463.8 gallons used in Montgomery Co. per year by AMTRAK 

 (information provided by AMTRAK) 

Amount of fuel used in gallons used by CSX Transportation line haul locomotives in 

Montgomery County: 

36.37 track miles in Montgomery Co. for CSX Gcty4 = 514.97 track miles in the state for CSX 

 x 10,512,431.53 gallons used in state per 

year 

Gcty4 = 742,445.45 gallons used in Montgomery Co. per year by CSX 

Amount of fuel in gallons used by MARC line haul locomotives in Montgomery county: 

28 track miles in Montgomery Co. for MARC Gcty12 = 156 track miles in the state for MARC x 1,782,750 gallons used in state per year 

Gcty12 = 319980.77 gallons used in Montgomery Co. per year by MARC 

VOC Emissions from line haul locomotives in Montgomery County: 

(25,463.8 gal / yr + 742,445.45 gal / yr + 319980.77 gal / yr ) * 0.0213 lbs. VOC /gal EMVOC = (2000 lbs. per ton) * (365 days per year) 

EMVOC = 0.0316 tons VOC / day 

NOx Emissions from line haul locomotives in Montgomery County: 

(25,463.8 gal / yr + 742,445.45 gal / yr + 319980.77 gal / yr ) * 0.4931 lbs. NOX /gal EMNOX = (2000 lbs. per ton) * (365 days per year) 

EMNOX = 0.7348 tons NOX / day 

CO Emissions from line haul locomotives in Montgomery County: 

(25,463.8 gal / yr + 742,445.45 gal / yr + 319980.77 gal / yr ) * 0.0626 lbs. CO / gal EMCO = (2000 lbs. per ton) * (365 days per year) 

EMCO = 0.0933 tons CO / day 
Yard Locomotives Emission Estimate 

CSX operated 2 yard locomotives in Montgomery County: 

VOC Emissions from yard locomotives in Montgomery County: 

(2 engine * 228 gallons per engine per day * 0.0509 lbs. VOC / gallon) EMVOC = (2000 lbs. per ton) 

EMVOC = 0.0116 tons VOC / day 

NOx Emissions from yard locomotives in Montgomery County: 

(2 engine * 228 gallons per engine per day * 0.5044 lbs. NOX / gallon) EMNOX = (2000 lbs. per ton) 

EMNOX = 0.1150 tons NOX / day 

CO Emissions from yard locomotives in Montgomery County: 

(2 engine * 228 gallons per engine per day * 0.0894 lbs. CO / gallon) EMCO = (2000 lbs. per ton) 

EMCO = 0.0204 tons CO / day 

Total Emissions

Emissions from maintenance equipment used in the switching yards was calculated using the 

EPA’s Non-Road Model and then added for the appropriate county. 

Example emissions for Montgomery county: 

0.0013 tons VOC / day, 0.0005 tons NOx / day, 0.0518 tons CO / day 

Total VOC Emissions for Montgomery county: 

EmisVOC = 0.0316 tons / day from line haul + 0.0116 tons / day from yard + 0.0013 tons VOC / 

day from EPA Non-Road Model. 

EmisVOC = 0.0445 tons VOC / day 

Total NOx Emissions for Montgomery county: 

EmisNOx = 0.7348 tons / day from line haul + 0.1150 tons / day from yard + 0.0005 tons NOx / 

day from EPA Non-Road Model. 

EmisNOx = 0.8503 tons NOx / day 

Total CO Emissions for Montgomery county: 

EmisCO = 0.0933 tons / day from line haul + 0.0204 tons / day from yard + 0.0518 tons CO / day 

from EPA Non-Road Model. 

EmisCO = 0.1655 tons CO / day 

220
5.4 AIRCRAFT 

 SCC: 22 75 020 000 (Commercial Aircraft) 

 SCC: 22 75 050 000 (General Aviation) 

 SCC: 22 75 001 000 (Military Aviation) 

Description: 

This category includes three sub-categories identified as: commercial aircraft, general aviation, 

and military aircraft. Commercial aircraft are used in regularly scheduled flights transporting 

passengers, freight, or both. General aviation, which includes air taxis and commuter aviation, is 

used for recreational flying, business travel, personal transportation, and various other activities. 

Military aviation is the operation and activities of military aircraft at airports in Maryland. 

Pollutants 

PM10, PM2.5, SOx, NOx, CO, VOC 

Method and 

Data Sources 

ARMA used a variety of sources for data and emission calculation methods as follows: 

Data sources 

1) Airport Activity Statistics of Certificated Route Air Carriers published by Federal 

Aviation Administration for the 12 months ending December 31,2002, pp 7-314 to 7-

320. 

2) This report lists total departures performed for commercial air carriers and individual 

types of commercial aircraft. 

3) Landing and takeoff cycle information by airport for 1995/2002 from the Maryland 

4) Aviation Administration and the Federal Aviation Administration Airport License 

Renewal Applications. The applications lists LTO cycles by aircraft operation type 

from all general aviation airports, Martin State Airport which has general, and 

Baltimore/Washington International Airport for the past 12 months. 

Methods sources 

1) For general aviation ARMA used emission factors supplied in Procedures for 

Emission Inventory Preparation, Volume IV: Mobile Sources, EPA’s Office of 

Mobile Sources, 1992. This source provided emission factors for specific 

commercial engine types, and alternative fleet average factors for general aviation, air 

taxis, and commuter aircraft. 

2) For military aircraft ARMA used a composite factor from section 5.2.5, Table 5-7 of 

Procedures for Emission Inventory Preparation, Volume IV: Mobile Sources, 1988. 

This method required ARMA to collect LTO data rather than specific aircraft data. 

ARMA also used this composite factor method in its 1990 baseline inventory. For 

the final 2002inventory ARMA has requested operation data from military aircraft by 

operation type from Maryland Army, Navy, and Air Force base environmental 

support offices. 

221
3) For commercial aviation ARMA used FAA’s EDMS114 emissions model and 

databases. EDMS is designed to assess the air quality impacts of airport emission 

sources, particularly aviation sources, which consist of aircraft, auxiliary power units, 

and ground support equipment. EDMS features the latest aircraft engine emission 

factors from the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Engine Exhaust 

Emissions Data Bank, vehicle emission factors from EPA MOBILE 5a, and EPAvalidated dispersion algorithms. Aircraft activity includes landside and airside 

operations. EDMS defines four distinct modes of aircraft operation based upon EPA 

and FAA guidance: approach, taxi/idle, takeoff, and climb out. Together, these four 

modes constitute one Landing and Takeoff (LTO) cycle. EDMS calculates aircraft 

emissions based on these four modes. 

4) For all aircraft types, ARMA used a default mixing height value of 3,000 feet above 

ground level. The mixing height is the layer of air where airplane emission affect 

ground level emission concentrations. Above the mixing level, pollutants are 

transported away according to sections 5.2.2 of the 1992 Procedures. Because of the 

mixing height, ARMA assigned all aircraft emissions from a particular airport to the 

county where that airport was located. We assumed no seasonal variation and a seven 

day per week activity level. 

Point Source 

Adjustments 

No subtraction of emissions from point sources is necessary. 

Adjustment for 

Controls 

No controls are available for this source category. 

Spatial and 

Temporal 

Allocations 

Spatial 

Data for spatial allocation is not available for this source. 

Temporal 

Data for temporal allocation is not available for this source. 

222

 

114 Emissions & Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS) Version 3.2 for Windows from CSSI, Inc. 
5.4.1 Commercial Aircraft 

(SCC: 22 75 020 000) 

Steps in Creating and Airport Emission Inventory in EDMS:

1) Open the EDMS model and create a new study for the airport in question. Enter the 

parameters (name, mixing height, average yearly temperature, and units of measurement) that 

are specific to each airport into the study. 

2) Provide EDMS with information to compute the emissions inventory. Begin by matching 

engines with aircraft and assigning them to the study. Select the aircraft to be used in the 

study (data that is collected from the airport) by picking the aircraft name from the menus. 

EDMS automatically associates specific aircraft with certain engine types. 

3) For each aircraft fill in the yearly LTO cycles provided by surveying the airport. 

4) For each aircraft fill in the average annual taxi time and queue time specific to the airport or 

use the EDMS provide default values. 

5) Continue to add each aircraft/engine type, LTO cycle, taxi time and queue time to the study. 

6) EDMS has tables built into the model that associate aircraft type with the number of engines, 

auxiliary power units and ground support equipment. The model also assigns default values 

for Takeoff Time (typically 0.3 minutes), Climbout Time (typically 5 minutes), and 

Approach Time (typically 6 minutes). 

7) If emissions from parking lots, roadways, stationary sources, and training fires are also 

required, complete the dialog boxes associated with each of these subcategories. 

8) Run the EDMS emission inventory program and view the results. 

Emissions 

Calculation 

The following calculation aircraft operating at Baltimore/Washington International Airport in 

Anne Arundel County during 1998. Tabled below is the aircraft, engine assigned to the aircraft, 

time for each mode of operation, annual LTO operations, average annual taxi time, and the 

average annual queue time. 

Aircraft 

Name 

Aircraft 

Type 

Engine 

Assigned 

Approach 

Time 

(min) 

Climbout 

Time 

(min) 

Takeoff 

Time 

(min) 

Annual 

LTO 

Taxi 

Time 

(min) 

Queue 

Time 

(min) 

Falcon 100 GA TFE731-3 1.60 0.50 0.40 1825 10.50 3.00

P-337P Skymaster GA TSIO-360C 4.50 2.50 0.50 9490 10.50 3.00

550 Citation GA JT15D-4 (B,C,D) 1.60 0.50 0.40 2190 10.50 3.00

A320 Comm CFM56-5B4 4.00 2.20 0.70 2555 10.50 3.00

AH-1 Military T53-L-11D 6.80 6.80 0.00 1825 10.50 3.00

ATR42 Comm PW120 4.50 2.50 0.50 2190 10.50 3.00

B727-100 Comm JT8D-7A 4.00 2.20 0.70 8030 10.50 3.00

B737-200 Comm JT8D-15A 4.00 2.20 0.70 21900 10.50 3.00

B737-300 Comm CFM56-3B 4.00 2.20 0.70 13140 10.50 3.00

B737-400 Comm CFM56-3B 4.00 2.20 0.70 3650 10.50 3.00

B737-500 Comm CFM56-3B 4.00 2.20 0.70 8030 10.50 3.00

B737-700 Comm CFM56-3C-1 4.00 2.20 0.70 730 10.50 3.00

B747-100 Comm JT9D-7A 4.00 2.20 0.70 183 10.50 3.00

B757-200 Comm PW2037 4.00 2.20 0.70 7665 10.50 3.00

223
B767-200 Comm CF6-80A (A1) 4.00 2.20 0.70 1095 10.50 3.00

BAE ATP Comm PT6A-45 4.00 2.20 0.70 2555 10.50 3.00

BH-1900 Comm PT6A-65B 1.60 0.50 0.40 3285 10.50 3.00

C-12A/B/C Military PT6A-41 3.50 0.80 0.40 730 10.50 3.00

C-130 Hercules Military T56-A-16 5.10 1.20 0.40 365 10.50 3.00

C-9A Military JT8D-9 5.10 1.20 0.40 365 10.50 3.00

Canadair Reg-100 Comm CF34-3A1 4.00 2.20 0.70 730 10.50 3.00

Cessna 150 GA O-200 6.00 5.00 0.30 5110 10.50 3.00

Convair liner Comm RDA10 4.50 2.50 0.50 365 10.50 3.00

DC10-10 Comm CF6-50C 4.00 2.20 0.70 730 10.50 3.00

DC9-10 Comm JT8D-7A 4.00 2.20 0.70 4380 10.50 3.00

DHC-8 Comm PW120 4.50 2.50 0.50 3650 10.50 3.00

DHC-8-400 Comm PW123 4.50 2.50 0.50 18250 10.50 3.00

F-16 Military F100-PW-100 3.50 0.80 0.40 183 10.50 3.00

F-27 Series Military RDa7 4.50 2.50 0.50 365 10.50 3.00

Fokker 100 GA TAY650 4.00 2.20 0.70 365 10.50 3.00

H-46 Sea Knight Military T58-GE-8F 6.80 6.80 0.00 183 10.50 3.00

Kingair B200 GA PT6A-41 1.60 0.50 0.40 5840 10.50 3.00

Learjet 25B GA CJ610-6 1.60 0.50 0.40 1460 10.50 3.00

MD-11 Comm CF6-80C2D1F 4.00 2.20 0.70 730 10.50 3.00

MD-80 Comm JT8D-209 4.00 2.20 0.70 4563 10.50 3.00

MD-80-88 Comm JT8D-217 4.00 2.20 0.70 1825 10.50 3.00

MD-90-10 Comm V2525-D5 4.00 2.20 0.70 365 10.50 3.00

Porter PC6/B2 Military PT6A-27 4.50 2.50 0.50 730 10.50 3.00

SF-340-A Comm CT7-5 4.50 2.50 0.50 730 10.50 3.00

Swearingen Merlin Comm TPE331-3 4.50 2.50 0.50 2920 10.50 3.00

Swearingen Merlin Comm TPE331-3 4.50 2.50 0.50 365 10.50 3.00

Once all of the data is entered into the model, the model produces an emission inventory. 

Annual emission inventory results are listed in the table below: 

NAME CO 

Tons/year 

HC115

Tons/year

NOX 

Tons/year

SOX 

Tons/year

PM10 

Tons/year 

Aircraft 767.886 128.821 905.493 41.586

GSE/AGE/APU 2810.992 71.658 221.278 6.027 7.871 

Total 3578.878 200.476 1126.771 47.613 7.871 

The model will also produce an inventory specific to each aircraft type, which allows the data to 

be separated into types (commercial, general aviation, and military) of operation. For BWI the 

separation results in the following: 

NAME CO 

Tons/year 

HC 

Tons/year

NOX 

Tons/year

SOX 

Tons/year

PM10 

Tons/year 

Commercial Aircraft 546.030 84.833 890.956 40.399 0.000 

General Aviation 202.667 34.256 6.699 0.654 0.000 

Military Aviation 19.189 9.732 7.838 0.533 0.000 

Total 767.886 128.821 905.493 41.586 0.0 

 

224

115 Requires a Hydrocarbon to VOC conversion factor of 1.0947. 
A daily emission inventory was produced assuming an airport activity of 365 days per year. 

The model was run for all aircraft at BWI and all commercial aviation at Hagerstown Regional, 

Ocean City Municipal and military aircraft at Andrews Air Force Base. 

225
226

5.4.2 General Aviation 

SCC: 22 75 050 000 

Emission 

Calculation 

A rough estimate of emissions were calculated after information on the LTO operations of 

aircraft operation type was obtained from Maryland’s airports. This method used the alternative 

fleet-average procedure of Section 5.2.4.2 of Procedures, 1992. The composite emission factors 

used are listed in the table below. 

CO 

(lbs./LTO) 

HC* 

(lbs./LTO) 

NOx 

(lbs./LTO) 

SO2 

(lbs./LTO) 

PM 

(lbs./LTO) 

General Aviation 12.014 0.394 0.065 0.100 0.020 

Air Taxis 28.130 1.234 0.158 0.015 0.020 

* Requires Hydrocarbon to VOC conversion factor of 0.9708 for General Aviation and 0.9914 

for Air Taxis. 

1) EmissVOC = LTO (GA) * EF (GA)VOC

Where: 

LTO (GA) = LTOs for General Aviation 

 EF (GA)xx = Emission Factors for General Aviation 

2) EmissVOC = L(AT) * EF(AT)VOC

Where: 

 L(AT) = LTOs for Air Taxis 

 EF(AT)xx = Emission factors for Air Taxis 

Sample Calculation – General Aviation: 

This calculation is for Easton Airport/Newman Field in Talbot County. The airport had 21,569 

General Aviation LTOs over a twelve month period. Performing step 1 Equations (above) the 

calculations were: 

EmissVOC = [L(GA) * EF(GA)HC]* CF (VOC/HC) 

EmissVOC = [(21,569 LTOs / Year * 0.394 (lbs. HC / LTO)] * 0.9708 (lbs. VOC / lbs. HC)))) 

EmissVOC = 8,250.0390 lbs. VOC / Year 

EmissVOC = 0.0113 Tons VOC / Day 

EmissCO = [21,569 LTOs / Year * 12.014 (lbs. CO / LTO)] 

EmissCO = 259,129.966 lbs. of CO / Year 

EmissCO = 0.3550 Tons CO / Day 

EmissNOx = [21,569 LTOs / Year * 0.065 (lbs. NOx / LTO)] 

EmissNOx = 1,401.985 lbs. of NOx / Year 
EmissNOx = 0.0019 Tons NOx / Day 

EmissSO2 = [21,569 LTOs / Year * 0.100 (lbs. SO2 / LTO)] 

EmissSO2 = 2,156.900 lbs. of SO2 / Year 

EmissSO2 = 0.0030 Tons SO2 / Day 

EmissPM = [21,569 LTOs / Year * 0.020 (lbs. PM / LTO)] 

EmissPM = 431.380 lbs. of PM / Year 

EmissPM = 0.0006 Tons PM / Day 

Sample Calculation – Air Taxi: 

This calculation is for Easton Airport/Newman Field in Talbot County. The airport had 4,557 

Air Taxi Aviation LTOs over a twelve month period. Performing step 1 Equations (above) the 

calculations were: 

EmissVOC = [L(AT) * EF(AT)HC]* CF (VOC/HC) 

EmissVOC = [(4,557 LTOs / Year * 1.234 (lbs. HC / LTO)] * 0.9914 (lbs. VOC / lbs. HC)))) 

EmissVOC = 5,574.9773 lbs. VOC / Year 

EmissVOC = 0.0076 Tons VOC / Day 

EmissCO = [4,557 LTOs / Year * 28.130 (lbs. CO / LTO)] 

EmissCO = 128,188.410 lbs. of CO / Year 

EmissCO = 0.1756 Tons CO / Day 

EmissNOx = [4,557 LTOs / Year * 0.158 (lbs. NOx / LTO)] 

EmissNOx = 720.006 lbs. of NOx / Year 

EmissNOx = 0.0010 Tons NOx / Day 

EmissSO2 = [4,557 LTOs / Year * 0.015 (lbs. SO2 / LTO)] 

EmissSO2 = 68.355 lbs. of SO2 / Year 

EmissSO2 = 0.0001 Tons SO2 / Day 

EmissPM = [4,557 LTOs / Year * 0.020 (lbs. PM / LTO)] 

EmissPM = 91.14 lbs. of PM / Year 

EmissPM = 0.0001 Tons PM / Day 

227
5.4.3 Military Aircraft 

SCC: 22 75 001 000 

There are five military airports in Maryland. They are Andrews Air Force Base, Fort 

Meade/Tipton, Aberdeen, Patuxent River Naval Air Station, and Martin State Airport. ARMA 

received LTO information from all airports. The Aberdeen Airport reported no activity in 2002. 

Most of the county airports also receive a small number of military operations. 

Method and 

Data Sources 

Since ARMA asked for and received LTO information by aircraft operation type, ARMA used 

composite emission factors from Procedures for Emission Inventory Preparation, Volume IV: 

Mobile Sources, 1988 for all airports except Andrews Air Force Base. The EDMS model 

(version 3.2) was used to calculate emissions from Andrews Air Force Base. Otherwise, the 

composite emission factors are listed in the table below. 

CO 

(lbs./LTO) 

VOC 

(lbs./LTO) 

NOx 

(lbs./LTO) 

SO2 

(lbs./LTO) 

PM 

(lbs./LTO) 

Military Aircraft 48.80 27.10 9.160 1.430 15.230 

1) EmissVOC = L(MA) * EF(MA)VOC

Where: 

 L(MA) = LTOs for Military Aircraft 

 EF(MA)xx = Emission factors for Military Aircraft 

Emissions 

Calculation 

This calculation is for Patuxent River Naval Air Station in St. Mary’s county. The airport had 

63,852 LTOs in 2002. Using step 1 from Equations (above) the calculations were: 

EmissVOC = [L(AT) * EF(MA)HC] 

EmissVOC = [(63,852 LTOs / Year * 27.10 (lbs. VOC / LTO)] 

EmissVOC = 1,730,389.200 lbs. VOC / Year 

EmissVOC = 2.3704 Tons VOC / Day 

EmissCO = [63,852 LTOs / Year * 48.80 (lbs. CO / LTO)] 

EmissCO = 3,115,977.60 lbs. of CO / Year 

EmissCO = 4.2685 Tons CO / Day 

EmissNOx = [63,852 LTOs / Year * 9.160 (lbs. NOx / LTO)] 

EmissNOx = 584,884.32 lbs. of NOx / Year 

EmissNOx = 0.8012 Tons NOx / Day 

228
229

EmissSO2 = [63,852 LTOs / Year * 1.430 (lbs. SO2 / LTO)] 

EmissSO2 = 91,308.36 lbs. of SO2 / Year 

EmissSO2 = 0.1251 Tons SO2 / Day 

EmissPM = [63,852 LTOs / Year * 15.23 (lbs. PM / LTO)] 

EmissPM = 972,465.96 lbs. of PM / Year 

EmissPM = 1.3321 Tons PM / Day 
230
231

5.5 Marine Vessels 

 SCC: 22 80 002 010 (diesel marine vessels) 

Description 

Commercial vessels include all boats and ships used either directly or indirectly for commerce or 

military activity. These include vessels ranging in size from 20-foot charter boats to the largest 

tankers and military vessels, which can exceed 1,000 feet in length. 

Pollutants 

PM, SO2, NOx, CO, HC, CO2

Method and 

Data Sources 

MDE used the emission inventory prepared for the Maryland Port Administration by Edwards and 

Kelcey (E&K). E&K analyzed the major categories of air emissions associated with ship and port 

operations and their relationship to air quality issues in the Baltimore non-attainment area. 

E&K used the marine emission inventory guidance method outlined in Analysis of Commercial 

Marine Vessels Emissions and Fuel Consumption Data (EPA-450-R-00-002), February 2000, to 

calculate emissions from commercial marine vessels. The methodology is based on a three-step 

calculation. The first step apportions the time spent by a vessel in a port area to different operating 

modes. The second calculates fuel consumption in each operating mode. The third step calculates 

emissions using fuel consumption specific emission factors, which is how marine engine emission 

factors have been historically specified. All of these calculations are made by vessel type and class, 

with the type specifying whether the vessel is a tanker, passenger liner, etc, and the class specifying 

either the weight or horsepower range. 

This new methodology considers new information collected on marine vessels. The time-in-mode is a 

function of the particular port area geography and was not considered in the report. The other factors 

used in the emission estimate computation are examined, with particular focus on the emission 

factors, for all pollutants of concern. One reason for a detailed reconsideration of the emission factors 

is that a number of large marine diesels have been tested for emissions and their tests results have 

become available in the last few years. In addition, both the EPA and ARB have recently sponsored 

studies to calculate marine vessel emissions in the South Coast Air Basin and in some areas of 

Region IX, so that there is a body of new research available to update emission factors. Hence, the 

use of a larger and newer database on marine vessel emission is expected to substantially improve the 

quality of the derived emission factors. 

Activity 

The computation of emissions can be performed by ship type for a given port and requires the 

following inputs: 

• The number of calls to the port by vessel class and deadweight tonnage. 
232

• The time spent, by ship type, in each of four operating modes defines as: normal cruise, slow 

cruise, maneuvering, and hoteling. 

Emission Factors 

Emission rates were calculated per pollutant (except SO2) per vessel type per mode of 

operation within the guidance document using the following formula: 

E (i) = a * (Fractional Load) –x + b 

Where: 

 E (i) = Emission rate of pollutant i in grams per kilowatt-hour 

 a = Coefficient 

 x = Exponent 

 b = Intercept 

Emission rates were calculated per pollutant (SO2 only) per vessel type per mode of operation 

within the guidance document using the following formula: 

E (SO2) = a * (Fuel Sulfur Flow in g/kW-hr) + b 

The marine engine emission factor and fuel consumption algorithms are presented in the table 

below: 

Pollutant Exponent (x) Intercept (b) Coefficient (a) 

 PM 1.5 0.2551 0.0059 

 NOx 1.5 10.4496 0.1255 

 SO2 1 0 2.3735 

 CO 1 0 0.8378 

 HC 1.5 0 0.0667 

 CO2 1 648.6 44.1 

The marine engine emission rates in grams per kilowatt-hour are presented in the table below: 

Vessel Type Cruise Slow Cruise Maneuvering Hoteling 

PM 

(gr/kw-hr) 

PM 

(gr/kw-hr)

PM 

(gr/kw-hr) 

PM 

(gr/kw-hr) 

Bulk Carriers & Tankers 0.2633 0.2784 0.3211 0.4417 

General Cargo 0.2633 0.2836 0.3211 0.4417 

Passenger 0.2633 0.3211 0.4417 0.7828 

Container/ RORO/ Reefer/Auto Carrier 0.2633 0.291 0.3567 0.5424 

All non-oceangoing 0.2633 0.2784 0.3211 0.4417 

NOx 

(gr/kw-hr) 

NOx 

(gr/kw-hr)

NOx 

(gr/kw-hr) 

NOx 

(gr/kw-hr) 

Bulk Carriers & Tankers 10.625 10.9457 11.8527 14.4183 
233

Vessel Type Cruise Slow Cruise Maneuvering Hoteling 

General Cargo 10.625 11.0557 11.8527 14.4183 

Passenger 10.625 11.8527 14.4183 21.6747 

Container/ RORO/ Reefer/Auto Carrier 10.625 11.2134 12.6099 16.5597 

All non-oceangoing 10.625 10.9457 11.8527 14.4183 

SO2 

(gr/kw-hr) 

SO2 

(gr/kw-hr)

SO2 

(gr/kw-hr) 

SO2 

(gr/kw-hr) 

Bulk Carriers & Tankers 26.5081 28.6027 32.7919 41.1704 

General Cargo 26.5081 29.2012 32.7919 41.1704 

Passenger 26.5081 32.7919 41.1704 57.9273 

Container/ RORO/ Reefer/Auto Carrier 26.5081 29.9991 35.5847 46.756 

All non-oceangoing 26.5081 28.6027 32.7919 41.1704 

CO 

(gr/kw-hr) 

CO 

(gr/kw-hr)

CO 

(gr/kw-hr) 

CO 

(gr/kw-hr) 

Bulk Carriers & Tankers 1.0473 2.0945 4.189 8.378 

General Cargo 1.0473 2.3937 4.189 8.378 

Passenger 1.0473 4.189 8.378 16.756 

Container/ RORO/ Reefer/Auto Carrier 1.0473 2.7927 5.5853 11.1707 

All non-oceangoing 1.0473 2.0945 4.189 8.378 

HC 

(gr/kw-hr) 

HC 

(gr/kw-hr)

HC 

(gr/kw-hr) 

HC 

(gr/kw-hr) 

Bulk Carriers & Tankers 0.0932 0.2637 0.7457 2.1092 

General Cargo 0.0932 0.3221 0.7457 2.1092 

Passenger 0.0932 0.7457 2.1092 5.9658 

Container/ RORO/ Reefer/Auto Carrier 0.0932 0.4059 1.1481 3.2474 

All non-oceangoing 0.0932 0.2637 0.7457 2.1092 

CO2 

(gr/kw-hr) 

CO2 

(gr/kw-hr)

CO2 

(gr/kw-hr) 

CO2 

(gr/kw-hr) 

Bulk Carriers & Tankers 703.725 758.85 869.1 1,089.60 

General Cargo 703.725 774.6 869.1 1,089.60 

Passenger 703.725 869.1 1,089.60 1,530.60 

Container/ RORO/ Reefer/Auto Carrier 703.725 795.6 942.6 1,236.60 

All non-oceangoing 703.725 758.85 869.1 1,089.60 

Point Source 

Adjustments 

No point source emissions were subtracted from the area source inventory. 

Adjustment for 

Controls 

No controls are available for this source category. 
234

Spatial and 

Temporal 

Allocations 

Spatial 

Data for spatial allocation is not available for this source. E&K emissions inventory focused on 

the City of Baltimore and allotted the cruise emissions to the city. 

Temporal 

Data for temporal allocation is not available for this source. 

Emissions 

Calculation 

The equation used to estimate emissions from commercial marine vessels is: 

CALLS VCC, DWT x LENGTH VCC, DWT x %TIME VCC, DWT, 

TIME VCC, DWT, MODE = MODE

100 

EMISSIONS VCC, DWT, MODE = (EF)(LF MODE ) x (HP) (DWT) x LF MODE x TIME VCC, DWT, 

MODE

Where: 

VCC is the vessel class (bulk carrier, tanker, container, general cargo, passenger, reefer, 

RORO, tug, vehicle carrier, or miscellaneous) 

 DWT is the deadweight tons 

 EF is the emissions factor 

 LF is the mode specific load factor 

 

For the calculation, the TIME equation requires port specific inputs, while the guidance method 

outlined in Analysis of Commercial Marine Vessels Emissions and Fuel Consumption Data (EPA450-R-00-002), February 2000, provides the EF and HP relationships. 

Data on the type of vessels, number of calls per vessel type, deadweight tons per vessel type, and 

time in each mode per vessel type using Baltimore port facilities came from the Maryland Port 

Administration (MPA). 

In addition, the MPA provided data that translated into approximately 85 percent of the vessels 

arriving from the south (up the Chesapeake Bay) and 15 percent of the vessels arriving from the north 

(down from the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal). The data allowed MDE to allocate slow cruising 

emissions to the appropriate counties to the north and south of the Port of Baltimore. Emissions 

associated with "normal cruising" were assumed by MDE not to have occurred while in the Maryland 

airshed. 

All of the maneuvering and hoteling emissions were assigned to the City of Baltimore. 
235

6.0 ONROAD MOBILE SOURCES

6.1 INTRODUCTION 

As detailed in the following sections, the official 2002 highway vehicle emissions estimates for the 8-

hour ozone SIP submittal, have been developed based on the highway traffic data obtained from the 

Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA) 

The official highway vehicle emission inventory for the Maryland portion of the Washington, D.C. 

Ozone Non-attainment Area (comprising the counties of Calvert, Charles, Frederick, Montgomery, 

and Prince George's) has been developed by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments 

(MWCOG) based on the transportation demand modeling data and has been documented by that 

organization under separate cover. 

In accordance with the standard methodology for the development of highway vehicle emissions 

inventories, all of the emissions estimates documented herein are based on emission factors 

developed using the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (U.S. EPA's) latest version of 

the MOBILE6 emissions factor model and using appropriate activity levels i.e., vehicle miles 

traveled (VMT) estimates developed from the highway traffic data obtained from the SHA of the 

Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT). 

In its simplest form, highway vehicle emissions can be modeled by aggregating the products of 

emission factors of various vehicle types and vehicle travel activity on various roadway classes, as 

illustrated in the following equation: 

Emissions = (Emission Factors) x (Vehicle Activity) 

The emission modeling computations (expressed in tons per summer weekday or tons per annum) 

involve application of appropriate conversion and seasonal adjustment factors on the two entities of 

the emission equation – emission factors in grams per mile and vehicle activity in VMT. 

In the real world, development of highway vehicle emissions over a large network of roadways is a 

complicated and data intensive effort that requires the correct expertise and tools to produce 

emissions based on the federal and state requirements. MDE used the PPSuite system, a robust, 

systematic, and comprehensive software approach to develop the on-road emissions for the state. 

This new post-processor, PPSUITE was used for the first time in 2003 by MSCP for the 2005 Mobile 

Emission Budget effort. However this software system has been in use in Pennsylvania, Virginia, 

New Jersey, and the New York City Metropolitan Area, for previous inventory and conformity 

submissions. PPSUITE is also compatible with travel demand modeled activity data and as such used 

in the Baltimore Area’s for transportation conformity analysis. The following table provides a 

summary of the emission process and various data inputs. 
236

 PPSUITE Emission Modeling Process 

SHA Prepared Data 

2002 Highway Data 

- UNIV02 Database 

(128,379 Statewide 

Records) 

2002 Vehicle 

Classifications 

(Statewide Avg. By FC)

From SHA Traffic

Monitoring System Website 

Percent of Fleet by FHWA

vehicle classes 

Map to vehicle type 

2002 Seasonal Factors 

(Statewide Average By FC 

Group)

Based on SHA Traffic 

Trends System: Functional 

Class Reports 

Percent of AADT for 

monthly weekdays 

Based on Highway

Location Reference System 

County Number 

Lanes 

2002 Hourly Pattern

Data 

(Statewide Avg. By FC) 

Based on SHA Traffic 

Trends System:

Functional Class

Reports 

Percent of volume in 

each hour of day 

A B C D 

Emission Calculation Scheme

PPNET 

Network 

MOBILE6 

Highway Network 

Data

POSTMOBILE 

Process M6

PEQUESTR 

Create Reports

PREMOBILE 

Prepare M6

PPSUITE 

PPSUITE 

Driver File 

Vehicle Mix File 

(Vol by vehicle type) 

SHA Statewide Patterns (LDV, HDV, BUS, MC)

MPO Regional Pattern 

(LDV, HDV, BUS, MC) 

prepared by

BMC, MWCOG, etc., 

Hourly Pattern File

(Volume by hour of day)

Vehicle Factor File

(Veh impact on capacity) 

Speed Capacity Lookup 

Develop data set with free flow 

speeds, lane capacities, default 

signal spacing, BPR 

parameters, etc.,

IM Parameters

Vehicle Age 

VMT Seasonal Adjustments 

A

 B 

C

D 
237

6.2 EMISSION FACTORS 

The heart of the highway vehicle emission’s calculation procedure is EPA’s highway vehicle 

emission factor model, MOBILE. This is a FORTRAN program that calculates average in-use fleet 

emission factors for specific pollutants for each of twenty-eight categories of vehicles under various 

conditions affecting in-use emission levels (e.g., ambient temperatures, average traffic speeds, 

gasoline volatility) as specified by the model user. MOBILE6 model does not produce total emissions 

directly, but it generates emission factors as referred to in the previous section. 

The first MOBILE model was developed as MOBILE1 in the late 1970s. It has been periodically 

updated to reflect the collection and analysis of additional emission factor data over the years. It also 

has been upgraded to capture changes in vehicle/engine/emission control system technologies, and 

changes in applicable regulations, emission standards and test procedures, and improved 

understanding of in-use emission levels and the factors that influence them. For this inventory effort, 

the latest MOBILE model (MOBILE6.2 version 6.2.03 of 24-Sep-2003 - hitherto referred as 

MOBILE6) was utilized in generating the emission factors and in building the emission inventories. 

6.3 VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED 

The traffic data source is the key data item that drives the VMT and speed calculations. This process 

uses highway data and volumes obtained from SHA. The objective was to utilize non-travel model 

data sources that will continue to be monitored and updated in the future, which will facilitate future 

updates to the process. The process utilizes the PPSUITE post processor that consists of a set of 

programs that perform the following functions: 

• Analyzes highway operating conditions 

• Calculates highway speeds 

• Compiles vehicle miles of travel (VMT) and vehicle type mix data 

• Prepares MOBILE6 input files and actually runs MOBILE6 model 

• Calculates emission quantities from output MOBILE6 emission rates and accumulated 

highway VMT. 

The PPSuite process utilizes a number of programs and operations assembled into a chain of jobs and 

steps. The management of these model chains and their operations can be difficult. At the front end, 

an interfacing software package called CENTRAL is deployed, providing MDE with the ability to 

efficiently manage the emission calculation process. 

6.4 KEY TRAVEL DATA INPUTS 
238

This section describes the SHA data inputs to the emission calculation process. The inputs were 

prepared based on available 2002 data and include: 

• Highway Data 

• Vehicle Classifications 

• Seasonal Factors / HPMS VMT Reconciliation 

• Hourly Pattern Data 

The remaining sections provide an overview of each of the key SHA data inputs. 

Highway Data Inputs 

The 2002 highway data set was obtained directly from SHA and is referred to as the “Universal” 

highway database. The file obtained is named HMIS.MDB; it represents 2002 traffic data and 

contains the following roadway variables: 

• Facility type and area type classifications 

• Number of travel lanes 

• Speed Limits 

• Average Annual Daily Traffic volumes 

The PPSUITE post processor requires a network database (in “DBF” format) to support emission 

calculation runs and expects specific data fields to be present. A roadway network was created using 

the table “UNIV2002” in the SHA ACCESS database file HMIS.MDB. This table was first saved as 

a separate database file. Then some specific operations on data fields such as addition, deletion, 

renaming and field value modifications were conducted using the ACCESS database software. This 

is the key vehicle activity input to the emission modeling system. 

Vehicle Mix Inputs 

The vehicle mix distribution file is another key input file that can have a significant impact on 

emissions. The data is used in combination with diesel sales fractions by MOBILE6 to develop a 

composite emission rate for all the 28 output vehicle types. The vehicle mixes are input to PPSUITE 

as hourly distributions of vehicles by vehicle type. The mixes are developed using 2002 data 

available from the Traffic Monitoring System section, from the SHA website that has a link named 

“Vehicle Classification by Functional Class”. That link leads to a report file in PDF format, which 

reflects the percent of vehicle classifications by functional class for the years 1998 

through 2003. 

The PPSUITE input 2002 SHA vehicle mix file was prepared based on 4 input vehicle groups: 

• Vehicle Type 1 = Motorcycle 
239

• Vehicle Type 2 = Light-duty vehicles 

• Vehicle Type 3 = Buses 

• Vehicle Type 4 = Heavy-duty vehicles 

For input to the emission calculation process, all the vehicle classes were grouped into 4 categories

for each functional class: Auto, Truck, Bus, and Motorcycle. Vehicle class 1 category was used for 

motorcycles. Classes 2 and 3 were combined to obtain the percentage autos. Class 4 was used for 

buses. Truck percentages were obtained by combining classes 5 to 13. The PPSUITE postprocessor automatically splits the four input vehicle categories to the required 16 MOBILE6 vehicle 

classes by using the MOBILE6 defaults, which vary by the chosen analysis year. 

Hourly Pattern Inputs 

Speeds and emissions vary depending on the time of day because of temperature variations and 

congestion. Therefore, it is important to estimate the pattern by which roadway volume varies by 

hour of the day. The hourly pattern distributions are not only input directly to MOBILE6, but are 

also a key input file to PPSUITE for estimating hourly congested speeds. 

Hourly mixes of vehicles for each area and facility type combination are input to PPSUITE. These 

are used to determine the proportion of the daily volume in each hour of the day, so separate hourly 

speeds can be prepared and input to MOBILE6. Hourly pattern data was obtained from the Traffic 

Trends System Report Module from the SHA website. The above link leads to a screen with different 

Traffic Trends Reports Selection options. By clicking on the Group Reports section, a criteria screen 

will appear with the type of group report, year, and functional class to be chosen. 

 

To get the hourly distribution data, the report type “Hour Percent of Traffic by Month – Weekday” 

was selected. Factors for 5 functional classes are available: Rural Interstate, Rural other, Urban 

Interstate, Urban other and summer seasonal. One functional class can be chosen at a time. Once 

these options are selected and the view report button clicked, the table with the factors is obtained. 

For the ozone daily emission calculation process, 2002 hourly pattern data for the 4 primary 

functional classes was used to create the PPSUITE input files. An average factor was calculated for 3 

months – June, July and August to derive hourly percentage of vehicles for a summer weekday. For 

the annual emission computation process, average factors were calculated for every month in the 

evaluation year 2002. 

VMT Adjustments 

The SHA network link volumes have been adjusted using the VMT adjustment factors, to account for 

differences with the HPMS VMT totals (differences primarily related to missing local VMT). The 

factors were developed upon completion of a 2002 analysis run (with no VMT adjustments or 

seasonal factors enabled) by comparing the results to the 2002 HPMS VMT. 
240

The adjustment factors are obtained by dividing the 2002 HPMS VMT by the 2002 analysis run 

VMT for each county functional class grouping. These calculated VMT adjustment factors are 

provided as ASCII input files to PPSUITE and are applied to each of the roadway segment volumes 

(see seasonal factor section for description of PPSUITE VMT adjustment file format). These factors 

can be applied to any future year runs. The VMT added or subtracted to the SHA database assumes 

the speeds calculated using the original volumes for each roadway segment for each hour of the day. 

Seasonal Adjustments and Temporal Allocation 

Highway vehicles contribute significantly to air pollution, particularly to ground-level ozone in the 

summer months. Ozone is not created directly, but it is formed in sunlight from VOCs and NOx. 

Both VOCs and NOx are emitted largely from highway vehicles. 

Even though other pollutants such as CO, NH3, SO2, PM2.5, and PM10 contribute to air pollution 

during summer also, but their significance is much more during the winter months. This is in 

accordance with the EPA’s guidance on preparation and submission of emission inventories. 

For annual inventories, MOBILE6 input parameters such as average hourly temperature, hourly 

humidity and atmospheric pressure, diesel sulfur content, RVP, etc., were developed for every month 

in the evaluation year 2002. 

The seasonal factors are used to adjust the average annual day traffic (AADT) to represent the 

average summer weekday, which is needed for emission analyses. The seasonal and monthly VMT 

adjustment factors were developed using the traffic flow data available by day and month from ATR 

Station Reports in the Traffic Trends System Report Module from the SHA website accessed. The 

above link leads to a screen with different Traffic Trends Reports Selection options. By clicking on 

the Group Reports section, a criteria screen will appear with the type of group report, year, and 

functional class to be chosen. 

To get the monthly variation of traffic flow for the year 2002, the report type “Traffic Flow by Day by 

Month by Group” was selected. Factors are available for 5 functional classes: Rural Interstate, Rural 

other, Urban Interstate, Urban other and summer seasonal. One functional class can be chosen at a 

time. Once these options are selected and the view report button clicked, the table with the traffic 

flow data is obtained. 

The AADT percentage is available for each of the 7 days of the week for all the 12 months, which is 

divided by 100 to get a daily factor. An average monthly weekday factor was obtained for 12 months 

by calculating an average factor for 3 weekdays, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. The 
241

calculations were repeated for all the 4 functional classes. These functional class groups were then 

mapped to the 12 functional classes used within the emission process. 

Average monthly adjustment factors were developed for every month in 2002. The summer 

adjustment factors were developed, by calculating the average of the monthly factors for June, July, 

and August. 

The above factors are coded into ASCII files, which are input to PPSUITE.. A separate file is 

provided for each of the 12 monthly scenarios and for the summer seasons. These files are selected 

through the Central menu screen depending upon what season the analysis is being run for. The 

adjustment factors are applied by PPSUITE before the calculation of link-level speeds. 

6.5 MOBILE INPUT PARAMETERS 

The inputs to MOBILE that affect emissions include numerous vehicle and environmental parameters 

including: 

• Vehicle Mixes 

• Vehicle age distributions and diesel sales fractions 

• Fuel parameters 

• Inspection/maintenance program parameters 

• Other environmental variables 

MOBILE model allows the user to choose default values for input parameters where data is not 

locally available. User supplied data is preferable in most cases. 

 

VMT mixes, a significant piece of data with a significant impact on emission levels, are generated on 

the go by the PPSuite system using from all the traffic related data such as highway network data, 

vehicle pattern file, vehicle factor file, etc., 

The vehicle fleet age has a significant impact on regional emission estimates and these were 

computed by MSCP from the 2002 Maryland vehicle registration database. The diesel sales fractions 

also came out of the same source. 

The fuel parameters such as , Reid Vapor Pressure diesel sulfur, etc., and environmental variables 

such as hourly temperatures, hourly humidity, atmospheric pressure, etc., were also developed by 

MSCP tapping 2002 data from appropriate agencies. 
242

MOBILE modeling assumptions include selection of appropriate month and season and the 

appropriate fuel program for the modeling domain. In case of areas with reformulated gasoline 

requirements, fuel program ‘4’ was modeled with the gasoline sulfur matrix supplied by U.S EPA. 

North East Low Emission Vehicle (NLEV) program was selected for the state of MD and for the 

NOx correction, the MOBILE parameter REBUILD EFFECTS was modeled at a 11% value for 

2002 for North East states, per U.S EPA. 

PPSuite generates several MOBILE inputs for each county by roadway class, based on the above 

parameters using the PreMOBILE module. MOBILE model is then invoked and after the specific 

number of runs, the PostMOBILE module takes care of the emission aggregation process. 

Finally the reporting routine comes in and formats the report based on the pre-selection: summary or 

detailed emissions for selected pollutants by county, by roadway type, by vehicle group. 

All the above input/output data has been generated based on the current emission inventory 

development guidelines issued by the U.S EPA. They are not included in this documentation due to 

their size and number and will be made available upon request. 

 

6.6 OTHER DATA INPUTS 

There are other files required by PPSUITE that are used for all analysis year runs. These files are 

illustrated in following table. 

Other PPSUITE Input Files 

File Name File Description 

EQUIV.DBF Area equivalencies used for input pattern files and output aggregation.

NAME_COUNTY.DBF 

Used for the output emission reports. It relates the coded facility and 

area type numbers to text names. This file is used when the countylevel totals report type option is selected. 

NAME_RURURB.DBF 

Used for the output emission reports. It relates the coded facility and 

area type numbers to text names. This file is used when the countyrural/urban totals report type option is selected. 

VEHFC2_02SHA.DAT 

Contains the impacts of truck percentages on roadway capacity. As 

a result, the amount of trucks can have an impact on calculated 

congested speeds. 

SPEEDCAP.DBF 

For each facility type, area type, and lane combination, this file 

contains: 

• Free flow speeds 

• Free flow capacities 

• BPR Parameters (relationship between speed and 

congestion) 
243

VEHPATT_02SHA.DAT Contains the mix of VMT among the auto, truck, bus and 

motorcycle vehicle groups. Files were developed utilizing SHA 

vehicle classes classification. 

Zone/Area Equivalency 

The zone/area equivalency file is a file used to provide equivalency between each link and the fields 

used for pattern (hourly and vehicle mix) indexing and output emission indexes. The file is required 

by PPSUITE and relates to the equivalency keyword in the PPSUITE driver file. 

Names Database File 

The names database file is used in the process of generating output emission reports. It relates the 

coded facility and area type numbers to text names. The emission process has the flexibility to 

generate two types of reports, one with county totals and the other with county rural/urban subtotals. 

To produce the reports with county totals, NAMES_COUNTY.DBF is used; for reports with county 

– rural/urban totals, the NAMES_RURURB.DBF file is used in the analysis. 

Speed / Capacity Lookup Information – Other PPSUITE Inputs 

The speed-lookup table is a key file that has a significant impact on calculated speeds and capacities 

for each roadway link. The file is used for the following purposes: 

• Determine free-flow speeds for links without coded speed limits 

• Determine link “ideal” capacity 

• Determine signal densities and characteristics 

• Determine speed/congestion relationships (BPR coefficients) 

This dataset was developed through a speed calibration analysis utilizing SHA 2002 speed 

monitoring data. 

The remaining two databases are used in the VMT Mix computations. 

6.7 EMISSION PROCESS OUTPUTS 

After MOBILE model has been run, PPSUITE processes the MOBILE output files and compiles the 

emission factors for each scenario. Using the MOBILE emission factors, PPSUITE calculates 

emission estimates by multiplying the emission factors by the aggregated VMT totals. PPSUITE 

then produces an emissions database summarizing VMT, VHT, VOC, and NOx emissions. The 

output files are automatically output to individual county subdirectories located under the 

automatically created “OUT” directory. Files will have hard-coded names. The naming is done using 

the first four digits of the county name and the 2 -digit analysis year. In most cases, the user will not 
244

have to utilize these files; however, they may be useful for investigating potential errors that may 

occur in the process. 

The summary results of all the summertime and annual runs for VOC, CO and NOx have been 

incorporated in Table 1-3 through 1-8. 

6.8 CONVERSION TO NIF FORMAT 

This is also an automated process through use of a NIF Conversion Program. This module basically 

reads the appropriate VMT and Emission databases and converts them into ACCESS databases in the 

NIF format. As such there are two tables in this submittal: 

1) A database for summer day VOC, CO and NOx emissions for all counties in MD except for 

the MD counties under the jurisdiction of MWCOG, and 

2) Another database for annual VOC, CO and NOx emissions for all counties in MD except for 

the MD counties under the jurisdiction of MWCOG. 
245

 

7.0 BIOGENIC EMISSIONS 

7.1 INTRODUCTION 

Biogenic sources, a subset of natural sources, include only those sources that result from some sort of 

biological activity. Biogenic emissions represent a significant portion of the natural source 

emissions, and VOC, NOx, and the greenhouse gases can be emitted from biogenic sources. 

Vegetation is the predominant biogenic source of VOC and is typically the only source that is used to 

estimate biogenic VOC emissions. Microbial activity is responsible for the emission of NOx and the 

greenhouse gases of CO2, CH4, and N2O. Soil microbial activity is responsible for NOx and N2O 

emissions from agricultural lands and grasslands. CH4 is emitted through microbial action in 

waterlogged soils or in other anaerobic microenvironments. CO2 is released through the aerobic decay 

of biomass (EPA, 1993; EPA,1990a). 

Biogenic emissions is one category that MDE is unable to control directly, therefore, a majority of 

the resources were directed towards other categories of air pollution where direct control is feasible. 

For this reason, MDE used the data files created and made available by EPA (2002). These 

emissions were computed on an hourly basis with a specially-modified version of BEIS3116 that 

utilized county land use data from EPA’s land use inventory and National Weather Service first-order 

station data of temperature and cloud cover. However, due to the large size of the hourly data files, 

only the monthly data files were available when MDE gathered this information. 

The data files EPA generated contained county-total estimates of 2002 biogenic emissions based on 

the BEIS3.12 model. The purpose of this spreadsheet is to provide default 2002 estimates to the 

states for the purpose of biogenic emissions submittals by county required by the Consolidated 

Emissions Reporting Rule (CERR). These estimates were created using the following data: 

1) 2001 annual meteorology 

2) BEIS3.12 model via the Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions (SMOKE) modeling 

system 

3) Recently revised BEIS3.12 emission factors file (also provided as a separate file with this 

spreadsheet) 

4) BELD3 land use data (1-km original data aggregated to 36-km grid). 

5) Post processing summation of county-total emissions from SMOKE, calculated from 36-km 

gridded emissions using the "land area" spatial surrogate. This means that when calculating 

the county-total numbers, the 36-km gridded emissions were assumed to be uniformly 

distributed over the grid cell for purposes of mapping to the counties. 

Monthly emission estimates were given for each county in Maryland for the following pollutants: 

• CO: Carbon monoxide (a new species output by BEIS3.12 not previously included in 

BEIS3.09) 

• NO: Nitrogen oxide 

• ALD2: Aldehyde group from CB-IV chemical mechanism 

116 BEIS 3.12 can be downloaded from an EPA website at: http://www.epa.gov/asmdnerl/biogen.html
246

• ETH: Ethane group from CB-IV chemical mechanism 

• FORM: Formaldehyde group from CB-IV chemical mechanism 

• ISOP: Isoprene 

• NR: Nonreactive VOC 

• OLE: Olefin group from CB-IV chemical mechanism 

• PAR: Parafin group from CB-IV chemical mechanism 

• XYL: Xylene group from CB-IV chemical mechanism 

• TOL: Toluene group from CB-IV chemical mechanism 

• Total VOC: The sum of ALD2, ETH, FORM, ISOP, NR, OLE, PAR, XYL, and TOL 

• TERPB: Terpenes (Note that the same mass accounted for by TERPB is also included 

in VOC 

The daily emissions were calculated by summing the monthly emissions from June, July, and August 

and dividing by the number of days in those three months (92). 

 
247

8.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE PROCEDURES 

Quality assurance activities are distinguished from QC activities in that they provide a more objective 

assessment of data quality. The QA checks (except the sensitivity analysis and range checks) will be 

performed by staff not involved in the inventory calculations. Several quality assurance checks will 

be employed to address the data quality objectives: reality/peer review checks, sample calculations, 

sensitivity analysis, and range checks. Details on each check are provided below. The product of the 

quality checking process will be a completed summary of items checked, summary of results, and 

recommended follow-up action. At the completion of the process, the inventory will be evaluated 

according to the data quality objectives (see Chapter 

IV). 

8.1 REALITY CHECK/PEER REVIEW CHECK 

Definition: 

Independent review by a knowledgeable expert 

Benefit: 

Ensure data, assumptions, and procedures are reasonable 

Objective(s) 

Addressed: 

Accuracy, completeness, comparability, representativeness 

Check(s): 

Reasonableness of methods, assumptions, and emissions estimates will be assessed. This will be 

accomplished by 1) comparing data sources used in the final inventory to those specified in the 

Inventory Preparation Plan, 2) reliance on reviewer expertise, and 3) comparison of emissions 

estimates to other inventory efforts, particularly the 1990 base year inventory and the 1999 PEI. 

Limitations: 

None 

8.2 SAMPLE CALCULATIONS 

Definition: 

Verification of values by replicating calculations 
248

Benefit: 

Ensure calculations are done correctly 

Objective(s) 

Addressed: 

Accuracy 

Check(s): 

Emissions calculations will be duplicated to check the accuracy of the arithmetic and, therefore, the 

resulting emissions estimate. Priority will be given to those categories identified as the largest PM10 

and CO contributors. 

Limitations: 

Estimates calculated using computer models such as MOBILE6.2 are checked using simplified 

assumptions to arrive at a ”ballpark” value to use as a comparison to the actual calculated value. 

8.3 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS 

Definition 

Systematic study of how changes in parameters affect data 

Benefit 

Identify the parameters that have the greatest effect on data 

Objective(s) 

Addressed 

Generally addresses all objectives 

Check(s) 

A sensitivity analysis in the form of source category emissions rankings by pollutant will be 

performed. The ranking will help determine where efforts should be concentrated. 

Limitations 

None 

8.4 STANDARD RANGE CHECKS 

Definition 

Standard range checks address the data quality objective of comparability 
249

Benefit 

Identify the source categories that have the greatest change in emission levels from previous emission 

estimates. 

Objective(s) 

Addressed 

Generally addresses all objectives 

Check(s) 

The 2002 base year inventory will be compared to the most recent inventory (base year 1990, 1999 

PEI, 2002 NEI). Any discrepancies (data outliers) greater than 20% involving sources that made up 

greater than 5% of the 1990 PM10, 1999 CO, or 2002 inventories will be corrected or justified. 

The projection inventories will be compared to the 2002 base year inventory. Any discrepancies 

(data outliers) between the base year and a given projection year greater than the population increase 

percentage plus 10% and involving sources that made up greater than 5% of the 2002 or projection 

year daily inventories will be investigated and either corrected (see Corrective Action Plan below) or 

justified. The justification will include whether there was a change in methodology (e.g., different 

emission factor, allocation method, activity data) or if there is a real anticipation of emissions 

increasing or decreasing (e.g., decreases in the onroad sector due to fleet turnover). 

Limitations 

None. 

8.5 CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN 

Corrective and follow-up actions identified during the quality checking process will be noted and 

referred to the appropriate staff. Both the corrective actions identified and results of actions taken in 

response will be documented. 

8.6 QUALITY ASSURANCE FINAL REPORT 

The final inventory report will include discussions on inventory quality considerations for each major 

source category. It will summarize the results of the quality checking procedures and provide an 

evaluation of the inventory according to the data quality objectives. The report will include an 

assessment of the limitations of the inventory data. 
250

9.0 RESPONSIBILITY 

The inventory process will be a cooperative effort among MDE-ARMA Air Quality Policy and 

Planning Program, MDE-ARMA Air Quality Compliance Program, MDE-ARMA Air Quality 

Permits Program, MDE-ARMA Mobile Source Control Program, Baltimore Metropolitan Council, 

Maryland State Highway Administration, and Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments 

Environmental Programs. A brief list of inventory responsibilities follows: 

MDE-ARMA Air Quality Compliance Program (Compliance) will inventory calendar year 2002 

actual emissions and provide allowable emissions from point sources under their jurisdiction. 

Compliance will perform a review of these data. Compliance will also provide information on local 

control programs that are expected to impact the base year or projection year inventories. 

MDE-ARMA Mobile Source Control Program (MSCP) will provide estimates of actual 2002 and 

projected 2010 and 2015 emission estimates for onroad sources. MSCP will provide 2002, 2010, and 

2015 VMT for both paved and unpaved roads in the NAAs. Data will be supplied to MSCP from the 

Baltimore Metropolitan Council (BMC), Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA), and 

Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG). 

Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments will provide estimates of actual 2002 and 

projected 2010 and 2015 emission estimates for onroad sources for the Maryland Counties within 

their jurisdiction. MWCOG will provide 2002, 2010, and 2015 VMT for both paved and unpaved 

roads in the NAAs. 

MDE-ARMA Air Quality Policy and Planning (Planning) will inventory area and nonroad mobile 

sources. Planning will review the point source inventory estimates provided by Compliance. Planning 

will project area/nonroad mobile source emissions to 2010 and 2015. Planning will perform the final 

QA review of the inventories. Finally, Planning will prepare the inventory documentation. 

MSCP, Compliance, and Planning will review all inventory products. 
 

Development of Emission Projections 

For 2009, 2012, and 2018 

For NonEGU Point, Area, and Nonroad Source 

In the MANE-VU Region 

Final Report

February, 2007 
About MARAMA 

The Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association is an 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 impacts 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. 

The following State and Local governments are MARAMA members: Delaware, the District of 

Columbia, Maryland, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, 

Philadelphia, and Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. 

For copies of this report contact: 

MARAMA 

Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association 

711 West 40th Street 

Suite 312 

Baltimore, MD 21211 

phone 410.467.0170 

fax 410.467.1737 

http://www.marama.org/ 

About MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

MACTEC, Inc. is a leader in the engineering, environmental and remedial construction 

industries. MACTEC provides premier management, technical, and professional services to help 

clients successfully manage complex businesses, projects, and facilities. MACTEC Federal 

Programs, Inc. is a division of MACTEC that provides these same services tailored to meet the 

unique needs of government agencies, including state/local agencies and federal agencies. 
Development of Emission Projections 

for 2009, 2012, and 2018 

for NonEGU Point, Area, and Nonroad Sources 

in the MANE-VU Region 

Final Technical Support Document 

Prepared for: 

Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association (MARAMA) 

Prepared by: 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

February 28, 2007 

______________________ ______________________ 

Edward Sabo Douglas A. Toothman 

Principal Scientist Principal Engineer
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Page i 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Table of Contents 

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................. 1-1

2.0 NONEGU POINT SOURCES ............................................................................................ 2-1

2.1 INITIAL 2002 POINT SOURCE EMISSION INVENTORY ..................................... 2-1 

2.2 NONEGU POINT SOURCE GROWTH FACTORS .................................................. 2-3 

2.2.1 EGAS 5.0 Growth Factors ....................................................................................... 2-3

2.2.2 AEO2005 Growth Factors ....................................................................................... 2-4

2.2.3 State Specific Growth Factors .................................................................................2-5

2.2.3.1 Connecticut ...................................................................................................... 2-5 

2.2.3.2 Delaware ..........................................................................................................2-5 

2.2.3.3 District of Columbia ........................................................................................2-5 

2.2.3.4 Maine ............................................................................................................... 2-5

2.2.3.5 Maryland..........................................................................................................2-6 

2.2.3.6 Massachusetts ..................................................................................................2-6 

2.2.3.7 New Hampshire ............................................................................................... 2-6 

2.2.3.8 New Jersey....................................................................................................... 2-6 

2.2.3.9 New York......................................................................................................... 2-6 

2.2.3.10 Pennsylvania .................................................................................................... 2-6 

2.2.3.11 Rhode Island .................................................................................................... 2-7 

2.2.3.12 Vermont ........................................................................................................... 2-7 

2.3 NONEGU POINT SOURCE CONTROL FACTORS ................................................. 2-7 

2.3.1 NOx SIP Call Phase I ..............................................................................................2-8

2.3.2 NOx SIP Call Phase II .............................................................................................2-8

2.3.3 NOx RACT in 1-hour Ozone SIPs............................................................................ 2-8

2.3.4 NOx OTC 2001 Model Rule for ICI Boilers ............................................................2-9

2.3.5 2-, 4-, 7-, and 10-year MACT Standards ................................................................. 2-9

2.3.6 Combustion Turbine and RICE MACT.................................................................. 2-10

2.3.7 Industrial Boiler/Process Heater MACT ...............................................................2-10

2.3.8 Refinery Enforcement Initiative .............................................................................2-10

2.3.9 Source Shutdowns .................................................................................................. 2-12

2.3.10 State Specific Control Factors...........................................................................2-12

2.4 NONEGU POINT SOURCE QA/QC REVIEW........................................................2-12 

2.5 NONEGU POINT SOURCE NIF AND SMOKE FILES........................................... 2-14 

2.6 NONEGU POINT SOURCE EMISSION SUMMARIES ......................................... 2-14 

3.0 AREA SOURCES ................................................................................................................ 3-1
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Page ii 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

3.1 INITIAL 2002 AREA SOURCE EMISSION INVENTORY ...................................... 3-1 

3.2 AREA SOURCE GROWTH FACTORS..................................................................... 3-2 

3.2.1 EGAS 5.0 Growth Factors ....................................................................................... 3-3

3.2.2 AEO2005 Growth Factors ....................................................................................... 3-3

3.2.3 State Specific Growth Factors .................................................................................3-4

3.2.3.1 Connecticut ...................................................................................................... 3-4 

3.2.3.2 Delaware ..........................................................................................................3-4 

3.2.3.3 District of Columbia ........................................................................................3-5 

3.2.3.4 Maine ............................................................................................................... 3-5

3.2.3.5 Maryland..........................................................................................................3-5 

3.2.3.6 Massachusetts ..................................................................................................3-5 

3.2.3.7 New Hampshire ............................................................................................... 3-5 

3.2.3.8 New Jersey....................................................................................................... 3-5 

3.2.3.9 New York......................................................................................................... 3-5 

3.2.3.10 Pennsylvania .................................................................................................... 3-6 

3.2.3.11 Rhode Island .................................................................................................... 3-6 

3.2.3.12 Vermont ........................................................................................................... 3-6 

3.3 AREA SOURCE CONTROL FACTORS.................................................................... 3-6 

3.3.1 OTC 2001 VOC Model Rules................................................................................... 3-7

3.3.2 On-Board Vapor Recovery .................................................................................... 3-10

3.3.3 Post-2002 Area Source Controls in New Jersey....................................................3-11

3.3.4 Residential Wood Combustion...............................................................................3-12

3.4 AREA SOURCE QA/QC REVIEW ..........................................................................3-12 

3.5 AREA SOURCE NIF, SMOKE AND SUMMARY FILES....................................... 3-13 

3.6 AREA SOURCE EMISSION SUMMARIES............................................................ 3-13 

4.0 NONROAD SOURCES....................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 NONROAD MODEL SOURCES................................................................................ 4-1 

4.2 AIRCRAFT, COMMERCIAL MARINE, AND LOCOMOTIVES ............................ 4-2 

4.2.1 Maryland Non-NONROAD Source Emissions.........................................................4-3

4.2.2 DC Locomotive Emissions ....................................................................................... 4-4

4.2.3 Logan (Boston) Airport Emissions...........................................................................4-4

4.3 NONROAD QA/QC REVIEW....................................................................................4-4 

4.4 NONROAD NIF, SMOKE, AND SUMMARY FILES ............................................... 4-5 

4.5 NONROAD EMISSION SUMMARIES ..................................................................... 4-5 

5.0 BEYOND-ON-THE-WAY EMISSION INVENTORY.................................................... 5-1

5.1 NONEGU POINT SOURCES ..................................................................................... 5-2 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Page iii 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

5.1.1 Adhesives and Sealants Application ........................................................................5-7

5.1.2 Asphalt Production Plants .......................................................................................5-7

5.1.3 Cement Kilns............................................................................................................ 5-8

5.1.4 Glass and Fiberglass Furnaces ...............................................................................5-8

5.1.5 Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers...................................................5-8

5.1.6 Commercial and Institutional Heating Oil ............................................................ 5-10

5.1.7 BOTW NonEGU Point Source NIF, SMOKE, and Summary Files .......................5-10

5.1.8 BOTW NonEGU Point Source Emission Summaries............................................. 5-10

5.2 AREA SOURCES...................................................................................................... 5-19 

5.2.1 Adhesives and Sealants..........................................................................................5-19

5.2.2 Asphalt Paving.......................................................................................................5-23

5.2.3 Consumer Products................................................................................................5-23

5.2.4 Portable Fuel Containers ...................................................................................... 5-24

5.2.5 Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Boilers..........................................................5-25

5.2.6 Residential and Commercial Heating Oil.............................................................. 5-26

5.2.7 BOTW Area Source NIF, SMOKE, and Summary Files........................................5-26

5.2.8 BOTW Area Source Emission Summaries .............................................................5-26

5.3 NONROAD MOBILE SOURCES...................................................................................... 5-35 

5.4 ELECTRIC GENERATING UNITS ................................................................................... 5-35 

5.5 ONROAD MOBILE SOURCES ........................................................................................ 5-35 

List of Appendices 

Appendix A - NonEGU Point Source Growth Factors 

Appendix B - NonEGU Point Source Control Factors 

Appendix C - Area Source Growth Factors 

Appendix D - Area Source Control Factors 

Appendix E – BOTW NonEGU Point and Area Source Control Factors 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Page iv 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

List of Tables 

Figure 1-1 Base Year, OTB/OTW AND BOTW Annual CO Emissions 

Table 1-1 Summary of MANE-VU Area, NonEGU, and Nonroad Emission Inventory by 

Pollutant, Sector, and Year 

Table 2-1 NonEGU Point Source NIF, IDA, and Summary File Names 

Table 2-2 NonEGU Point Source OTB/OTW Annual CO Emission Projections 

Table 2-3 NonEGU Point Source OTB/OTW Annual NH3 Emission Projections 

Table 2-4 NonEGU Point Source OTB/OTW Annual NOx Emission Projections 

Table 2-5 NonEGU Point Source OTB/OTW Annual PM10-PRI Emission Projections 

Table 2-6 NonEGU Point Source OTB/OTW Annual PM25-PRI Emission Projections 

Table 2-7 NonEGU Point Source OTB/OTW Annual SO2 Emission Projections 

Table 2-8 NonEGU Point Source OTB/OTW Annual VOC Emission Projections 

Table 3-1 Adoption Matrix for 2001 OTC Model Rules 

Table 3-2 Rule Penetration and Control Efficiency Values for 2001 OTC Model Rule for 

PFCs 

Table 3-3 Area Source NIF, IDA, and Summary File Names 

Table 3-4 Area Source OTB/OTW Annual CO Emission Projections 

Table 3-5 Area Source OTB/OTW Annual NH3 Emission Projections 

Table 3-6 Area Source OTB/OTW Annual NOx Emission Projections 

Table 3-7 Area Source OTB/OTW Annual PM10-PRI Emission Projections 

Table 3-8 Area Source OTB/OTW Annual PM25-PRI Emission Projections 

Table 3-9 Area Source OTB/OTW Annual SO2 Emission Projections 

Table 3-10 Area Source OTB/OTW Annual VOC Emission Projections 

Table 4-1 Nonroad Source NIF, IDA, and Summary File Names 

Table 4-2a All Nonroad Sources OTB/OTW Annual CO Emission Projections 

Table 4-2b NONROAD Model Sources OTB/OTW Annual CO Emission Projections 

Table 4-2c Aircraft, Locomotive, and Commercial Marine Vessel Sources OTB/OTW 

Annual CO Emission Projections 

Table 4-3a All Nonroad Sources OTB/OTW Annual NH3 Emission Projections 

Table 4-3b NONROAD Model Sources OTB/OTW Annual NH3 Emission Projections 

Table 4-3c Aircraft, Locomotive, and Commercial Marine Vessel Sources OTB/OTW 

Annual NH3 Emission Projections 

Table 4-4a All Nonroad Sources OTB/OTW Annual NOx Emission Projections 

Table 4-4b NONROAD Model Sources OTB/OTW Annual NOx Emission Projections 

Table 4-4c Aircraft, Locomotive, and Commercial Marine Vessel Sources OTB/OTW 

Annual NOx Emission Projections 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Page v 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

List of Tables (cont.) 

Table 4-5a All Nonroad Sources OTB/OTW Annual PM10-PRI Emission Projections 

Table 4-5b NONROAD Model Sources OTB/OTW Annual PM10-PRI Emission Projections 

Table 4-5c Aircraft, Locomotive, and Commercial Marine Vessel Sources OTB/OTW 

Annual PM10-PRI Emission Projections 

Table 4-6a All Nonroad Sources OTB/OTW Annual PM25-PRI Emission Projections 

Table 4-6b NONROAD Model Sources OTB/OTW Annual PM25-PRI Emission Projections 

Table 4-6c Aircraft, Locomotive, and Commercial Marine Vessel Sources OTB/OTW 

Annual PM25-PRI Emission Projections 

Table 4-7a All Nonroad Sources OTB/OTW Annual SO2 Emission Projections 

Table 4-7b NONROAD Model Sources OTB/OTW Annual SO2 Emission Projections 

Table 4-7c Aircraft, Locomotive, and Commercial Marine Vessel Sources OTB/OTW 

Annual SO2 Emission Projections 

Table 4-8a All Nonroad Sources OTB/OTW Annual VOC Emission Projections 

Table 4-8b NONROAD Model Sources OTB/OTW Annual VOC Emission Projections 

Table 4-8c Aircraft, Locomotive, and Commercial Marine Vessel Sources OTB/OTW 

Annual VOC Emission Projections 

Table 5-1 State Staff Recommendations for Control Measures to Include in BOTW 

Regional Modeling – NOx Emissions from NonEGU Point Sources 

Table 5-2 State Staff Recommendations for Control Measures to Include in BOTW 

Regional Modeling – NOx Emissions from ICI Boilers 

Table 5-3 State Staff Recommendations for Control Measures to Include in BOTW 

Regional Modeling – SO2 Emissions from NonEGU Point Sources 

Table 5-4 State Staff Recommendations for Control Measures to Include in BOTW 

Regional Modeling – VOC Emissions from NonEGU Point Sources 

Table 5-5 BOTW NonEGU NIF, IDA, and Summary File Names 

Table 5-6 NonEGU Point Sources OTB/OTW and BOTW Annual CO Emission Projections 

Table 5-7 NonEGU Point Sources OTB/OTW and BOTW Annual NH3 Emission 

Projections 

Table 5-8 NonEGU Point Sources OTB/OTW and BOTW Annual NOx Emission 

Projections 

Table 5-9 NonEGU Point Sources OTB/OTW and BOTW Annual PM10 Emission 

Projections 

Table 5-10 NonEGU Point Sources OTB/OTW and BOTW Annual PM2.5 Emission 

Projections 

Table 5-11 NonEGU Point Sources OTB/OTW and BOTW Annual SO2 Emission 

Projections 

Table 5-12 NonEGU Point Sources OTB/OTW and BOTW Annual VOC Emission 

Projections 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Page vi 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

List of Tables (cont.) 

Table 5-13 State Staff Recommendations for Control Measures to Include in BOTW 

Regional Modeling – NOx Emissions from Area Sources 

Table 5-14 State Staff Recommendations for Control Measures to Include in BOTW 

Regional Modeling – SO2 Emissions from Area Sources 

Table 5-15 State Staff Recommendations for Control Measures to Include in BOTW 

Regional Modeling – VOC Emissions from Area Sources 

Table 5-16 BOTW Area Source NIF, IDA, and Summary File Names 

Table 5-17 Area Point Sources OTB/OTW and BOTW Annual CO Emission Projections 

Table 5-18 Area Point Sources OTB/OTW and BOTW Annual NH3 Emission Projections 

Table 5-19 Area Point Sources OTB/OTW and BOTW Annual NOx Emission Projections 

Table 5-20 Area Point Sources OTB/OTW and BOTW Annual PM10 Emission Projections 

Table 5-21 Area Point Sources OTB/OTW and BOTW Annual PM2.5 Emission Projections 

Table 5-22 Area Point Sources OTB/OTW and BOTW Annual SO2 Emission Projections 

Table 5-23 Area Point Sources OTB/OTW and BOTW Annual VOC Emission Projections 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Page vii 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

List of Figures 

Figure 1-1 Base Year, OTB/OTW AND BOTW Annual CO Emissions 

Figure 1-2 Base Year, OTB/OTW AND BOTW Annual NH3 Emissions 

Figure 1-3 Base Year, OTB/OTW AND BOTW Annual NOx Emissions 

Figure 1-4 Base Year, OTB/OTW AND BOTW Annual SO2 Emissions 

Figure 1-5 Base Year, OTB/OTW AND BOTW Annual PM10 Emissions 

Figure 1-6 Base Year, OTB/OTW AND BOTW Annual PM2.5 Emissions 

Figure 1-7 Base Year, OTB/OTW AND BOTW Annual VOC Emissions 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Page viii 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Acronyms and Abbreviations 

Acronym Description 

AEO Annual Energy Outlook 

BOTW Beyond-on-the-Way emission controls 

CAIR Clean Air Interstate Rule 

EGAS 5.0 Economic Growth Analysis System Version 5.0 

EGU Electric Generating Unit 

EIA Energy Information Agency 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

IDA Inventory Data Analyzer (data format used by SMOKE modeling system) 

IPM Integrated Planning Model 

MANE-VU Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union 

MARAMA Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association 

MOBILE6 U.S. EPA’s emission model for onroad sources 

NESCAUM Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management 

NH3 Ammonia 

NIF3.0 National Emission Inventory Input Format Version 3.0 

NMIM National Mobile Inventory Model 

NONROAD U.S. EPA’s emission model for certain types of nonroad equipment 

NOx Oxides of nitrogen 

OTB/OTW On-the-Books/On-the-Way 

OTC Ozone Transport Commission 

PM10-PRI Particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter that includes both the 

filterable and condensable components of particulate matter 

PM25-PRI Particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter that includes both 

the filterable and condensable components of particulate matter 

SIC Standard Industrial Classification code 

SIP State Implementation Plan 

SCC Source Classification Code 

SMOKE Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions Modeling System 

SO2 Sulfur dioxide 

VOC Volatile organic compounds 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 1 – Executive Summary Page 1-1 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This report was prepared for the Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association 

(MARAMA) as part of an effort to assist states in developing State Implementation Plans (SIPs) 

for ozone, fine particles, and regional haze. It describes the data sources, methods, and results 

for emission forecasts for three years, three emission sectors, two emission control scenarios; 

seven pollutants, and 11 states plus the District of Columbia. The following is a summary of the 

future year inventories that were developed: 

• The three projection years are 2009, 2012, and 2018. 

• The three source sectors are non-Electric Generating Units (non-EGUs), area sources, 

and nonroad mobile sources. (Note: under separate efforts, MANE-VU prepared EGU 

projections using the Integrated Planning Model {IPM} and onroad mobile source 

projections using the SMOKE emission modeling system). 

• The two emission control scenarios are: a) a combined “on-the-books/on-the-way” 

(OTB/W) control strategy accounting for emission control regulations already in place as 

well as emission control regulations that are not yet finalized but are likely to achieve 

additional reductions by 2009; and b) a “beyond-on-the-way” (BOTW) scenarios to 

account for controls from potential new regulations that may be necessary to meet 

attainment and other regional air quality goals. 

• The seven pollutants are sulfur dioxide (SO2), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), volatile organic 

compounds (VOC), carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter less than or equal to 10 

microns in diameter that includes both the filterable and condensable components of 

particulate matter (PM10-PRI), particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in 

diameter that includes both the filterable and condensable components of particulate 

matter (PM25-PRI), and ammonia (NH3). 

• The states are those that comprise the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANEVU) region. In addition to the District of Columbia, the 11 MANE-VU states are 

Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, 

New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont. 

The results of the emission projections are summarized in Table 1-1 and Figures 1-1 to 1-7. 

Section 2 of this report describes how the nonEGU OTB/W emission projections were made. 

Section 3 describes the methods for the area source emission projections. Section 4 describes the 

methods for the nonroad section, including sources accounted for by the NONROAD model as 

well as aircraft, locomotives, and marine vessels. Section 5 describes the development of the 

BOTW emission projections. 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 1 – Executive Summary Page 1-2 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Table 1-1 Summary of MANE-VU Area, NonEGU, and Nonroad 

Emission Inventory by Pollutant, Sector, and Year 

Annual Emissions (tons per year) 

Pollutant Sector 2002 2009 

OTB/W 

2009 

BOTW 

2012 

OTB/W 

2012 

BOTW 

2018 

OTB/W 

2018 

BOTW 

CO Area 1,326,796 1,283,959 1,283,959 1,260,627 1,260,627 1,211,727 1,211,727

 NonEGU 295,577 328,546 328,546 346,090 346,090 412,723 412,723

 Nonroad 4,553,124 4,969,925 4,969,925 5,099,538 5,099,538 5,401,353 5,401,353

 6,175,497 6,582,430 6,582,430 6,706,255 6,706,255 7,025,803 7,025,803

NH3 Area 249,795 294,934 294,934 312,419 312,419 341,746 341,746

 NonEGU 3,916 4,301 4,301 4,448 4,448 4,986 4,986

 Nonroad 287 317 317 337 337 369 369

 253,998 299,552 299,552 317,204 317,204 347,101 347,101

NOx Area 265,400 278,038 265,925 281,659 261,057 284,535 263,030

 NonEGU 207,048 210,522 185,658 218,137 184,527 237,802 199,732

 Nonroad 431,631 354,850 354,850 321,935 321,935 271,185 271,185

 904,079 843,410 806,433 821,731 767,519 793,522 733,947

PM10 Area 1,452,309 1,527,586 1,527,586 1,556,316 1,550,400 1,614,476 1,607,602

 NonEGU 51,280 55,869 55,869 57,848 57,624 63,757 63,524

 Nonroad 40,114 34,453 34,453 32,445 32,445 27,059 27,059

 1,543,703 1,617,908 1,617,908 1,646,609 1,640,469 1,705,292 1,698,185

PM2.5 Area 332,521 340,049 340,049 341,875 336,779 345,419 339,461

 NonEGU 33,077 36,497 36,497 37,625 37,444 41,220 41,029

 Nonroad 36,084 30,791 30,791 28,922 28,922 23,938 23,938

 401,682 407,337 407,337 408,422 403,145 410,577 404,428

SO2 Area 286,921 304,018 304,018 305,339 202,058 305,437 190,431

 NonEGU 264,377 249,658 249,658 255,596 253,638 270,433 268,330

 Nonroad 57,257 15,651 15,651 8,731 8,731 8,643 8,643

 608,555 569,327 569,327 569,666 464,427 584,513 467,404

VOC Area 1,528,269 1,398,982 1,363,278 1,382,803 1,339,851 1,387,882 1,334,039

 NonEGU 91,278 92,279 91,718 96,887 96,260 110,524 109,762

 Nonroad 572,751 460,922 460,922 424,257 424,257 380,080 380,080

 2,192,298 1,952,183 1,915,918 1,903,947 1,860,368 1,878,486 1,823,881

OTB/W – on-the-books/way scenario; BOTW – beyond-on-the-way scenario 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 1 – Executive Summary Page 1-3 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Figure 1-1 2002 Base Year, OTB/OTW AND BOTW Annual CO Emissions 

(tons per year) 

0

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

2002

2009 OTB/W

2009 BOTW

2012 OTB/W

2012 BOTW

2018 OTB/W

2018 BOTW

Tons/Year

Nonroad

NonEGU

Area

Figure 1-2 2002 Base Year, OTB/OTW AND BOTW Annual NH3 Emissions 

(tons per year) 

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

2002 2009

OTB/W

2009

BOTW

2012

OTB/W

2012

BOTW

2018

OTB/W

2018

BOTW

Tons/Year

Nonroad

NonEGU

Area
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 1 – Executive Summary Page 1-4 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Figure 1-3 2002 Base Year, OTB/OTW AND BOTW Annual NOx Emissions 

(tons per year) 

0

250,000

500,000

750,000

1,000,000

2002

2009 OTB/W

2009 BOTW

2012 OTB/W

2012 BOTW

2018 OTB/W

2018 BOTW

Tons/Year

Nonroad

NonEGU

Area

Figure 1-4 2002 Base Year, OTB/OTW AND BOTW Annual SO2 Emissions 

(tons per year) 

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

2002 2009

OTB/W

2009

BOTW

2012

OTB/W

2012

BOTW

2018

OTB/W

2018

BOTW

Tons/Year

Nonroad

NonEGU

Area
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 1 – Executive Summary Page 1-5 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Figure 1-5 2002 Base Year, OTB/OTW AND BOTW Annual PM10 Emissions 

(tons per year) 

0

400,000

800,000

1,200,000

1,600,000

2,000,000

2002

2009 OTB/W

2009 BOTW

2012 OTB/W

2012 BOTW

2018 OTB/W

2018 BOTW

Tons/Year

Nonroad

NonEGU

Area

Figure 1-6 2002 Base Year, OTB/OTW AND BOTW Annual PM2.5 Emissions 

(tons per year) 

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

2002 2009

OTB/W

2009

BOTW

2012

OTB/W

2012

BOTW

2018

OTB/W

2018

BOTW

Tons/Year

Nonroad

NonEGU

Area
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 1 – Executive Summary Page 1-6 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Figure 1-7 2002 Base Year, OTB/OTW AND BOTW Annual VOC Emissions 

(tons per year) 

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

2002

2009 OTB/W

2009 BOTW

2012 OTB/W

2012 BOTW

2018 OTB/W

2018 BOTW

Tons/Year

Nonroad

NonEGU

Area
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 2 – NonEGU Point Sources Page 2-1 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

2.0 NONEGU POINT SOURCES 

Under ideal circumstances, all stationary sources would be considered point sources for 

purposes of emission inventories. In practical applications, however, only sources that 

emit more than a specified cutoff level of pollutant are considered point sources. In 

general, the MANE-VU point source inventory includes only major sources (i.e., those 

required to obtain a Title V operating permit). Some states may include additional 

stationary sources that emit below the major source thresholds. 

For emission projection purposes, the point source inventory is divided into two subsectors – the Electric Generating Unit (EGU) sector and the non-EGU sector – because 

different projections methods are used for these two sectors. For EGUs, MANE-VU used 

the Integrated Planning Model (IPM) to project future generation as well as to calculate the 

impact of future control programs on future emission levels. 

The procedures for projecting emissions for non-EGUs are described in this section. We 

started with the MANE-VU 2002 point source emission inventory, which contains data for 

both EGUs and nonEGUs. We implemented a procedure to split the 2002 point source 

inventory into two components – and EGU inventory for those units accounted for in IPM, 

and a nonEGU inventory for those point sources not accounted for in IPM. For the 

nonEGU sources, we first applied growth factors to account for changes in economic 

activity. Next, we applied control factors to account for future emission reductions from 

on-the-books (OTB) control regulations and on-the-way (OTW) control regulations. The 

OTB control scenario accounts for post-2002 emission reductions from promulgated 

federal, State, local, and site-specific control programs as of June 15, 2005. The OTW 

control scenario accounts for proposed (but not final) control programs that are reasonably 

anticipated to result in post-2002 emission reductions. We then conducted a series of 

quality assurance steps to ensure the development of complete, accurate, and consistent 

emission inventories. We provided the inventories in three formats – the National 

Emission Inventory Input Format (NIF), SMOKE Inventory Data Analyzer (IDA) format, 

and SMOKE growth/control packets. We also prepared emission summary tables by state 

and pollutant. Each of these activities is discussed in this section. 

2.1 INITIAL 2002 POINT SOURCE EMISSION INVENTORY 

The starting point for the nonEGU projections was Version 3 of the MANE-VU 2002 point 

source emission inventory (MANE-VU_2002_Pt_Version 3_040706.MDB). Since this 

file contains both EGUs and nonEGU point sources, and EGU emissions are projected 

using the IPM, it was necessary to split the 2002 point source file into two components. 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 2 – NonEGU Point Sources Page 2-2 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

The first component contains those emission units accounted for in the IPM forecasts. The 

second component contains all other point sources not accounted for in IPM. 

The MANE-VU 2002 point source inventory contains a cross-reference table (xwalk 

{MANE-VU}) that matches IPM emission unit identifiers (ORISPL plant code and BLRID 

emission unit code) to MANE-VU NIF emission unit identifiers (FIPSST state code, 

FIPSCNTY county code, State Plant ID, State Point ID). Initially, we used this crossreference table to split the point source file into the EGU and nonEGU components. When 

there was a match between the IPM ORISPL/BLRID and the MANE-VU emission unit ID, 

the unit was assigned to the EGU inventory; all other emission units were assigned to the 

nonEGU inventory. The exception to this rule was for the State of New York. The crossreference table only contained matches at the plant level, not the emission unit level. So 

for New York EGUs accounted for in IPM, all emission units at a plant were assigned to 

the MANE-VU EGU file (including ancillary emission units not accounted for in IPM). 

After performing this initial splitting of the MANE-VU point source inventory into EGU 

and nonEGU components, we prepared several ad-hoc QA/QC queries to verify that there 

was no double-counting of emissions in the EGU and nonEGU inventories: 

• We reviewed the IPM parsed files {VISTASII_PC_1f_AllUnits_2009 (To 

Client).xls and VISTASII_PC_1f_AllUnits_2018 (To Client).xls} to identify EGUs 

accounted for in IPM. We compared this list of emission units to the nonEGU 

inventory derived from the MANE-VU cross-reference table to verify that units 

accounted for in IPM were not double-counted in the nonEGU inventory. As a 

result of this comparison, we made a few adjustments in the cross-reference table to 

add emission units for four plants to ensure these units accounted for in IPM were 

moved to the EGU inventory. 

• We reviewed the nonEGU inventory to identify remaining emission units with an 

Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code of “4911 Electrical Services” or 

Source Classification Code of “1-01-xxx-xx External Combustion Boiler, Electric 

Generation”. We compared the list of sources meeting these selection criteria to 

the IPM parsed file to ensure that these units were not double-counted. 

• We compared the number of records for each NIF table in the original 2002 point 

source file to the 2002 EGU and 2002 nonEGU files. We determined that the sum 

of the number of records in the EGU file and the number of records in the nonEGU 

file equaled the number of records in the original 2002 point source file. 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 2 – NonEGU Point Sources Page 2-3 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

• We compared the emissions by pollutant and state in the original 2002 point source 

file to the 2002 EGU file and 2002 nonEGU files. We determined that the sum of 

the emissions in the EGU file and the emissions in the nonEGU file equaled the 

emissions in the original 2002 point source file. 

As a result of this procedure, we created separate sets of NIF tables for 2002 for EGUs 

(i.e., units accounted for in IPM) and nonEGUs. The nonEGU set of 2002 NIF tables were 

used in all subsequent projections for 2009/2012/2018. 

After release of Version 3 of the MANE-VU 2002 inventory, New Jersey discovered that 

fugitive emissions from petroleum refineries were missing from Version 3. New Jersey 

supplied MACTEC with the emission unit identifiers for the fugitive releases, and the 

appropriate records were added to the 2002 NIF files.. MACTEC used these revised 

fugitive estimates for projecting emissions to 2009/2012/2018. 

2.2 NONEGU POINT SOURCE GROWTH FACTORS 

The nonEGU growth factors were developed using three sets of data: 

• The U.S. EPA’s Economic Growth and Analysis System Version 5.0 (EGAS 5.0) 

using the default SCC configuration. EGAS 5.0 generates growth factors from 

REMI’s 53 Sector Policy Insight Model Version 5.5, the U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) Annual Energy Outlook 2004 (AEO2004) fuel use projections, and 

national vehicle mile travel projections from EPA’s MOBILE 4.1 Fuel Combustion 

Model; 

• The DOE’s Annual Energy Outlook 2005 (AEO2005) fuel consumption forecasts 

were used to replace the AEO2004 forecasts that are used as the default values in 

EGAS 5.0; and 

• State-supplied population, employment, and other emission projection data. 

The priority for applying these growth factors was to first use the state-supplied projection 

data (if available). If no state-supplied data are available, then we used the AEO2005 

projection factors for fuel consumption sources. If data from these two sources were not 

available, we used the EGAS 5.0 default SCC configuration. Appendix A lists the 

nonEGU point source growth factors used for this study. 

2.2.1 EGAS 5.0 Growth Factors 

EGAS is an EPA-developed economic and activity forecast tool that provides credible 

growth factors for developing emission inventory projections. Growth factors are 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 2 – NonEGU Point Sources Page 2-4 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

generated using national- and regional-economic forecasts. For nonEGUs, the primary 

economic activity data sets in EGAS 5.0 are: 

• State-specific growth rates from the Regional Economic Model, Inc. (REMI) 

Policy Insight® model, version 5.5. The REMI socioeconomic data (output by 

industry sector, population, farm sector value added, and gasoline and oil 

expenditures) are available by 4-digit SIC code at the State level. 

• Energy consumption data from the DOE’s Energy Information Administration’s 

(EIA) Annual Energy Outlook 2004, with Projections through 2025 for use in 

generating growth factors for non-EGU fuel combustion sources. These data 

include regional or national fuel-use forecast data that were mapped to specific 

SCCs for the non-EGU fuel use sectors (e.g., commercial coal, industrial natural 

gas). Growth factors are reported at the Census division level. These Census 

divisions represent a group of States (e.g., the South Atlantic division includes 

Delaware, the District of Columbia, and Maryland; the Middle Atlantic division 

includes New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania; the New England division 

includes Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and 

Vermont). Although one might expect different growth rates in each of these 

States due to unique demographic and socioeconomic trends, all States within each 

division received the same growth rate.

EGAS uses these economic activity datasets and a set of cross-reference files to generate 

growth factors by Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code, Source Classification 

Code (SCC), or Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) codes. Growth 

factors for 2009, 2012, and 2018 were calculated using 2002 as the base year at the State 

and SCC level. County-specific growth factors are not available in EGAS 5.0. 

There were several SCCs in the MANE-VU 2002 inventory that are not included in the 

EGAS 5.0 files. As a result, EGAS did not generate growth factors for those SCCs. 

MACTEC assigned growth factors for the missing SCCs by assigning a surrogate SCC that 

best represented the missing SCC. 

2.2.2 AEO2005 Growth Factors 

The default version of EGAS 5.0 uses the DOE’s AEO2004 forecasts. We replaced these 

data with the more recent AEO2005 forecasts to improve the emissions growth factors 

produced. Using ACCESS, we created a copy of the “DOE EGAS 5” dataset. The dataset 

includes three tables. One table contains the projection data values from 2001-2025. The 

other two tables are the MACT and SCC crosswalk tables. The crosswalk tables are linked 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 2 – NonEGU Point Sources Page 2-5 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

to the projection table via a “model code”. Using the copy of AEO2004 data, we updated 

the corresponding projection tables with data from the AEO2005 located at: 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/supplement/supref.html . Using the data and descriptions from 

the new tables, we matched the projection data to the appropriate model codes and then 

built a table identical to the DOE EGAS 5 dataset with the new 2005 AEO data. The 

resulting ACCESS dataset contains a projection data table with the exact same structure as 

the original except with the new data. The SCC and MACT crosswalks did not require any 

updates since the model code assignments were not changed in the new data table. 

2.2.3 State Specific Growth Factors 

In addition to the growth data described above, we received growth projections from 

several MANE-VU states to be used instead of the default EGAS or AEO2005 growth 

factors. The following paragraphs describe the growth factors used for each state. 

2.2.3.1 Connecticut 

Connecticut provided state-level employment-based growth factors for various SIC 

categories derived from CT Department of Labor (CTDOL) projections. For many 

manufacturing sectors, employment is projected to decline, indicating the likelihood of 

reduced activity levels and emissions for those sectors. Associated growth factors are less 

than one. To ensure consistency within a facility, CTDEP indicated that the employmentbased growth factors be used wherever possible, as matched by SIC. MACTEC used the 

growth factors by SIC code for all sources in CT, including those fuel combustion sources 

that would otherwise have been projected using the AEO2005 forecasts. 

2.2.3.2 Delaware 

Delaware provided state-level employment data from the Department of Labor by NAICS 

codes for 2002 and 2012. We used these data to calculate the growth factor from 2002 to 

2012 and interpolated these data to derive growth factors for 2009 and 2018. We matched 

these industry NAICS groupings to SCC codes in order to create SCC specific growth 

factors for non-EGU point sources. 

2.2.3.3 District of Columbia 

DC indicated that it preferred to use the EGAS 5.0 growth factors, with the enhancement 

of using the DOE’s 2005 Annual Energy Outlook data for combustion sources. 

2.2.3.4 Maine 

Maine indicated that it preferred to use the EGAS 5.0 growth factors and the DOE’s 2005 

Annual Energy Outlook data for combustion sources. 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 2 – NonEGU Point Sources Page 2-6 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

2.2.3.5 Maryland 

Maryland provided growth factors by SCC for all counties in the State. These growth 

factors were derived from a variety source sources, including the MWCOG Cooperative 

Forecast 7.0, the BMC Round 6A Cooperative Forecast (prepared by the MD Dept. of 

Planning, May 2004), and EGAS 5.0. 

2.2.3.6 Massachusetts 

Massachusetts also provided a link to employment projections for 2000-2010 for very 

narrow occupational categories that are not directly correlated with SIC or SCC codes. 

Since we could not match the occupational titles in the Massachusetts employment 

projections with SIC or SCC codes, MACTEC used the EGAS 5.0 growth factors (with the 

AEO2005 enhancement for combustion sources) for projecting emissions from nonEGU 

sources. 

2.2.3.7 New Hampshire 

New Hampshire indicated that it preferred to use the EGAS 5.0 growth factors, with the 

enhancement of using the DOE’s 2005 Annual Energy Outlook data for combustion 

sources. 

2.2.3.8 New Jersey 

New Jersey indicated that it preferred to use the EGAS 5.0 growth factors, with the 

enhancement of using the DOE’s 2005 Annual Energy Outlook data for combustion 

sources. 

2.2.3.9 New York 

New York provided county-level employment data for 12 counties in the New York City 

metro area for 2002, 2009, 2012, and 2018. The employment projections are for broad 

industry categories not directly correlated with SIC or SCC codes. Since we could not 

match the 12-county employment projections with SIC or SCC codes, MACTEC used the 

EGAS 5.0 growth factors (with the AEO2005 enhancement for combustion sources) for 

projecting emissions from nonEGU sources for both the 12-county area and all other 

counties in the state. 

2.2.3.10 Pennsylvania 

Pennsylvania provided total employment projections for a subset of counties. These 

employment projections do not have enough detail regarding specific industrial groupings 

to be correlated with SIC or SCC codes. MACTEC used the EGAS 5.0 growth factors 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 2 – NonEGU Point Sources Page 2-7 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

(with the AEO2005 enhancement for combustion sources) for projecting emissions from 

nonEGU sources 

2.2.3.11 Rhode Island 

Rhode Island provided state-level employment data from the Department of Labor and 

Training by 3-digit NAICS codes for 2002 and 2012. We used these data to calculate the 

growth factor from 2002 to 2012 and interpolated these data to derive growth factors for 

2009 and 2018. We matched these industry NAICS groupings to SCC codes in order to 

create SCC specific growth factors for non-EGU point sources. 

2.2.3.12 Vermont 

Vermont indicated that it preferred to use the EGAS 5.0 growth factors, with the 

enhancement of using the DOE’s 2005 Annual Energy Outlook data for combustion 

sources. 

2.3 NONEGU POINT SOURCE CONTROL FACTORS 

The following sections document how the OTB/OTW control factors were developed for 

the MANE-VU future year inventories. We developed control factors to estimate emission 

reductions that will result from on-the-books regulations that will result in post-2002 

emission reductions and proposed regulations or actions that will result in post-2002 

emission reductions. Control factors were developed for the following national, regional, 

or state control measures: 

• NOx SIP Call Phase I (NOx Budget Trading Program) 

• NOx SIP Call Phase II 

• NOx RACT in 1-hour Ozone SIPs 

• NOx OTC 2001 Model Rule for ICI Boilers 

• 2-, 4-, 7-, and 10-year MACT Standards 

• Combustion Turbine and RICE MACT 

• Industrial Boiler/Process Heater MACT 

• Refinery Enforcement Initiative 

• Source Shutdowns 

In addition, states provided specific control measure information about specific sources or 

regulatory programs in their state. We used the state-specific data to the extent it was 

available. 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 2 – NonEGU Point Sources Page 2-8 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

2.3.1 NOx SIP Call Phase I 

Compliance with the NOx SIP Call in the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) states was 

scheduled for May 1, 2003. The requirements applied to all MANE-VU states except 

Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont. While the program applies primarily to electric 

generating units (EGUs), the NOx SIP Call applies to non-EGUs such as large industrial 

boilers and turbines. The NOx SIP Call did not mandate which sources must reduce 

emissions; rather, it required states to meet an overall emission budget and gave them 

flexibility to develop control strategies to meet that budget. All states in the MANE-VU 

region affected by the NOx SIP Call chose to meet their NOx SIP Call requirements by 

participating in the NOx Budget Trading Program. We reviewed the available state rules 

and guidance documents to determine the affected nonEGU sources and ozone season NOx 

allowances for each source. Future year emissions for non-EGU boilers/turbines were 

capped at the allowance levels. Since the allowances are given in terms of tons per ozone 

season (5 months May to September), we calculated annual emissions by multiplying the 

ozone season allowances by a factor of 12 (annual) / 5 (ozone season). Table B-1 

identifies those units included in the NOx SIP Call Phase I budget program. 

Cement kilns were also included in Phase I of the NOx SIP call. There is a cement kiln in 

Maine, but it is not subject to the NOx SIP call. For the cement kilns in Maryland and 

New York, a default control efficiency value of 25 percent was applied. For the cement 

kilns in Pennsylvania, the state provided their best estimates of the actual control 

efficiency expected for each kiln after the NOx SIP Call. Table B-2 identifies the cement 

kilns affected by the NOx SIP Call. 

2.3.2 NOx SIP Call Phase II 

The final Phase II NOx SIP Call rule was promulgated on April 21, 2004. States had until 

April 21, 2005, to submit SIPs meeting the Phase II NOx budget requirements. The Phase 

II rule applies to large IC engines, which are primarily used in pipeline transmission 

service at compressor stations. We have identified affected units using the same 

methodology as was used by EPA in the proposed Phase II rule (i.e., a large IC engine is 

one that emitted, on average, more than 1 ton per day during 2002). The final rule reflects 

a control level of 82 percent for natural gas-fired IC engines and 90 percent for diesel or 

dual fuel categories. Pennsylvania identified large IC engines affected by the rule. Table 

B-3 identifies those units included in the NOx SIP Call Phase II. 

2.3.3 NOx RACT in 1-hour Ozone SIPs 

Emission reductions requirements from NOx reasonably available control technology 

(RACT) requirements in 1-hour Ozone SIP areas were implemented in or prior to 2002. 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 2 – NonEGU Point Sources Page 2-9 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

These reductions should already be accounted for in the MANE-VU 2002 inventory since 

the 2002 inventory was based on 2002 actual emissions which includes any reductions due 

to NOx RACT. 

2.3.4 NOx OTC 2001 Model Rule for ICI Boilers 

The Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) developed control measures for industrial, 

commercial, and institutional (ICI) boilers in 2001. Information about the proposed OTC 

NOx emission limits by fuel type and size range was obtained from Table III-1 of Control 

Measure Development Support Analysis of Ozone Transport Commission Model Rules

(E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc., March 31, 2001). Information about the emission limits 

contained in the existing state rules (prior to adoption of the OTC 2001 model rule) were 

obtained from Tables III-2 through III-9 of the Pechan document. Information about the 

emission limits contained in the current state rules (as they existed in June 2006) were 

obtained from the individual states regulations. The percent reduction for ICI boilers was 

estimated by state, fuel type, and size range by comparing the current state emission limits 

(as they existed in June 2006) with the state emission limits as they existed in 2001. 

Pennsylvania adopted the OTC 2001 model rule in five southeastern counties (Bucks, 

Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, and Philadelphia) for boilers in the 100 to 250 million 

Btu/hour range. New Jersey adopted the OTC 2001 model rule for natural gas-fired boilers 

with a maximum heat rate of at least 100 million Btu/hour. For other states, it did not 

appear that the emission limits in 2006 had changed from the emission limits in 2001. 

2.3.5 2-, 4-, 7-, and 10-year MACT Standards 

Maximum achievable control technology (MACT) requirements were also applied, as 

documented in the report entitled Control Packet Development and Data Sources, dated 

July 14, 2004 (available at http://www.epa.gov/air/interstateairquality/pdfs/NonEGU_nonpoint_Control_Development.pdf ). The point source MACTs and associated 

emission reductions were designed from Federal Register (FR) notices and discussions 

with EPA’s Emission Standards Division (ESD) staff. These MACT requirements apply 

only to units located at a major source of hazardous air pollutants (HAP). We did not 

apply reductions for MACT standards with an initial compliance date of 2002 or earlier, 

assuming that the effects of these controls are already accounted for in the inventories 

supplied by the States. Emission reductions were applied only for MACT standards with 

an initial compliance date of 2003 or greater. 

Because the MANE-VU inventory does not identify HAP major sources, the reductions 

from post-2002 MACT standards were applied on a more general scale to all sources with 

certain SCCs. Every source with an SCC determined to be affected by a post-2002 MACT 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 2 – NonEGU Point Sources Page 2-10 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

standard was assigned an incremental percent reduction for the applicable MACT standard. 

Table B-4 shows the SCCs affected and the incremental control efficiencies applied for 

post-2002 MACT standards. 

2.3.6 Combustion Turbine and RICE MACT 

The MANE-VU projection inventory does not include the NOx co-benefit effects of the 

MACT regulations for Gas Turbines or stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion 

Engines, which EPA estimates to be small compared to the overall inventory. 

2.3.7 Industrial Boiler/Process Heater MACT 

EPA anticipates ancillary reductions in PM and SO2 as a result of the Industrial 

Boiler/Process Heater MACT standard. The MACT applies to industrial, commercial, and 

institutional units firing solid fuel (coal, wood, waste, biomass) which have a design 

capacity greater than 10 mmBtu/hr and are located at a major source of hazardous air 

pollutants (HAP). The boiler design capacity field in many cases was missing from the 

MANE-VU emission inventory. In lieu of boiler design capacity, we identified boilers 

with the following SCCs that emitted greater than 10 tons/year of either SO2 or PM10 

• 1-02-001-xx Industrial, Anthracite Coal 

• 1-02-002-xx Industrial, Bituminous/subbituminous Coal 

• 1-02-008-xx Industrial, Petroleum Coke 

• 1-02-009-xx Industrial, Wood/Bark Waste 

• 1-03-001-xx Commercial/Institutional, Anthracite Coal 

• 1-03-002-xx Commercial/Institutional, Bituminous/subbituminous Coal 

• 1-03-009-xx Commercial/Institutional, Wood/Bark Waste 

• 3-90-002-89 In-Process Fuel Use, Bituminous Coal 

• 3-90-002-99 In-Process Fuel Use, Bituminous Coal 

• 3-90-008-89 In-Process Fuel Use, Coke 

• 3-90-008-99 In-Process Fuel Use, Coke 

• 3-90-009-99 In-Process Fuel Use, Wood 

For these sources, we applied the average MACT control efficiencies of 4% for SO2 and 

40% for PM. 

2.3.8 Refinery Enforcement Initiative 

Both EPA and State/local agencies have negotiated (or are in the process of negotiating) 

Consent Decrees that will require significant investment in pollution control technology 

and will result in significant emission reductions in the future. There are eight refineries in 

the MANE-VU inventory impacted by the settlements. The five major refinery processes 

that are affected by the judicial settlements are: 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 2 – NonEGU Point Sources Page 2-11 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

• Fluid Catalytic Cracking Units (FCCUs) and Fluid Coking Units (FCUs) 

• Process Heaters and Boilers 

• Flare Gas Recovery 

• Leak Detection and Repair 

• Benzene/Wastewater 

As part of the development of the Assessment of Control Technology Options for 

Petroleum Refineries in the Mid-Atlantic Region (Draft Final, October 2006), MACTEC 

coordinated with State and local agencies to develop estimates of future year emissions 

based upon the settlements and recent permits that implement the provisions of those 

settlements. 

For FCCUs/FCUs, the Consent Decree control requirements generally require the 

installation of wet gas scrubbers for SO2 control. Some of the units have already been 

permitted to include the control requirements. In those cases, specific emission limits for 

SO2 have already been established and were used as the best estimate of emission in 2009. 

In cases where specific emission limitation have not yet been specified in permits, a 90 

percent SO2 control efficiency was assumed as a conservative estimate of the SO2 

reductions from the installation of a wet gas scrubber. 

For NOx control at FCCUs/FCUs, the Consent Decrees require selective catalytic 

reduction (SCR), selective non-catalytic reduction (SCNR), or optimization studies to 

reduce NOx emissions. Some of the units have already been permitted to include the 

control requirements. In those cases, specific emission limits for NOx have already been 

established and were used as the best estimate of emission in 2009. In cases where specific 

emission limitation have not yet been specified in permits, a 90 percent NOx control 

efficiency was assumed for SCR, and a 60 percent reduction was assumed from the 

installation of SNCR. 

For SO2 emissions from boilers/heaters, the control requirements generally require the 

elimination of burning solid/liquid fuels. We identified all boilers and heaters at the eight 

affected refineries that burn solid or liquid fuels. For these units, we set the SO2 emissions 

to zero in the future year inventories. 

For NOx emissions from boilers/heaters, control requirements generally apply to units 

greater than 40 million British thermal units (MMBtu) per hour capacity or larger. In 

many cases, the consent decrees establish NOx emission reduction objectives across a 

number of refineries that are owned by the same firm. Therefore, the companies have 

some discretion in deciding which individual boilers/heaters to control as well as the 

control techniques to apply. Also, the consent decrees have various phase-in dates which 

make it difficult to determine the exact date when the reductions will be fully realized. As 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 2 – NonEGU Point Sources Page 2-12 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

part of the development of the Assessment of Control Technology Options for Petroleum 

Refineries in the Mid-Atlantic Region (Draft Final, October 2006), MACTEC coordinated 

with State and local agencies to develop estimates of future year emissions based upon the 

settlements and recent permits that implement the provisions of those settlements. 

Heater/boiler NOx controls for the units to which they are applied were determined to be 

equivalent to meeting a 0.04 lbs per million Btu NOx emission rate. Meeting this emission 

reduction requirement is expected to provide an average NOx emission reduction of 50 

percent from 2002 levels in 2009.

The Consent Decrees also included enhanced LDAR programs (e.g., reducing the defined 

leak concentration, increasing the monitoring frequency, other requirements. Our best 

estimate is a 50% reduction in VOC emissions as a result of implementing enhanced 

LDAR programs similar to those required in the recent Consent Decrees. This is based on 

a study (http://www.rti.org/pubs/ertc_enviro_2002_final1.pdf ) that estimated an enhanced 

LDAR program could result in a 50% reduction in fugitive VOCs. 

The settlements are expected to produce additional SO2, NOx, and VOC emission 

reductions for flare gas recovery and wastewater operations. These emission reductions 

were not quantified as they are expected to produce less significant changes in the MANEVU inventory because of the magnitude and uncertainty associated with the emissions 

from these units in the 2002 MANE-VU inventory. 

2.3.9 Source Shutdowns 

A few states indicated that significant source shutdowns have occurred since 2002 and that 

emissions from these sources should not be included in the future year inventories. These 

sources are identified in Table B-5. 

2.3.10 State Specific Control Factors 

Delaware provided reductions expected from the Maritrans lightering operation. VOC 

emissions are projected to be reduced by 34.8% by 2009, 69.3% by 2012, and 79.2% by 

2018. 

2.4 NONEGU POINT SOURCE QA/QC REVIEW 

Throughout the inventory development process, quality assurance steps were performed to 

ensure that no double counting of emissions occurred, and to ensure that a full and 

complete inventory was developed. Quality assurance was an important component to the 

inventory development process and MACTEC performed the following QA steps on the 

nonEGU point source component of the MANE-VU future year inventories: 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 2 – NonEGU Point Sources Page 2-13 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

1. State agencies reviewed the draft growth and control factors in the summer of 

2005. Changes based on these comments were implemented in the files. 

2. Compared, at the emission unit-level, emissions from the IPM parsed files and 

the MANE-VU NIF files to verify that the splitting of the MANE-VU point 

source inventory into the EGU and nonEGU sectors did not result in any double 

county of emissions or cause units to be missing from both inventories. 

3. SCC level emission summaries were prepared and evaluated to ensure that 

emissions were consistent and that there were no missing sources. Tier 

comparisons (by pollutant) were developed between the revised 2002 base year 

inventory and the 2009/2012/2018 projection inventories. 

4. State level emission summaries were prepared and evaluated to ensure that 

emissions were consistent and reasonable. The summaries included base year 

2002 emissions, 2009/2012/2018 projected emissions accounting only for 

growth, 2009/2012/2018 projected emissions accounting for both growth and 

emission reductions from OTB and OTW controls. 

5. Emission inventory files in NIF format were provided for state agency review 

and comment. Changes based on these comments were implemented. 

6. All final files were run through EPA’s Format and Content checking software. 

7. Version numbering was used for all inventory files developed. The version 

numbering process used a decimal system to track major and minor changes. 

For example, a major change would result in a version going from 1.0 to 2.0 for 

example. A minor change would cause a version number to go from 1.0 to 1.1. 

Minor changes resulting from largely editorial changes would result in a change 

from 1.00 to 1.01 for example. 

Final QA checks were run on the revised projection inventory data set to ensure that all 

corrections provided by the S/L agencies and stakeholders were correctly incorporated into 

the S/L inventories and that there were no remaining QA issues that could be addressed 

during the duration of the project. After exporting the inventory to ASCII text files in NIF 

3.0, the EPA QA program was run on the ASCII files and the QA output was reviewed to 

verify that all QA issues that could be addressed were resolved 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 2 – NonEGU Point Sources Page 2-14 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

2.5 NONEGU POINT SOURCE NIF AND SMOKE FILES 

The Version 3 file names and descriptions delivered to MARAMA are shown in Table 2-1. 

2.6 NONEGU POINT SOURCE EMISSION SUMMARIES 

Emission summaries by state, year, and pollutant are presented in Tables 2-2 through 2-8 

for CO, NH3, NOx, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI, SO2, and VOC, respectively. 

Table 2-1 NonEGU Point Source NIF, IDA, and Summary File Names 

File Name Date Description 

MANEVU_OTB2009_NonEGU_NIFV3_1.mdb Dec. 4, 2006 Version 3.1 of 2009 OTB 

NonEGU source NIF inventory 

MANEVU_OTB2012_NonEGU_NIFV3_1.mdb Dec. 4, 2006 Version 3.1 of 2012 OTB 

NonEGU source NIF inventory 

MANEVU_OTB2018_NonEGU_NIFV3_1.mdb Dec. 4, 2006 Version 3.1 of 2018 OTB 

NonEGU source NIF inventory 

MANEVU_OTB2009_NonEGU_IDAV3_1.txt Nov. 22, 2006 Version 3.1 of 2009 OTB 

NonEGU source inventory in 

SMOKE IDA format 

MANEVU_OTB2012_NonEGU_IDAV3_1.txt Nov. 22, 2006 Version 3.1 of 2012 OTB 

NonEGU source inventory in 

SMOKE IDA format 

MANEVU_OTB2018_NonEGU_IDA3V_2.txt Nov. 22, 2006 Version 3.1 of 2018 OTB 

NonEGU source inventory in 

SMOKE IDA format 

MANEVU OTB BOTW NonEGU V3_1 State 

Summary.xls 

Nov. 22, 2006 Spreadsheet with state totals by 

pollutant for all NonEGU 

sources 

MANEVU OTB BOTW NonEGU V3_1 State SCC 

Summary.xls 

Dec. 4, 2006 Spreadsheet with SCC totals by 

state and pollutant for all 

NonEGU sources. 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 2 – NonEGU Point Sources Page 2-15 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Table 2-2 NonEGU Point Sources 

OTB/OTW Annual CO Emission Projections 

(tons per year) 

State 2002 2009 2012 2018 

CT 2,157 2,251 2,306 2,415 

DE 8,812 9,037 8,748 8,651 

DC 247 283 299 327 

ME 9,043 10,147 10,467 11,433 

MD 94,536 104,012 111,174 141,342 

MA 10,793 12,027 12,552 13,426 

NH 774 858 871 907 

NJ 8,209 10,076 10,806 12,244 

NY 53,259 61,411 65,541 78,876 

PA 105,815 116,430 121,251 140,909 

RI 1,712 1,764 1,821 1,927 

VT 220 250 254 267 

Total 295,577 328,546 346,090 412,724 

0

25,000

50,000

75,000

100,000

125,000

150,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT

Emissions (tpy)

2002

2009 OTB/W

2012 OTB/W

2018 OTB/W
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 2 – NonEGU Point Sources Page 2-16 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Table 2-3 NonEGU Point Sources 

OTB/OTW Annual NH3 Emission Projections 

(tons per year) 

State 2002 2009 2012 2018 

CT 0 0 0 0 

DE 153 145 138 134 

DC 4 5 5 5 

ME 700 796 809 859 

MD 305 347 366 410 

MA 462 510 521 563 

NH 37 46 50 60 

NJ 0 0 0 0 

NY 1,027 1,081 1,128 1,296 

PA 1,170 1,307 1,363 1,591 

RI 58 64 68 68 

VT 0 0 0 0 

Total 3,916 4,301 4,448 4,986 

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT

Emissions (tpy)

2002

2009 OTB/W

2012 OTB/W

2018 OTB/W
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 2 – NonEGU Point Sources Page 2-17 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Table 2-4 NonEGU Point Sources 

OTB/OTW Annual NOx Emission Projections 

(tons per year) 

State 2002 2009 2012 2018 

CT 6,773 7,236 7,465 7,921 

DE 4,372 4,076 4,135 4,246 

DC 480 548 577 627 

ME 12,108 14,285 14,661 15,753 

MD 21,940 19,401 20,399 22,797 

MA 18,292 20,603 21,372 23,040 

NH 1,188 1,384 1,394 1,435 

NJ 15,812 16,498 17,091 18,805 

NY 34,253 33,648 34,586 37,133 

PA 89,136 89,932 93,526 103,137 

RI 2,308 2,449 2,471 2,442 

VT 386 462 460 466 

Total 207,048 210,522 218,137 237,802 

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT

Emissions (tpy)

2002

2009 OTB/W

2012 OTB/W

2018 OTB/W
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 2 – NonEGU Point Sources Page 2-18 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Table 2-5 NonEGU Point Sources 

OTB/OTW Annual PM10-PRI Emission Projections 

(tons per year) 

State 2002 2009 2012 2018 

CT 990 1,035 1,058 1,106 

DE 1,820 1,486 1,475 1,487 

DC 157 178 186 198 

ME 6,120 7,088 7,133 7,496 

MD 4,739 4,797 5,040 5,828 

MA 4,212 5,006 5,088 5,314 

NH 918 1,084 1,097 1,129 

NJ 3,439 4,205 4,417 4,959 

NY 5,072 5,221 5,444 6,098 

PA 23,282 25,169 26,307 29,516 

RI 296 333 331 330 

VT 235 267 272 296 

Total 51,280 55,869 57,848 63,757 

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT

Emissions (tpy)

2002

2009 OTB/W

2012 OTB/W

2018 OTB/W
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 2 – NonEGU Point Sources Page 2-19 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Table 2-6 NonEGU Point Sources 

OTB/OTW Annual PM25-PRI Emission Projections 

(tons per year) 

State 2002 2009 2012 2018 

CT 822 871 894 939 

DE 1,606 1,256 1,245 1,254 

DC 128 145 152 164 

ME 4,899 5,675 5,690 5,935 

MD 2,772 2,861 3,011 3,503 

MA 2,953 3,554 3,574 3,660 

NH 857 1,008 1,021 1,052 

NJ 2,947 3,588 3,764 4,234 

NY 3,355 3,535 3,688 4,161 

PA 12,360 13,578 14,159 15,878 

RI 180 200 198 194 

VT 198 226 229 246 

Total 33,077 36,497 37,625 41,220 

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT

Emissions (tpy)

2002

2009 OTB/W

2012 OTB/W

2018 OTB/W
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 2 – NonEGU Point Sources Page 2-20 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Table 2-7 NonEGU Point Sources 

OTB/OTW Annual SO2 Emission Projections 

(tons per year) 

State 2002 2009 2012 2018 

CT 2,438 2,528 2,567 2,644 

DE 35,706 7,117 7,401 7,610 

DC 618 707 735 780 

ME 14,412 18,656 18,492 18,794 

MD 34,193 34,223 35,373 38,921 

MA 14,766 18,185 18,442 18,955 

NH 2,436 3,099 3,098 3,114 

NJ 9,797 7,141 7,234 7,856 

NY 58,227 62,922 64,484 67,545 

PA 88,259 90,735 93,441 99,924 

RI 2,651 3,163 3,182 3,164 

VT 874 1,182 1,147 1,127 

Total 264,377 249,658 255,596 270,434 

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT

Emissions (tpy)

2002

2009 OTB/W

2012 OTB/W

2018 OTB/W
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 2 – NonEGU Point Sources Page 2-21 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Table 2-8 NonEGU Point Sources 

OTB/OTW Annual VOC Emission Projections 

(tons per year) 

State 2002 2009 2012 2018 

CT 4,604 4,114 4,152 4,230 

DE 4,645 2,987 2,311 1,993 

DC 69 72 75 85 

ME 4,477 4,740 4,985 5,709 

MD 5,676 5,297 5,578 6,301 

MA 7,794 8,381 9,061 10,564 

NH 1,459 1,060 1,132 1,294 

NJ 13,318 16,702 17,621 19,915 

NY 9,933 10,157 10,750 12,354 

PA 36,326 35,875 38,162 44,537 

RI 1,898 1,640 1,695 1,812 

VT 1,079 1,254 1,365 1,730 

Total 91,278 92,279 96,887 110,524 

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT

Emissions (tpy)

2002

2009 OTB/W

2012 OTB/W

2018 OTB/W
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 3 – Area Sources Page 3-1 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

3.0 AREA SOURCES 

The area source sector is comprised of stationary sources that are small and numerous, and 

that have not been inventoried individually as specific point, mobile, or biogenic sources. 

Individual sources are typically grouped with other like sources into area source categories 

and the emissions are calculated on a county-by-county basis. Area source categories 

include residential/commercial/industrial fuel combustion; small industrial processes; 

solvent utilization (such as architectural coatings and consumer products); petroleum 

product storage and transport (such as gasoline service stations); waste disposal; and 

agricultural activities. 

The procedures for projecting emissions for area sources are described in this section. We 

started with the MANE-VU 2002 area source emission inventory. We first applied growth 

factors to account for changes in population and economic activity. Next, we applied 

control factors to account for future emission reductions from on-the-books (OTB) control 

regulations and on-the-way (OTW) control regulations. The OTB control scenario 

accounts for post-2002 emission reductions from promulgated federal, State, local, and 

site-specific control programs as of June 15, 2005. The OTW control scenario accounts for 

proposed (but not final) control programs that are reasonably anticipated to result in post2002 emission reductions. We then conducted a series of quality assurance steps to ensure 

the development of complete, accurate, and consistent emission inventories. We provided 

the inventories in three formats – the National Emission Inventory Input Format (NIF), 

SMOKE Inventory Data Analyzer (IDA) format, and SMOKE growth/control packets. We 

also prepared emission summary tables by state and pollutant. Each of these activities is 

discussed in this section. 

3.1 INITIAL 2002 AREA SOURCE EMISSION INVENTORY 

The starting point for the area source projections was Version 3 of the MANE-VU 2002 

area source emission inventory (MANE-VU_2002_Area_040606.MDB). There were two 

updates to this version of the 2002 inventory in response to requests from the District of 

Columbia and Massachusetts. These changes, described in the following paragraphs, were 

used in preparing the 2009/2012/2018 projections. 

After release of Version 3 of the MANE-VU 2002 inventory, the District of Columbia 

discovered a gross error in the 2002 residential, non-residential and roadway construction. 

They requested that the following values be used for the 2002 base year and as the basis 

for the 2009/2012/2018 projections: 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 3 – Area Sources Page 3-2 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

SCC Pollutant Code 2002 Annual 

Emissions (tpy) 

2311010000 PM10-PRI 8.2933 

 PM25-PRI 1.6587 

2311020000 PM10-PRI 486.1951 

 PM25-PRI 97.239 

2311030000 PM10-PRI 289.8579 

 PM25-PRI 57.9716 

After release of Version 3 of the MANE-VU 2002 inventory, Massachusetts revised their 

inventory of area source heating oil emissions due to two changes: (1) SO2 emission 

factors were adjusted for the sulfur content from 1.0 to 0.03; and (2) use of the latest DOEEIA 2002 fuel use data instead of the previous version used 2001. These two changes 

significantly altered the 2002 SO2 emissions for area source heating oil combustion. 

Massachusetts provided revised 2002 PE and EM tables, which MACTEC used in 

preparing the 2009/2012/2018 projection inventories. 

3.2 AREA SOURCE GROWTH FACTORS 

The area source growth factors were developed using three sets of data: 

• The U.S. EPA’s Economic Growth and Analysis System Version 5.0 (EGAS 5.0) 

using the default SCC configuration. EGAS 5.0 generates growth factors from 

REMI’s 53 Sector Policy Insight Model Version 5.5, the U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) Annual Energy Outlook 2004 (AEO2004) fuel use projections, and 

national vehicle mile travel projections from EPA’s MOBILE 4.1 Fuel Combustion 

Model; 

• The DOE’s Annual Energy Outlook 2005 (AEO2005) fuel consumption forecasts 

were used to replace the AEO2004 forecasts that are used as the default values in 

EGAS 5.0; and 

• State-supplied population, employment, and other emission projection data. 

The priority for applying these growth factors was to first use the state-supplied projection 

data (if available). If no state-supplied data are available, then we used the AEO2005 

projection factors for fuel consumption sources. If data from these two sources were not 

available, we used the EGAS 5.0 default SCC configuration. Appendix C lists the area 

source growth factors used for this study. 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 3 – Area Sources Page 3-3 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

3.2.1 EGAS 5.0 Growth Factors 

EGAS is an EPA-developed economic and activity forecast tool that provides credible 

growth factors for developing emission inventory projections. Growth factors are 

generated using national- and regional-economic forecasts. For nonEGUs, the primary 

economic activity data sets in EGAS 5.0 are: 

• State-specific growth rates from the Regional Economic Model, Inc. (REMI) 

Policy Insight® model, version 5.5. The REMI socioeconomic data (output by 

industry sector, population, farm sector value added, and gasoline and oil 

expenditures) are available by 4-digit SIC code at the State level. 

• Energy consumption data from the DOE’s Energy Information Administration’s 

(EIA) Annual Energy Outlook 2004, with Projections through 2025 for use in 

generating growth factors for non-EGU fuel combustion sources. These data 

include regional or national fuel-use forecast data that were mapped to specific 

SCCs for the non-EGU fuel use sectors (e.g., commercial coal, industrial natural 

gas). Growth factors are reported at the Census division level. These Census 

divisions represent a group of States (e.g., the South Atlantic division includes 

Delaware, the District of Columbia, and Maryland; the Middle Atlantic division 

includes New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania; the New England division 

includes Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and 

Vermont). Although one might expect different growth rates in each of these 

States due to unique demographic and socioeconomic trends, all States within each 

division received the same growth rate.

EGAS uses these economic activity datasets and a set of cross-reference files to generate 

growth factors by Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code, Source Classification 

Code (SCC), or Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) codes. Growth 

factors for 2009, 2012, and 2018 were calculated using 2002 as the base year at the State 

and SCC level. County-specific growth factors are not available in EGAS 5.0. 

There were several SCCs in the MANE-VU 2002 inventory that are not included in the 

EGAS 5.0 files. As a result, EGAS did not generate growth factors for those SCCs. 

MACTEC assigned growth factors for the missing SCCs by assigning a surrogate SCC that 

best represented the missing SCC. 

3.2.2 AEO2005 Growth Factors 

The default version of EGAS 5.0 uses the DOE’s AEO2004 forecasts. We replaced these 

data with the more recent AEO2005 forecasts to improve the emissions growth factors 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 3 – Area Sources Page 3-4 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

produced. Using ACCESS, we created a copy of the “DOE EGAS 5” dataset. The dataset 

includes three tables. One table contains the projection data values from 2001-2025. The 

other two tables are the MACT and SCC crosswalk tables. The crosswalk tables are linked 

to the projection table via a “model code”. Using the copy of AEO2004 data, we updated 

the corresponding projection tables with data from the AEO2005 located at: 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/supplement/supref.html . Using the data and descriptions from 

the new tables, we matched the projection data to the appropriate model codes and then 

built a table identical to the DOE EGAS 5 dataset with the new 2005 AEO data. The 

resulting ACCESS dataset contains a projection data table with the exact same structure as 

the original except with the new data. The SCC and MACT crosswalks did not require any 

updates since the model code assignments were not changed in the new data table. 

3.2.3 State Specific Growth Factors 

In addition to the growth data described above, we received growth projections from 

several MANE-VU states to be used instead of the default EGAS or AEO2005 growth 

factors. The following paragraphs describe the area source growth factors used for each 

state. 

3.2.3.1 Connecticut 

Connecticut provided state-level population projections for 2009, 2012, and 2018. We 

created growth factors for those SCCs that are population based using the state-supplied 

data. Connecticut also provided state-level employment projections for industry categories 

analogous to 2-digit SIC codes. Projections were provided for 2009, 2012, and 2018. We 

matched these industry groupings to SCC codes in order to create SCC specific growth 

factors for area sources. Emissions from area source fuel combustion were projected using 

the AEO2005 forecasts. 

3.2.3.2 Delaware 

Delaware provided county-level population projections (Delaware Population Consortium Annual 

Population Projections, Oct 18, 2001 Version 2001.0) for 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2020. We 

interpolated these data to get growth factors for projection from 2002 to 2009, 2012, and 2018 for 

those SCCs that are population based. Delaware also provided state-level employment data by 

NAICS codes for 2002 and 2012. We interpolated values for 2009 and 2018. We matched these 

industry groupings to SCC codes in order to create SCC specific growth factors for selected area 

sources. Emissions from area source fuel combustion were projected using the AEO2005 

forecasts.
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 3 – Area Sources Page 3-5 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

3.2.3.3 District of Columbia 

DC provided local growth factors for projecting emissions from 2002 to 2009, 2012, and 

2018 for all area source SCCs except fuel combustion sources. Emissions from area 

source fuel combustion were projected using the AEO2005 forecasts. 

3.2.3.4 Maine 

Maine indicated that it preferred to use the EGAS 5.0 growth factors and the DOE’s 2005 

Annual Energy Outlook data for combustion sources. 

3.2.3.5 Maryland 

Maryland provided growth factors by SCC for all counties in the State. These growth 

factors were derived from a variety source sources, including the MWCOG Cooperative 

Forecast 7.0, the BMC Round 6A Cooperative Forecast (prepared by the MD Dept. of 

Planning, May 2004), and EGAS 5.0. 

3.2.3.6 Massachusetts 

Massachusetts provided county-level population data for the years 2000, 2010, and 2020. 

We interpolated these data to get growth factors for projection from 2002 to 2009, 2012, 

and 2018 for those SCCs that are population based. Massachusetts also provided growth 

factors for several SCCs based on employment data for the years 2000 and 2010. We 

interpolated these data to get growth factors for projection from 2002 to 2009, 2012, and 

2018. Massachusetts agreed on the use of the AEO2005 forecasts for projecting emissions 

from area source fuel combustion. 

3.2.3.7 New Hampshire 

New Hampshire agreed to use the EGAS 5.0 growth factors, with the enhancement of 

using the DOE’s 2005 Annual Energy Outlook data for combustion sources. 

3.2.3.8 New Jersey 

New Jersey provided growth factors for most SCCs for all counties in the State. When 

state-specific growth factors were not available, we used the AEO2005 forecasts for 

projecting emissions from area source fuel combustion and EGAS default factors for any 

remaining categories. 

3.2.3.9 New York 

New York provided county-level population data for 2002 and projections/growth factors for 2009, 

2012, and 2018. We used these growth factors for those SCCs that are population based. We used 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 3 – Area Sources Page 3-6 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

the AEO2005 forecasts for projecting emissions from area source fuel combustion and 

EGAS default factors for any remaining categories. 

3.2.3.10 Pennsylvania 

Pennsylvania provided county-level population data for 2000 and projections for 2010 and 

2020. We interpolated these data to get growth factors for projecting from 2002 to 2009, 

2012, and 2018 for those SCCs that are population based. Pennsylvania also provided 

general employment data for 21 counties or area for 2000 and projections for 2010 and 

2020. We interpolated these data to get growth factors for projecting from 2002 to 2009, 

2012, and 2018 for nine area source categories identified by Pennsylvania. For all other 

area source categories, we used the AEO2005 forecasts for projecting emissions from area 

source fuel combustion and EGAS default factors for any remaining categories. 

3.2.3.11 Rhode Island 

Rhode Island provided county-level population projections for 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015, 

and 2020. We interpolated these data to get growth factors for projection from 2002 to 

2009, 2012, and 2018 for those SCCs that are population based. Rhode Island provided 

state-level employment data from the Department of Labor and Training by 3-digit NAICS 

codes for 2002 and 2012. We used these data to calculate the growth factor from 2002 to 

2012 and interpolated these data to derive growth factors for 2009 and 2018. We matched 

these industry NAICS groupings to SCC codes in order to create SCC specific growth 

factors for area sources. Rhode Island agreed on the use of the AEO2005 forecasts for 

projecting emissions from area source fuel combustion. 

3.2.3.12 Vermont 

Vermont agreed to use the EGAS 5.0 growth factors, with the enhancement of using the 

DOE’s 2005 Annual Energy Outlook data for combustion sources. 

3.3 AREA SOURCE CONTROL FACTORS 

We developed control factors to estimate emission reductions that will result from on-thebooks regulations that will result in post-2002 emission reductions and proposed 

regulations or actions that will result in post-2002 reductions. Control factors were 

developed for the following national or regional control measures: 

• OTC VOC Model Rules 

• Federal On-board Vapor Recovery 

• New Jersey Post-2002 Area Source Controls 

• Residential Woodstove NSPS 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 3 – Area Sources Page 3-7 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

3.3.1 OTC 2001 VOC Model Rules 

Most of the MANE-VU States have adopted (or will soon adopt) the Ozone Transport 

Commission (OTC) model rules for five area source VOC categories: consumer products, 

architectural and industrial maintenance (AIM) coatings, portable fuel containers, mobile 

equipment repair and refinishing (MERR), and solvent cleaning. Information on the 

percent reduction anticipated by each model rule was obtained from Table II-6 of Control 

Measure Development Support Analysis of Ozone Transport Commission Model Rules

(E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc., March 31, 2001). This set of model rules will be referred 

to as the “OTC 2001 model rules” in this document. Information as to whether a particular 

state has adopted (or will soon adopt) a particular measure was obtained form the Status 

Report on OTC States’ Efforts to Promulgate Regulations Based on OTC Model Rules (As 

of June 1, 2005, as posted on the OTC web site). For all categories, except portable fuel 

containers (see discussion below), we assumed that the rules would be fully implemented 

by all states by 2009. Some states had already adopted some the OTC 2001 Model Rules 

in 2002 or already had similar rules in place in 2002. The 2002 emission inventory for 

those states already reflected the emission reductions expected from the OTC 2001 Model 

Rule level of control. For those states and categories, no incremental reductions were 

applied for to the future year projections, as indicated Table 3-1. 

For consumer products, the 2001 OTC model rule was estimated to provide a 14.2 percent 

VOC emissions reductions from the Federal Part 59 rule. Most, but not all, states in the 

OTR have adopted the OTC 2001 model rule for consumer products. For this inventory, it 

was assumed that all OTC states would adopt the 2001 OTC model rule prior to 2009. 

Thus, the 14.2 percent control factor was applied uniformly to all states in the 2009, 2012, 

and 2018 projection inventories. 

For AIM coatings, the 2001 OTC model rule was estimated to provide a 31 percent VOC 

emissions reduction from the Federal Part 59 rule. Most, but not all, states in the OTR 

have adopted the OTC 2001 model rule for AIM coatings. For this inventory, it was 

assumed that all OTC states would adopt the 2001 OTC model rule prior to 2009. Thus, 

this control factor was applied uniformly to all states, with one exception. Maine adopted 

the OTC model rule with an alternative VOC content limit for varnishes and interior wood 

clear and semitransparent wood stains. As a result, Maine estimated that reductions from 

AIM coatings should be modeled using a 29.5 percent control factor instead of the 31 

percent estimated for the OTC 2001 model rule. 

For portable fuel containers, the 2001 OTC model rule was estimated to provide a 75 

percent reduction in VOC emissions at the end of an assumed 10-year phase-in period as 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 3 – Area Sources Page 3-8 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Table 3-1 Adoption Matrix for 2001 OTC Model Rules 

State Consumer 

Products 

AIM 

Coatings 

Portable Fuel 

Containers 

Mobile 

Equipment 

Repair and 

Refinishing 

Solvent 

Cleaning 

CT Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

DE Yes Yes Yes Yes No 

DC Yes Yes Yes Yes No 

ME Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

MD Yes Yes Yes No No 

MA Yes Yes Yes No * (7%) 

NH Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

NJ Yes Yes Yes Yes ** (17%) 

NY Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

PA Yes Yes Yes No No 

RI Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

VT Yes Yes Yes Yes No 

Yes – apply incremental reductions in future years 

No – OTC Model Rule reductions already accounted for in 2002 inventory; no incremental reductions 

applied to future years. 

* MA is amending its existing Solvent/Degreasing rule and anticipates a 7% reduction from 2002 levels. 

** NJ amended its existing Solvent/Degreasing rule and anticipates a 17% reduction from 2002 levels 

older non-compliant containers are replaced with new compliant containers. The rule 

penetration (RP) depends on the assumed PFC estimated useful life and how quickly old 

non-compliant containers are replaced with new compliant containers. For the 2001 OTC 

model rule, the turnover from old to new containers is expected to be 10 percent per year. 

The MANEVU states have adopted the OTC 2001 model rule at different times, so the rule 

penetration will vary by State depending upon when the rule became effective in a given 

state. For example, compliant containers were required in Pennsylvania beginning on 

January 1, 2003. By the 2009 ozone season, there will be a 6.5 year turnover period for 

compliant PFCs in Pennsylvania. By contrast, compliant containers in New Jersey were 

not required until January 1, 2005. Thus, by the 2009 ozone season, there will be a 4.5 

year turnover period for compliant PFCs. Table 3.2 shows the effective date for compliant 

containers by state, along with the rule penetration factors and overall control efficiency. 

There are different rule penetration factors for the three inventory years because of the 

increased penetration of compliant containers into the marketplace. By 2018, 100 percent 

compliance is assumed. 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 3 – Area Sources Page 3-9 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Table 3-2 Rule Penetration and Control Efficiency Values for 

2001 OTC Model Rule for PFCs 

Rule 

Compliance 

Date 

States with this 

Compliance 

Date 

Control 

Efficiency 

(%) 

Rule 

Penetration 

(%) 

Overall Control 

Efficiency 

(%) 

Control Factor for 2009 Inventory 

2003 MD, NY, PA 75 65 48.8 

2004 CT, DE, DC, ME 75 55 41.3 

2005 NJ 75 45 33.8 

2006 NH 75 35 26.3 

2007* MA, RI, VT 75 25 18.8 

Control Factor for 2012 Inventory

2003 MD, NY, PA 75 95 71.3 

2004 CT, DE, DC, ME 75 85 63.8 

2005 NJ 75 75 56.3 

2006 NH 75 65 48.8 

2007* MA, RI, VT 75 55 41.3 

Control Factor for 2018 Inventory

2003 MD, NY, PA 75 100 75.0 

2004 CT, DE, DC, ME 75 100 75.0 

2005 NJ 75 100 75.0 

2006 NH 75 100 75.0 

2007* MA, RI, VT 75 100 75.0 

* The 2001 OTC model rule is not yet effective. It was assumed to become effective January 1, 2007 for 

the MANEVU modeling inventory. Massachusetts’ rule actually will not become effective until 2009 and is 

based only on the OTC 2006 model rule; Massachusetts will not adopt the OTC 2001 model rule. 

The emission reductions from the 2001 OTC PFC model rule were calculated only for the 

emissions accounted for in the area source inventory. Additional benefits (not estimated 

for this report) would be expected from equipment refueling vapor displacement and 

spillage that is accounted for in the nonroad inventory. 

For mobile equipment repair and refinishing, the 2001 OTC model rule was estimated to 

provide a 38 percent VOC emissions reductions from the Federal Part 59 rule (35% for 

paint application and 3% for cleaning operations). Most, but not all, states in the OTR 

have adopted the OTC 2001 model rule for MERR or already had similar rules in effect in 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 3 – Area Sources Page 3-10 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

2002. For this inventory, it was assumed that all OTC states would adopt the 2001 OTC 

model rule prior to 2009 or have similar rules in effect. For those states (MD, MA, PA) 

that had similar rules in effect in 2002 or earlier, no incremental reductions were applied 

since it was assumed that the effects of the state rule were already accounted for in the 

2002 inventory. New Jersey indicated that a 19 percent control factor should be used for 

VOC emissions from MERR in New Jersey. For all other states, the OTC 2001 Model 

Rule control factor of 38 percent was applied. 

For solvent cleaning, the 2001 OTC model rule was estimated to provide a 66 percent 

VOC emissions reductions. Most, but not all, states in the OTR have adopted the OTC 

2001 model rule for solvent cleaning or already had similar rules in effect in 2002. For 

this inventory, it was assumed that all OTC states would adopt the 2001 OTC model rule 

prior to 2009 or have similar rules in effect. For those states (DE, DC, MD, PA, VT) that 

had similar rules in effect in 2002 or earlier, no incremental reductions were applied since 

it was assumed that the effects of the state rule were already accounted for in the 2002 

inventory. Massachusetts indicated that some portion of the reductions resulting from the 

OTC 2001 model rule were already accounted for in their 2002 emissions, but that the state 

anticipated an additional 7 percent reduction from anticipated amendments. New Jersey 

indicated that a 17 percent control factor should be used for VOC emissions from solvent 

cleaning in New Jersey. For all other states (CT, ME, NH, NY, RI), the OTC 2001 Model 

Rule control factor of 66 percent was applied. 

Table D-1 in Appendix D shows the anticipated percent reductions by state, SCC, and year 

from implementation of the OTC 2001 VOC Model Rules. 

3.3.2 On-Board Vapor Recovery 

The U.S. EPA issued regulations requiring onboard vapor recovery (ORVR) standards for 

the control of vehicle refueling emissions in 1994. ORVR works by routing refueling 

vapors to a carbon canister on the vehicle and are expected to achieve from 95-98 percent 

reduction in VOC emissions for those vehicles equipped with ORVR. ORVR is required 

to be installed on some new light-duty gasoline vehicles in 1998, and all new light-and 

medium-duty automobiles and trucks will be required to have ORVR installed by 2006. 

For the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium, E.H. Pechan made estimates of emission 

reductions as they grow over time due to increased rule penetration. The following 

discussion describes how the on-board vapor recovery control factors were developed 

(email from Maureen Mullen, E.H. Pechan): 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 3 – Area Sources Page 3-11 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

“Onroad refueling control factors were calculated based on the percentage difference 

between the projection year (2007, 2008, 2009, 2012, and 2018) MOBILE6 refueling 

emission factors and the 2002 MOBILE6 refueling emission factors. 

MOBILE6 emission factors were calculated at January and July temperature and fuel 

conditions. July emission factors were used as the surrogate for the five-month ozone 

season (May through September) and the January emission factors were used as the 

surrogates for the remaining seven months. Temperatures modeled were the January 

and July average daily monthly maximum and minimum temperatures for each State, 

based on 30-year average temperature data, as used in EPA’s second Section 812 

Prospective analysis. Within a State, MOBILE6 input files were created for each 

unique combination of: January and July RVP, RFG, oxygenated fuel, and Stage II 

control programs. Fuel data was based on 2002 data, also as used in the Section 812 

analysis. Information on Stage II control programs and control efficiencies were 

provided by EPA, as included in the draft 2002 NEI. Using these same temperature 

inputs, fuel inputs, and Stage II control inputs (where applicable), Pechan calculated 

MOBILE6 emission factors for calendar years 2002, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2012, and 

2018. 

The resulting MOBILE6 emission factors were first weighted according to the default 

MOBILE6 VMT mix to determine the weighted average refueling emission factor for 

all gasoline vehicle types. The resulting January and July emission factors were 

weighted together according to the number of days in the seven-month season (212 

days) and the five-month ozone season (153). After this was done for all of the 

modeled years and State or sub-State areas, the overall control efficiency for refueling, 

due to fleet turnover, was calculated based on the percentage difference between the 

2002 and corresponding projection year emission factors. These control efficiencies 

were then assigned to individual counties, based on the mapping of fuel and Stage II 

control parameters to those modeled in the MOBILE6 files.” 

These projections were made on a county-by-county basis. Table D-2 shows the 

anticipated percent reductions by county, SCC, and year. 

3.3.3 Post-2002 Area Source Controls in New Jersey 

New Jersey made gasoline transfer provision amendments at N.J.A.C. 7:27-16.3. The 

Stage I portion of the amendments are expected to result in emissions reductions of 23.2 

percent from the 2002 baseline. This is based on a control efficiency of 29 percent and a 

rule effectiveness of 80 percent. The State II portion of the amendments are already 

incorporated into the inventory through the MOBILE6 inputs. 

New Jersey also made amendments to ICI boiler provisions at N.J.A.C. The amendments 

require any ICI boiler has a maximum gross heat input rate of at least 5 mmBTU/hour, 

whether or not it is located at a major NOx facility, to conduct annual tune-ups. In the 

support documentation for this rule amendment, New Jersey estimated that the tune-ups 

would result in a 25 percent reduction in NOx emissions.
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 3 – Area Sources Page 3-12 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

3.3.4 Residential Wood Combustion 

Control factors were evaluated to account for the replacement of retired woodstoves that 

emit at pre-new source performance standard (NSPS) levels. We used EPA’s latest 

methodology provided by Marc Houyoux of EPA/OAQPS. This methodology uses a 

combination growth and control factor and is based on activity not pollutant. The growth 

and control are accounted for in a single factor the SCCs split out the controlled and 

uncontrolled equipment. The control is indirectly incorporated based on which stove is 

used. The combined growth and control rates are as follows: 

• Fireplaces increase 1%/yr 

• Old woodstoves (non-EPA certified) decrease 2%/yr 

• New woodstoves (EPA certified) increase 2%/yr 

The data to support these rates were collected as part of the woodstove change-out program 

development in OAQPS. Table D-3 shows the anticipated percent changes by SCC and 

year. 

3.4 AREA SOURCE QA/QC REVIEW 

Throughout the inventory development process, quality assurance steps were performed to 

ensure that no double counting of emissions occurred, to ensure that a full and complete 

inventory was developed for MANE-VU, and to make sure that projection calculations 

were working correctly. Quality assurance was an important component to the inventory 

development process and MACTEC performed the following QA steps on the area source 

components of the 2009/2012/2018 projection inventories: 

1. State agencies reviewed the draft growth and control factors in the summer of 

2005. Changes based on these comments were implemented in the files. 

2. SCC level emission summaries were prepared and evaluated to ensure that 

emissions were consistent and that there were no missing sources. Tier 

comparisons (by pollutant) were developed between the revised 2002 base year 

inventory and the 2009/2012/2018 projection inventories. 

3. Emission inventory files in NIF format were provided for state agency review 

and comment. Changes based on these comments were implemented. 

4. All final files were run through EPA’s Format and Content checking software. 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 3 – Area Sources Page 3-13 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

3.5 AREA SOURCE NIF, SMOKE AND SUMMARY FILES 

The Version 3 file names and descriptions delivered to MARAMA are shown in Table 3-3. 

3.6 AREA SOURCE EMISSION SUMMARIES 

Emission summaries by state, year, and pollutant are presented in Tables 3-4 through 3-10 

for CO, NH3, NOx, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI, SO2, and VOC, respectively. 

Table 3-3 Area Source NIF, IDA, and Summary File Names 

File Name Date Description 

MANEVU_OTB2009_Area_NIFV3_2.mdb Nov. 9, 2006 Version 3.2 of 2009 OTB area 

source NIF inventory 

MANEVU_OTB2012_Area_NIFV3_2.mdb Nov. 9, 2006 Version 3.2 of 2012 OTB area 

source NIF inventory 

MANEVU_OTB2018_Area_NIFV3_2.mdb Nov. 9, 2006 Version 3.2 of 2018 OTB area 

source NIF inventory 

MANEVU_OTB2009_Area_IDAV3_2.txt Nov. 20, 2006 Version 3.2 of 2009 OTB area 

source inventory in SMOKE 

IDA format 

MANEVU_OTB2012_Area_IDAV3_2.txt Nov. 20, 2006 Version 3.2 of 2012 OTB area 

source inventory in SMOKE 

IDA format 

MANEVU_OTB2018_Area_IDA3V_2.txt Nov. 20, 2006 Version 3.2 of 2018 OTB area 

source inventory in SMOKE 

IDA format 

MANEVU OTB BOTW Area V3_2 State Summary.xls Nov. 8, 2006 Spreadsheet with state totals by 

pollutant for all area sources 

MANEVU OTB BOTW Area V3_2 State SCC 

Summary.xls 

Nov. 8, 2006 Spreadsheet with SCC totals by 

state and pollutant for all area 

sources. 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 3 – Area Sources Page 3-14 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Table 3-4 Area Sources 

OTB/OTW Annual CO Emission Projections 

(tons per year) 

State 2002 2009 2012 2018 

CT 70,198 65,865 63,874 59,797 

DE 14,052 15,395 15,233 14,864 

DC 2,300 2,417 2,460 2,512 

ME 109,223 102,743 99,877 94,181 

MD 141,178 143,653 144,233 144,649 

MA 137,496 132,797 130,255 125,205 

NH 79,647 76,504 75,319 73,038 

NJ 97,657 90,432 88,048 83,119 

NY 356,254 336,576 327,118 307,659 

PA 266,935 266,887 264,012 257,396 

RI 8,007 8,007 8,026 8,024 

VT 43,849 42,683 42,172 41,283 

Total 1,326,796 1,283,959 1,260,627 1,211,727 

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT

Emissions (tpy)

2002

2009 OTB/W

2012 OTB/W

2018 OTB/W
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 3 – Area Sources Page 3-15 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Table 3-5 Area Sources 

OTB/OTW Annual NH3 Emission Projections 

(tons per year) 

State 2002 2009 2012 2018 

CT 5,318 5,208 5,156 5,061 

DE 13,279 13,316 13,328 13,342 

DC 14 16 16 17 

ME 8,747 10,453 11,116 12,312 

MD 25,834 31,879 34,222 38,155 

MA 18,809 19,131 19,275 19,552 

NH 2,158 2,466 2,584 2,789 

NJ 17,572 19,457 20,154 21,435 

NY 67,422 81,626 87,116 96,078 

PA 79,911 98,281 105,418 117,400 

RI 883 945 972 1,025 

VT 9,848 12,156 13,062 14,580 

Total 249,795 294,934 312,419 341,746 

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT

Emissions (tpy)

2002

2009 OTB/W

2012 OTB/W

2018 OTB/W
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 3 – Area Sources Page 3-16 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Table 3-6 Area Sources 

OTB/OTW Annual NOx Emission Projections 

(tons per year) 

State 2002 2009 2012 2018 

CT 12,689 13,173 13,342 13,388 

DE 2,608 2,821 2,913 3,014 

DC 1,644 1,961 2,081 2,259 

ME 7,360 7,477 7,486 7,424 

MD 15,678 16,858 17,315 18,073 

MA 34,281 35,732 36,331 37,187 

NH 10,960 11,879 12,055 12,430 

NJ 26,692 24,032 23,981 23,660 

NY 98,803 106,375 107,673 108,444 

PA 47,591 50,162 50,793 50,829 

RI 3,886 4,149 4,260 4,397 

VT 3,208 3,419 3,429 3,430 

Total 265,400 278,038 281,659 284,535 

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT

Emissions (tpy)

2002

2009 OTB/W

2012 OTB/W

2018 OTB/W
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 3 – Area Sources Page 3-17 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Table 3-7 Area Sources 

OTB/OTW Annual PM10-PRI Emission Projections 

(tons per year) 

State 2002 2009 2012 2018 

CT 48,281 48,970 49,004 49,479 

DE 13,039 13,928 14,236 14,844 

DC 3,269 3,511 3,605 3,825 

ME 168,953 175,979 179,689 189,619 

MD 95,060 105,944 110,141 117,396 

MA 192,860 198,668 200,692 204,922 

NH 43,328 46,060 47,187 49,801 

NJ 61,601 61,684 61,284 60,880 

NY 369,595 382,124 385,925 392,027 

PA 391,897 421,235 432,844 454,970 

RI 8,295 8,962 9,244 9,797 

VT 56,131 60,521 62,465 66,916 

Total 1,452,309 1,527,586 1,556,316 1,614,476 

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

500,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT

Emissions (tpy)

2002

2009 OTB/W

2012 OTB/W

2018 OTB/W
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 3 – Area Sources Page 3-18 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Table 3-8 Area Sources 

OTB/OTW Annual PM25-PRI Emission Projections 

(tons per year) 

State 2002 2009 2012 2018 

CT 14,247 13,766 13,517 13,033 

DE 3,204 3,387 3,403 3,426 

DC 805 860 879 917 

ME 32,774 33,026 33,189 33,820 

MD 27,318 28,923 29,508 30,449 

MA 42,083 43,121 43,186 43,438 

NH 17,532 17,965 18,050 18,316 

NJ 19,350 18,590 18,271 17,653 

NY 87,154 87,576 87,260 86,422 

PA 74,925 79,169 80,728 83,570 

RI 2,064 2,184 2,232 2,316 

VT 11,065 11,482 11,652 12,059 

Total 332,521 340,049 341,875 345,419 

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT

Emissions (tpy)

2002

2009 OTB/W

2012 OTB/W

2018 OTB/W
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 3 – Area Sources Page 3-19 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Table 3-9 Area Sources 

OTB/OTW Annual SO2 Emission Projections 

(tons per year) 

State 2002 2009 2012 2018 

CT 12,418 12,581 12,604 12,184 

DE 1,588 1,599 1,602 1,545 

DC 1,337 1,487 1,541 1,632 

ME 13,149 13,776 13,846 13,901 

MD 12,393 13,685 14,074 14,741 

MA 25,488 25,961 26,029 25,570 

NH 7,072 7,463 7,470 7,421 

NJ 10,744 10,672 10,697 10,510 

NY 130,409 139,589 140,154 141,408 

PA 63,679 67,535 67,446 66,363 

RI 4,557 5,024 5,189 5,398 

VT 4,087 4,646 4,687 4,764 

Total 286,921 304,018 305,339 305,437 

0

25,000

50,000

75,000

100,000

125,000

150,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT

Emissions (tpy)

2002

2009 OTB/W

2012 OTB/W

2018 OTB/W
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 3 – Area Sources Page 3-20 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Table 3-10 Area Sources 

OTB/OTW Annual VOC Emission Projections 

(tons per year) 

State 2002 2009 2012 2018 

CT 87,302 75,693 73,560 71,274 

DE 15,519 14,245 13,943 13,744 

DC 6,432 5,420 5,352 5,255 

ME 100,621 91,910 91,667 92,410 

MD 120,254 110,385 108,067 110,046 

MA 162,145 148,625 145,674 140,558 

NH 65,370 63,069 63,356 64,368 

NJ 167,882 147,617 143,752 139,626 

NY 507,292 462,811 456,856 457,421 

PA 240,785 228,444 230,393 243,421 

RI 31,402 26,695 25,548 23,561 

VT 23,265 24,068 24,635 26,198 

Total 1,528,269 1,398,982 1,382,803 1,387,882 

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

500,000

550,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT

Emissions (tpy)

2002

2009 OTB/W

2012 OTB/W

2018 OTB/W
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section4 – Nonroad Sources Page 4-1 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

4.0 NONROAD SOURCES 

The nonroad source sector is comprised of nonroad engines included in EPA’s 

NONROAD model, as well as other nonroad engines not accounted for in the NONROAD 

model, including aircraft, commercial marine vessels, and locomotive engines. The 

sections that follow describe the projection process used to develop 2009/2012/2018 

nonroad projection estimates for sources found in the NONROAD model and those 

sources estimated outside of the model (locomotives, airplanes and commercial marine 

vessels). 

4.1 NONROAD MODEL SOURCES 

NONROAD model source categories include equipment such as recreational boats and 

watercraft; recreational vehicles; farm, industrial, mining, and construction machinery; and 

lawn and garden equipment. Also included are aircraft ground support equipment and rail 

maintenance equipment. These equipment types are powered by engines using diesel, 

gasoline, compressed natural gas (CNG), and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). 

EPA released a revised version of NONROAD during December 2005 called NONROAD 

2005. EPA’s National Mobile Inventory Model (NMIM) is a consolidated modeling 

system that incorporates the NONROAD and MOBILE models, along with a county 

database of inputs. EPA also released an updated version of NMIM called NMIM2005, 

which incorporates the NONROAD2005 model. 

MACTEC utilized the NMIM2005 model to develop projections for nonroad engines 

included in the NONROAD2005 model. Projected emission estimates were calculated 

using NMIM default data. Prior to starting the NMIM2005 runs, MACTEC confirmed 

with U.S. EPA’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ) that the database used 

for fuel sulfur content, gas Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) values and reformulated fuel 

programs was current and up to date for the MANE-VU region. The information received 

from OTAQ indicated that these values were the most current. 

NMIM2005 runs were then developed for each projection year. These included 2009, 

2012 and 2018. Emission calculations were made at the monthly level and consolidated to 

provide annual values. This enabled monthly temperatures and changes in reformulated 

gas to be captured by the program. 

The NMIM/NONROAD2005 results in NIF 3.0, and ran EPA’s QA checker program to 

verify that the NIF 3.0 files were properly constructed. 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section4 – Nonroad Sources Page 4-2 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

4.2 AIRCRAFT, COMMERCIAL MARINE, AND LOCOMOTIVES 

Since aircraft, commercial marine vessels, and locomotives are not included in the 

NONROAD model, emission projections for these sources were developed separately. 

The starting point for the emission projections was Version 3 of the MANE-VU 2002 

Nonroad emission inventory (Documentation of the MANE-VU 2002 Nonroad Sector 

Emission Inventory, Version 3, Draft Technical Memorandum, March 2006). 

MACTEC’s approach to developing emission projections for these sources was to use 

combined growth and control factors developed from emission projections for U.S. EPA’s 

Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) development effort. MACTEC obtained emission 

projections developed for the CAIR rule. We then calculated the combined growth and 

control factors by determining the ratio of emissions between 2002 and each of the 

MANE-VU projection years (2009, 2012, and 2018). The CAIR emissions were available 

for 2001, 2010, 2015 and 2020. Thus, we developed intermediate year estimates using 

linear interpolation between the actual CAIR years and the MANE-VU years. 

Using this approach we developed State/county/SCC/pollutant growth/control factors for 

use in projecting the MANE-VU base year data to the year of interest. These values were 

then used to multiply times the base year value to obtain the projected values. Since the 

development of the CAIR factors included both growth and controls, no separate control 

factors were developed for these sources except where exceptions to this method were used 

for States that requested alternative growth/control methods (see below). 

Once the CAIR factors were developed, MACTEC compared the SCCs contained in the 

CAIR inventory with those used in MANE-VU. In some cases there were differences. In 

cases where a similar SCC in the CAIR inventory could be assigned to the SCC in the 

MANE-VU inventory the State/County/SCC/pollutant growth and control factor for the 

substitute was assigned to the MANE-VU SCC. If no corresponding county SCC 

substitution could be found, a State or MANE-VU regional average value for the substitute 

SCC was developed and assigned for use in projecting emissions. The substitution scheme 

was to use State values first, then MANE-VU regional values if the State value couldn’t be 

used. 

This projection method was used with three exceptions. These exceptions were: 1) 

Maryland sources, 2) DC locomotive growth and controls and 3) Logan (Boston) airport. 

Each of these sources used alternative growth and/or controls provided by the States or 

developed from current Federal rules for these sources (applies to controls only). Each of 

these is discussed below. 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section4 – Nonroad Sources Page 4-3 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

4.2.1 Maryland Non-NONROAD Source Emissions 

Maryland indicated that they would prefer to use EGAS growth factors coupled with 

Federal controls to determine projected emissions for these source categories. Maryland 

provided EGAS growth factors for use with these categories. Control values were 

developed based on Federal rules that were on the books. 

For CMV, controls were developed based on data contained in Table 1.1-2 of the 

document “Final Regulatory Support Document: Control of Emissions from New Marine 

Compression-Ignition Engines at or Above 30 Liters per Cylinder,” EPA420-R-03-004, 

January 2003. Values in that table were interpolated to develop emission estimates with 

and without controls for the MANE-VU years (and base year) and then control factors 

were calculated for those values. Only Category 3 marine engines were identified in the 

Maryland inventory and thus only NOx controls for those engines were developed. 

For locomotives, control factors for different types of locomotives were developed using 

Tables 6-2 through 6-5 of the document “Locomotive Emission Standards: Regulatory 

Support Document,” United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Mobile 

Sources, April 1998. Since these tables only showed PM controls, we assumed the same 

level of control for both PM-10 and PM-2.5. Controls for VOC, NOx and PM were 

developed using these tables. 

In addition to engine specification controls for both CMV and locomotives, we also 

developed control factors resulting from changes to diesel fuel sulfur contents. The diesel 

fuel sulfur regulations were utilized to develop controls for SO2 and PM due solely to 

changing fuel sulfur requirements. Data from Tables 3.1-6a and 3.4-8a of the document 

“Final Regulatory Analysis: Control of Emissions from Nonroad Diesel Engines,” 

EPA420-R-04-007, May 2004 were used to develop control levels created due to changes 

in fuel sulfur content. In cases where there were controls due to both engine technology 

and fuel sulfur reduction, we added the control efficiencies together to create a combined 

control efficiency. All control values are considered to be “additive”. In other words, the 

controls applied are above those found in the base year. Thus the controls were used on 

the base year emission values without back-calculation to determine uncontrolled levels 

since the controls are in addition to those controls. 

The control values were then applied along with the growth factors to the base year 

emissions for Maryland to produce the required emission projections. 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section4 – Nonroad Sources Page 4-4 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

4.2.2 DC Locomotive Emissions 

The District of Columbia emission contact provided MACTEC with alternative growth 

factors for locomotive emissions. The growth factors provided were: 

2002-2009 6.9% 

2002-2012 9.9% 

2002-2018 13.7% 

Since the CAIR factors were combined growth and controls, the control factors developed 

for locomotives for Maryland (based on Federal control programs) were used to apply 

controls to the DC locomotive emissions. As was the case for Maryland, the control 

factors were “additive” and were used on the base year emission without back-calculating 

uncontrolled emissions since the control levels were relative to controls in place for 2002. 

4.2.3 Logan (Boston) Airport Emissions 

Massachusetts supplied historic and future year projections of operations at Logan Airport. 

The data covered the period 2000-2010. Since only one year of the period required for 

MANE-VU projections was included in that interval (2009), MACTEC developed 

estimates for 2012 and 2018 from those data by linear interpolation. Two linear 

interpolations were developed. The first used the entire data set (2000-2010) to develop a 

linear projection for 2012 and 2018 and a second using just the 2002-2010 data. For the 

final growth factors, MACTEC used the average of the two. These growth factors were 

then applied to commercial aircraft operations for Suffolk County (FIPS = 25025). The 

growth factors developed were: 

2002-2009 1.184 

2002-2012 1.22 

2002-2018 1.33 

No controls that would come on board for aircraft for the projection years were identified 

from a review of Federal programs. 

4.3 NONROAD QA/QC REVIEW 

Throughout the inventory development process, quality assurance steps were performed to 

ensure that no double counting of emissions occurred, to ensure that a full and complete 

inventory was developed for MANE-VU, and to make sure that projection calculations 

were working correctly. MACTEC performed the following QA steps on nonroad source 

projection inventories: (1) All final files (NONROAD only) were run through EPA’s 

Format and Content checking software; SCC level emission summaries were prepared and 

evaluated to ensure that emissions were consistent with the 2002 projections and that there 

were no missing source categories or geographical areas. 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section4 – Nonroad Sources Page 4-5 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

4.4 NONROAD NIF, SMOKE, AND SUMMARY FILES 

The Version 3.1 files delivered to MARAMA are shown in Table 4-1. 

4.5 NONROAD EMISSION SUMMARIES 

Table 4-2a shows the CO emissions by state and year for the entire nonroad sector. Table 

4-2b presents the CO emission results for NONROAD model equipment only. Table 4-2c 

presents the CO emission results for only the aircraft, commercial marine vessel, and 

locomotive categories. Tables 4-3 to 4-8 present the emission results for the other criteria 

pollutants of interest. 

Table 4-1 Nonroad Source NIF, IDA, and Summary File Names 

File Name Date Description 

MANEVU_OTB2009_NR_NIFV3_1.mdb Oct. 23, 2006 Version 3.1 of 2009 nonroad 

source NIF inventory 

MANEVU_OTB2012_NR_NIFV3_1.mdb Oct. 23, 2006 Version 3.1 of 2012 nonroad 

source NIF inventory 

MANEVU_OTB2018_NR_NIFV3_1.mdb Oct. 23, 2006 Version 3.1 of 2018 nonroad 

source NIF inventory 

MANEVU_OTB2009_NR_IDAV3_1.txt Oct. 26, 2006 Version 3.1 of 2009 nonroad 

source inventory in SMOKE 

IDA format 

MANEVU_OTB2012_NR_IDAV3_1.txt Oct. 26, 2006 Version 3.1 of 2012 nonroad 

source inventory in SMOKE 

IDA format 

MANEVU_OTB2018_NR_IDA3V_1.txt Oct. 26, 2006 Version 3.1 of 2018 nonroad 

source inventory in SMOKE 

IDA format 

MANEVU OTB Nonroad V3_1 State Summary.xls Oct. 23, 2006 Spreadsheet with state totals by 

pollutant for all nonroad 

sources, NONROAD model 

sources, and aircraft, 

locomotives, and commercial 

marine vessels 

MANEVU OTB Nonroad V3_1 State SCC Summary.xls Oct. 23, 2006 Spreadsheet with SCC totals by 

state and pollutant for all 

nonroad sources, NONROAD 

model sources 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section4 – Nonroad Sources Page 4-6 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Table 4-2a All Nonroad Sources 

OTB/OTW Annual CO Emission Projections 

(tons per year) 

State 2002 2009 2012 2018 

CT 276,773 282,788 288,061 303,764 

DE 68,782 74,856 76,491 80,646 

DC 18,845 20,746 21,306 22,429 

ME 153,424 163,782 165,273 166,679 

MD 437,400 497,276 513,737 550,795 

MA 461,514 504,400 516,019 546,373 

NH 130,782 142,318 143,804 147,544 

NJ 704,396 753,916 777,069 831,880 

NY 1,233,968 1,349,439 1,388,406 1,474,727 

PA 931,978 1,031,816 1,058,256 1,119,247 

RI 73,013 80,228 82,113 87,195 

VT 62,248 68,360 69,003 70,074 

Total 4,553,124 4,969,925 5,099,538 5,401,353 

0

250,000

500,000

750,000

1,000,000

1,250,000

1,500,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT

Emissions (tpy)

2002

2009

2012

2018
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section4 – Nonroad Sources Page 4-7 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Table 4-2b NONROAD Model Sources 

OTB/OTW Annual CO Emission Projections 

(tons per year) 

State 2002 2009 2012 2018 

CT 274,388 280,253 285,415 300,931 

DE 65,954 71,877 73,397 77,356 

DC 18,775 20,671 21,229 22,350 

ME 148,555 158,715 160,043 161,215 

MD 424,777 482,312 497,806 532,970 

MA 448,399 490,895 501,684 530,686 

NH 128,572 139,288 140,655 144,191 

NJ 692,548 741,792 764,424 818,519 

NY 1,219,309 1,333,923 1,372,164 1,457,277 

PA 903,168 1,003,480 1,029,045 1,088,614 

RI 71,573 78,764 80,607 85,618 

VT 61,732 67,802 68,421 69,456 

Total 4,457,748 4,869,771 4,994,890 5,289,186 

0

250,000

500,000

750,000

1,000,000

1,250,000

1,500,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT

Emissions (tpy)

2002

2009

2012

2018
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section4 – Nonroad Sources Page 4-8 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Table 4-2c Aircraft, Locomotive, and Commercial Marine Sources 

OTB/OTW Annual CO Emission Projections 

(tons per year) 

State 2002 2009 2012 2018 

CT 2,385 2,535 2,646 2,833 

DE 2,828 2,979 3,094 3,290 

DC 70 75 77 79 

ME 4,868 5,067 5,230 5,464 

MD 12,624 14,964 15,931 17,825 

MA 13,116 13,505 14,335 15,687 

NH 2,211 3,030 3,149 3,353 

NJ 11,849 12,124 12,645 13,361 

NY 14,660 15,516 16,242 17,450 

PA 28,810 28,336 29,211 30,633 

RI 1,440 1,464 1,506 1,577 

VT 516 558 582 618 

Total 95,375 100,154 104,648 112,167 

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT

Emissions (tpy)

2002

2009

2012

2018
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section4 – Nonroad Sources Page 4-9 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Table 4-3a All Nonroad Sources 

OTB/OTW Annual NH3 Emission Projections 

(tons per year) 

State 2002 2009 2012 2018 

CT 17 18 19 21 

DE 5 6 6 7 

DC 2 3 3 3 

ME 11 13 14 15 

MD 28 31 33 36 

MA 28 31 33 36 

NH 9 10 11 12 

NJ 43 45 47 52 

NY 79 89 94 103 

PA 55 62 66 73 

RI 4 4 5 5 

VT 5 5 6 6 

Total 287 317 337 369 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT

Emissions (tpy)

2002

2009

2012

2018
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section4 – Nonroad Sources Page 4-10 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Table 4-3b NONROAD Model Sources 

OTB/OTW Annual NH3 Emission Projections 

(tons per year) 

State 2002 2009 2012 2018 

CT 17 18 19 21 

DE 5 6 6 6 

DC 2 3 3 3 

ME 11 13 14 15 

MD 28 31 33 36 

MA 28 31 33 36 

NH 9 10 11 12 

NJ 43 45 47 52 

NY 79 89 94 103 

PA 55 62 66 73 

RI 4 4 5 5 

VT 5 5 6 6 

Total 287 318 335 369 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT

Emissions (tpy)

2002

2009

2012

2018
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section4 – Nonroad Sources Page 4-11 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Table 4-3c Aircraft, Locomotive, and Commercial Marine Sources 

OTB/OTW Annual NH3 Emission Projections 

(tons per year) 

State 2002 2009 2012 2018 

CT 0 0 0 0 

DE 0 0 0 0 

DC 0 0 0 0 

ME 0 0 0 0 

MD 0 0 0 0 

MA 0 0 0 0 

NH 0 0 0 0 

NJ 0 0 0 0 

NY 0 0 0 0 

PA 0 0 0 0 

RI 0 0 0 0 

VT 0 0 0 0 

Total <1 <1 <1 <1 

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT

Emissions (tpy)

2002

2009

2012

2018
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section4 – Nonroad Sources Page 4-12 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Table 4-4a All Nonroad Sources 

OTB/OTW Annual NOx Emission Projections 

(tons per year) 

State 2002 2009 2012 2018 

CT 25,460 21,512 19,316 16,233 

DE 16,227 15,439 15,081 14,631 

DC 3,571 2,981 2,620 1,815 

ME 9,820 8,500 7,752 6,543 

MD 37,472 31,762 29,058 24,257 

MA 42,769 35,703 32,118 27,040 

NH 9,912 8,485 7,624 6,344 

NJ 63,479 52,703 48,234 41,166 

NY 109,878 94,186 85,852 72,400 

PA 103,824 76,105 67,818 55,771 

RI 5,002 4,022 3,470 2,723 

VT 4,217 3,452 2,992 2,262 

Total 431,631 354,850 321,935 271,185 

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT

Emissions (tpy)

2002

2009

2012

2018
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section4 – Nonroad Sources Page 4-13 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Table 4-4b NONROAD Model Sources 

OTB/OTW Annual NOx Emission Projections 

(tons per year) 

State 2002 2009 2012 2018 

CT 17,897 14,849 12,811 9,784 

DE 5,798 4,755 4,108 2,966 

DC 3,066 2,561 2,221 1,444 

ME 8,229 6,957 6,211 4,970 

MD 27,789 23,431 20,839 15,745 

MA 30,047 24,606 21,274 16,096 

NH 8,150 6,749 5,893 4,583 

NJ 43,515 34,447 30,416 23,594 

NY 78,648 66,645 58,900 45,400 

PA 62,265 49,982 42,571 30,797 

RI 4,564 3,624 3,066 2,294 

VT 4,170 3,403 2,941 2,205 

Total 294,138 242,009 211,252 159,877 

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT

Emissions (tpy)

2002

2009

2012

2018
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section4 – Nonroad Sources Page 4-14 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Table 4-4c Aircraft, Locomotive, and Commercial Marine Sources 

OTB/OTW Annual NOx Emission Projections 

(tons per year) 

State 2002 2009 2012 2018 

CT 7,563 6,663 6,505 6,449 

DE 10,428 10,684 10,973 11,665 

DC 505 420 399 371 

ME 1,592 1,543 1,541 1,573 

MD 9,683 8,331 8,219 8,512 

MA 12,722 11,097 10,844 10,944 

NH 1,763 1,736 1,731 1,761 

NJ 19,964 18,256 17,818 17,572 

NY 31,230 27,541 26,952 27,000 

PA 41,559 26,123 25,247 24,974 

RI 438 398 404 429 

VT 47 49 51 57 

Total 137,493 112,841 110,683 111,308 

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT

Emissions (tpy)

2002

2009

2012

2018
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section4 – Nonroad Sources Page 4-15 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Table 4-5a All Nonroad Sources 

OTB/OTW Annual PM10-PRI Emission Projections 

(tons per year) 

State 2002 2009 2012 2018 

CT 1,952 1,642 1,532 1,236 

DE 1,021 947 940 897 

DC 310 235 209 135 

ME 1,437 1,367 1,301 1,086 

MD 4,936 4,353 4,191 3,814 

MA 3,531 2,964 2,768 2,246 

NH 1,058 944 881 698 

NJ 5,495 4,539 4,233 3,489 

NY 9,605 8,050 7,425 5,830 

PA 9,738 8,501 8,112 6,949 

RI 500 435 414 348 

VT 530 476 439 331 

Total 40,114 34,453 32,445 27,059 

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT

Emissions (tpy)

2002

2009

2012

2018
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section4 – Nonroad Sources Page 4-16 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Table 4-5b NONROAD Model Sources 

OTB/OTW Annual PM10-PRI Emission Projections 

(tons per year) 

State 2002 2009 2012 2018 

CT 1,713 1,407 1,295 987 

DE 570 456 414 301 

DC 298 226 200 127 

ME 1,204 1,119 1,039 797 

MD 3,119 2,534 2,321 1,782 

MA 2,887 2,370 2,176 1,640 

NH 947 834 769 581 

NJ 4,285 3,424 3,143 2,411 

NY 8,339 6,871 6,248 4,624 

PA 6,282 5,282 4,839 3,574 

RI 403 337 314 244 

VT 518 462 425 316 

Total 30,565 25,321 23,182 17,385 

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT

Emissions (tpy)

2002

2009

2012

2018
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section4 – Nonroad Sources Page 4-17 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Table 4-5c Aircraft, Locomotive, and Commercial Marine Sources 

OTB/OTW Annual PM10-PRI Emission Projections 

(tons per year) 

State 2002 2009 2012 2018 

CT 239 235 237 249 

DE 451 491 526 596 

DC 12 9 9 8 

ME 233 248 262 289 

MD 1,817 1,819 1,870 2,032 

MA 644 594 592 606 

NH 111 110 112 117 

NJ 1,210 1,115 1,090 1,078 

NY 1,266 1,179 1,177 1,206 

PA 3,456 3,219 3,273 3,375 

RI 97 98 100 104 

VT 12 14 14 15 

Total 9,549 9,132 9,263 9,674 

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT

Emissions (tpy)

2002

2009

2012

2018
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section4 – Nonroad Sources Page 4-18 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Table 4-6a All Nonroad Sources 

OTB/OTW Annual PM25-PRI Emission Projections 

(tons per year) 

State 2002 2009 2012 2018 

CT 1,794 1,508 1,408 1,135 

DE 926 856 849 808 

DC 299 216 192 124 

ME 1,329 1,238 1,177 978 

MD 4,357 3,806 3,653 3,301 

MA 3,226 2,710 2,531 2,052 

NH 965 861 802 634 

NJ 4,997 4,113 3,829 3,143 

NY 8,821 7,390 6,815 5,349 

PA 8,440 7,274 6,900 5,808 

RI 443 383 364 303 

VT 486 436 402 303 

Total 36,084 30,791 28,922 23,938 

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT

Emissions (tpy)

2002

2009

2012

2018
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section4 – Nonroad Sources Page 4-19 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Table 4-6b NONROAD Model Sources 

OTB/OTW Annual PM25-PRI Emission Projections 

(tons per year) 

State 2002 2009 2012 2018 

CT 1,578 1,296 1,193 911 

DE 525 420 381 277 

DC 288 208 184 117 

ME 1,135 1,030 956 734 

MD 2,870 2,333 2,137 1,641 

MA 2,659 2,184 2,005 1,512 

NH 872 768 708 536 

NJ 3,951 3,154 2,896 2,223 

NY 7,677 6,327 5,755 4,262 

PA 5,784 4,866 4,459 3,296 

RI 371 311 290 226 

VT 477 426 391 292 

Total 28,186 23,321 21,356 16,027 

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT

Emissions (tpy)

2002

2009

2012

2018
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section4 – Nonroad Sources Page 4-20 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Table 4-6c Aircraft, Locomotive, and Commercial Marine Sources 

OTB/OTW Annual PM25-PRI Emission Projections 

(tons per year) 

State 2002 2009 2012 2018 

CT 216 212 215 224 

DE 401 436 468 531 

DC 11 8 8 7 

ME 194 208 221 244 

MD 1,487 1,473 1,516 1,660 

MA 568 526 526 540 

NH 94 93 94 98 

NJ 1,047 959 933 920 

NY 1,144 1,063 1,060 1,087 

PA 2,656 2,408 2,441 2,512 

RI 72 72 74 77 

VT 9 10 11 11 

Total 7,898 7,470 7,566 7,911 

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT

Emissions (tpy)

2002

2009

2012

2018
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section4 – Nonroad Sources Page 4-21 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Table 4-7a All Nonroad Sources 

OTB/OTW Annual SO2 Emission Projections 

(tons per year) 

State 2002 2009 2012 2018 

CT 2,087 887 711 815 

DE 3,983 2,851 2,834 3,296 

DC 375 66 9 5 

ME 917 201 82 82 

MD 7,942 1,638 706 577 

MA 3,791 983 470 442 

NH 891 310 218 246 

NJ 15,686 3,508 1,253 832 

NY 12,920 3,387 1,724 1,686 

PA 7,915 1,659 667 607 

RI 377 93 42 42 

VT 372 68 15 13 

Total 57,257 15,651 8,731 8,643 

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT

Emissions (tpy)

2002

2009

2012

2018
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section4 – Nonroad Sources Page 4-22 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Table 4-7b NONROAD Model Sources 

OTB/OTW Annual SO2 Emission Projections 

(tons per year) 

State 2002 2009 2012 2018 

CT 1,377 249 39 28 

DE 513 90 12 8 

DC 341 59 6 3 

ME 772 132 24 19 

MD 2,569 452 63 42 

MA 2,428 429 66 47 

NH 673 119 20 16 

NJ 3,525 607 93 67 

NY 6,966 1,208 182 130 

PA 5,292 917 135 92 

RI 336 60 10 7 

VT 368 64 10 8 

Total 25,159 4,387 661 467 

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT

Emissions (tpy)

2002

2009

2012

2018
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section4 – Nonroad Sources Page 4-23 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Table 4-7c Aircraft, Locomotive, and Commercial Marine Sources 

OTB/OTW Annual SO2 Emission Projections 

(tons per year) 

State 2002 2009 2012 2018 

CT 711 638 672 787 

DE 3,470 2,761 2,822 3,288 

DC 34 7 3 2 

ME 145 69 58 63 

MD 5,372 1,186 643 535 

MA 1,363 554 404 395 

NH 218 191 198 230 

NJ 12,161 2,901 1,160 765 

NY 5,953 2,179 1,542 1,556 

PA 2,623 742 532 515 

RI 42 33 32 35 

VT 5 4 5 5 

Total 32,097 11,264 8,070 8,176 

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT

Emissions (tpy)

2002

2009

2012

2018
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section4 – Nonroad Sources Page 4-24 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Table 4-8a All Nonroad Sources 

OTB/OTW Annual VOC Emission Projections 

(tons per year) 

State 2002 2009 2012 2018 

CT 33,880 24,910 22,657 20,694 

DE 8,010 6,440 6,044 5,653 

DC 2,073 1,559 1,438 1,369 

ME 31,144 29,445 27,093 21,988 

MD 56,330 43,260 40,266 37,969 

MA 56,749 43,429 39,713 36,306 

NH 22,377 19,651 17,933 15,003 

NJ 83,919 62,920 57,769 53,625 

NY 157,612 128,421 117,770 104,562 

PA 102,331 84,744 78,630 69,956 

RI 7,780 6,038 5,640 5,389 

VT 10,548 10,105 9,304 7,566 

Total 572,751 460,922 424,257 380,080 

0

30,000

60,000

90,000

120,000

150,000

180,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT

Emissions (tpy)

2002

2009

2012

2018
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section4 – Nonroad Sources Page 4-25 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Table 4-8b NONROAD Model Sources 

OTB/OTW Annual VOC Emission Projections 

(tons per year) 

State 2002 2009 2012 2018 

CT 33,519 24,546 22,286 20,308 

DE 7,531 5,943 5,533 5,115 

DC 2,053 1,540 1,419 1,351 

ME 30,741 29,030 26,669 21,547 

MD 53,035 39,731 36,638 34,106 

MA 54,836 41,473 37,706 34,185 

NH 22,238 19,476 17,752 14,810 

NJ 81,900 60,878 55,682 51,451 

NY 155,475 126,265 115,553 102,224 

PA 99,241 82,094 75,941 67,186 

RI 7,699 5,956 5,556 5,302 

VT 10,520 10,076 9,273 7,533 

Total 558,788 447,006 410,009 365,117 

0

30,000

60,000

90,000

120,000

150,000

180,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT

Emissions (tpy)

2002

2009

2012

2018
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section4 – Nonroad Sources Page 4-26 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Table 4-8c Aircraft, Locomotive, and Commercial Marine Sources 

OTB/OTW Annual VOC Emission Projections 

(tons per year) 

State 2002 2009 2012 2018 

CT 361 364 371 386 

DE 480 497 511 538 

DC 20 19 19 18 

ME 403 415 424 441 

MD 3,295 3,529 3,628 3,863 

MA 1,913 1,956 2,007 2,121 

NH 139 175 181 193 

NJ 2,019 2,042 2,087 2,174 

NY 2,137 2,156 2,217 2,338 

PA 3,090 2,650 2,689 2,770 

RI 81 82 84 87 

VT 27 29 31 33 

Total 13,964 13,916 14,248 14,963 

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT

Emissions (tpy)

2002

2009

2012

2018
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-1 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

5.0 BEYOND-ON-THE-WAY EMISSION INVENTORY 

The States are considering additional control measures as part of their planning to achieve 

regional haze goals and to attain the ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS). To accomplish this, many of the states will need to implement 

additional measures to reduce emissions. As such, the Ozone Transport Commission 

(OTC) undertook an exercise to identify a suite of additional control measures that could 

be used by the states in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR) in attaining their air quality 

goals. 

Based on the analyses conducted by various OTC Workgroups, the OTC Commissioners 

made several recommendations at the Commissioner’s meeting in Boston on June 7, 2006: 

• Memorandum of Understanding Among the States of the Ozone Transport 

Commission on a Regional Strategy Concerning the Integrated Control of Ozone 

Precursors from Various Sources 

• Resolution 06-02 of the Ozone Transport Commission Concerning Coordination 

and Implementation of Regional Ozone Control Strategies for Certain Source 

Categories 

• Statement of the Ozone Transport Commission Concerning Multi-Pollutant 

Emission Control of Electric Generating Units 

• Resolution 06-03 of the Ozone Transport Commission Concerning Federal 

Guidance and Rulemaking for Nationally-Relevant Ozone Control Measures 

The Commissioners recommended that States consider emission reductions from the 

following source categories: 

• Consumer Products 

• Portable Fuel Containers 

• Adhesives and Sealants Application 

• Diesel Engine Chip Reflash 

• Cutback and Emulsified Asphalt Paving 

• Asphalt Production Plants 

• Cement Kilns 

• Glass Furnaces 

• Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional (ICI) Boilers 

• Regional Fuels 

• Electric Generating Units (EGUs) 

This suite of controls for the above source categories constitutes a “beyond-on-the-way” 

(BOTW) scenario to be used in modeling ozone, fine particles, and regional haze in the 

OTR and MANE-VU regions. 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-2 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

For the MANE-VU modeling inventory, each state was asked to complete a matrix to 

identify which of the above source category control measures to include and in which years 

the control measure should be applied. This section documents the emission reductions 

anticipated to result from the implementation of the above control measures based on the 

state recommendations for measures to include for each state, source category, and 

projection year. There are five subsections discussing the control measure and emission 

reductions for the five source category sectors: nonEGU point sources, area sources, 

EGUs, onroad mobile sources, and nonroad mobile sources. 

5.1 NONEGU POINT SOURCES 

This Section describes the analysis of the control measures to reduce emissions from nonEGU point sources. The control measures included in this analysis reduce emissions for 

the following pollutants and nonEGU point source categories: 

• NOx measures: asphalt production plants; cement kilns; glass and fiberglass 

furnaces; low sulfur heating oil for commercial and institutional units; and ICI 

boilers (natural gas, #2 fuel oil, #4/#6 fuel oil, and coal); 

• Primary PM10 and PM2.5 measure: commercial heating oil; 

• SO2 measures: commercial heating oil and ICI boilers (#2 fuel oil, #4/#6 fuel oil, 

and coal); and 

• VOC measure: adhesives and sealants application; 

For the MANE-VU modeling inventory, each state was asked to complete a matrix to 

identify which nonEGU control measures to include and in which years the control 

measure should be applied. Table 5.1 summarizes the staff recommendations for NOx 

control measures to include in the BOTW regional modeling inventory for non-EGU 

source categories (except ICI boilers). Table 5.2 summarizes the staff recommendations 

for NOx emission reductions for ICI boilers. Tables 5.3 and 5.4 summarize the staff 

recommendations for control measures to include in the BOTW regional modeling 

inventory for SO2 and VOC emissions, respectively. The following subsections describe 

the emission reductions anticipated for each of the control measures. 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-3 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Table 5.1 State Staff Recommendations for Control Measures to Include in BOTW 

Regional Modeling – NOx Emissions from NonEGU Point Sources 

Asphalt 

Production Plants Cement Kilns 

Glass and 

Fiberglass 

Furnaces 

Commercial & 

Institutional 

Heating Oil 

State 2009 2012 2018 2009 2012 2018 2009 2012 2018 2009 2012 2018 

CT Yes Yes Yes N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A No No Yes 

DE No No No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A No No No 

DC Yes Yes Yes N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A No Yes Yes 

ME No No No Yes Yes Yes N/A N/A N/A No Yes Yes 

MD No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes 

MA No No No N/A N/A N/A Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes 

NH No No No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A No No Yes 

NJ No Yes Yes N/A N/A N/A No Yes2 Yes2 No Yes Yes 

NY Yes Yes Yes Yes1 Yes1 Yes1 Yes2 Yes3 Yes3 No Yes Yes 

PA No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes 

RI No No No N/A N/A N/A No No No No Yes Yes 

VT No No No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A No No No 

Yes - Include emission reductions from control measure in modeling inventory 

No - Do not include emission reduction from control measure in modeling inventory 

N/A – No facilities of this type located in the state 

1) New York specified that a 40 percent NOx reduction from cement kilns should be used. 

2) New Jersey specified a 20 percent NOx reduction from glass furnaces in 2012 and a 35 percent 

reduction in 2018. 

3) New York specified a 70 percent NOx reduction from glass furnaces beginning in 2009. 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-4 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Table 5.2 State Staff Recommendations for Control Measures to Include in BOTW 

Regional Modeling – NOx Emissions from ICI Boilers 

ICI Boilers 

< 25 mmBTU/hour 

ICI Boilers 

25-50 mmBtu/hour 

ICI Boilers 

50-100 

mmBtu/hour 

ICI Boilers 

100-250 

mmBtu/hour 

ICI Boilers 

>250 mmBtu/hour 

(see note 7) 

State 2009 2012 2018 2009 2012 2018 2009 2012 2018 2009 2012 2018 2009 2012 2018 

CT Yes1 Yes1 Yes1 Yes1 Yes1 Yes1 Yes1 Yes1 Yes1 Yes1 Yes1 Yes1 No No No

DE No No No No No No No No No Yes4 Yes4 Yes4 No No No

DC No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No

ME No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No

MD No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes No No No

MA No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No

NH No No No Yes5 Yes5 Yes5 Yes Yes Yes Yes5 Yes5 Yes5 No No No

NJ Yes2 Yes2 Yes2 No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No

NY Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No

PA No3 No3 No3 No3 No3 No3 No3 No3 No3 No6 No6 No6 No No No

RI No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No

VT No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No

Yes - Include emission reductions from control measure in modeling inventory 

No - Do not include emission reduction from control measure in modeling inventory 

N/A – No facilities of this type located in the state 

1) Connecticut is now pursuing adoption of model rule for boilers of all sizes at major and non-major sources 

2) New Jersey specified a 5 percent reduction in 2009, 10 percent in 2012, and 10 percent in 2018 

3) Pennsylvania specified no reductions since sources already covered by statewide NOx RACT regulation 

4) Delaware is developing regulation for ICI boilers greater than 200 mmBtu/hour – no plans for regulating 

smaller units 

5) New Hampshire specified a 40 percent reduction for 25-50 mmBtu/hour boilers, and a 10 percent reduction for 

natural gas-fired 100-250 mmBtu/hour boilers 

6) Pennsylvania specified no reductions since sources in the 5-county Philadelphia area are already covered by the 

Small Sources of NOx regulation and do not plan on expanding the regulation outside of the corridor at this 

time 

7) Resolution 06-02 specified the reduction for > 250mmBtu/hour boilers to be the “same as EGUs of similar 

size.” The OTC Commissioners have not yet recommended an emission rate or percent reduction for EGUs. 

As a result, no reductions for ICI boilers > 250 mmBtu/hour were included in the BOTW inventory. 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-5 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Table 5.3 State Staff Recommendations for Control Measures to Include in BOTW 

Regional Modeling – SO2 Emissions from NonEGU Point Sources 

 Commercial & 

Institutional 

Heating Oil 

ICI Boilers 

(low sulfur fuel) 

State 2009 2012 2018 2009 2012 2018 

CT No No Yes No No No 

DE No No No No No No 

DC No Yes Yes No No No 

ME No Yes Yes No No No 

MD No Yes Yes No No No 

MA No Yes Yes No No No 

NH No No Yes No No No 

NJ No Yes Yes No No No 

NY No Yes Yes No No No 

PA No Yes Yes No No No 

RI No Yes Yes No No No 

VT No No No No No No 

Yes - Include emission reductions from control measure in modeling inventory 

No - Do not include emission reduction from control measure in modeling inventory 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-6 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Table 5.4 State Staff Recommendations for Control Measures to Include in BOTW 

Regional Modeling – VOC Emissions from NonEGU Point Sources 

 Adhesives and 

Sealants 

Application 

State 2009 2012 2018 

CT Yes Yes Yes 

DE Yes Yes Yes 

DC Yes Yes Yes 

ME Yes Yes Yes 

MD Yes Yes Yes 

MA Yes Yes Yes 

NH No Yes Yes 

NJ No1 No1 No1

NY Yes Yes Yes 

PA Yes Yes Yes 

RI Yes Yes Yes 

VT No No No 

Yes - Include emission reductions from control measure in modeling inventory 

No - Do not include emission reduction from control measure in modeling inventory 

1) New Jersey indicated that the reductions from the adhesives and sealants application 

control measure should only apply to area source - no reductions for point sources (SCC 4-

02-007-xx) were included due to inventory double-counting issues, not due to rule change 

issues. 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-7 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

5.1.1 Adhesives and Sealants Application 

The OTC 2006 model rule for adhesives and 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. 

Adhesive and sealant emission sources are classified as both point sources and area 

sources. About 96 percent of adhesive and sealant VOC emissions in the OTC states fall 

into the area source category. The remaining four percent of the VOC emissions are 

included in the point source inventory. 

The emission reduction benefit estimation methodology is based on information developed 

and used by CARB for their RACT/BARCT determination in 1998. For point sources, we 

first identified those sources that were applying adhesives and sealants (using the source 

classification code of 4-02-007-xx, adhesives application). Next, we reviewed the 

MANEVU 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 addon air pollution control equipment; therefore, no additional reductions were calculated for 

these sources. For point sources without add-on control equipment, we used the 64.4 

percent reduction based on the CARB determination. 

5.1.2 Asphalt Production Plants 

In Resolution 06-02, the OTC Commissioners recommended that OTC member states 

pursue as necessary and appropriate state-specific rulemakings or other implementation 

methods to establish emission reduction percentages, emission rates or technologies that 

would result in about a 35 percent reduction in NOx emissions. The reductions estimated 

for this category only include emissions included in the MANE-VU point source emission 

inventory. Only emissions from major point sources are typically included in the MANEVU point source database. Emissions from non-major sources are not explicitly contained 

in the area source inventory; rather, the emissions from non-major asphalt plants are likely 

lumped together in the general area source industrial and commercial fuel use category. 

Therefore, there is some uncertainty regarding the actual reductions that will occur as since 

minor sources are not specifically identified in the MANE-VU inventory. 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-8 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

5.1.3 Cement Kilns 

In Resolution 06-02, the OTC Commissioners recommended that OTC member states 

pursue as necessary and appropriate state-specific rulemakings or other implementation 

methods to establish emission reduction percentages, emission rates or technologies that 

would result in about a 60 percent reduction in NOx emissions from uncontrolled levels. 

Cement kilns were already included in Phase I of the NOx SIP call. Emission reductions 

resulting from the NOx SIP call were accounted for in the 2009 OTB inventory. For the 

cement kilns in Maryland and New York, a default control efficiency value of 25 percent 

was applied to account for the reductions expected from the NOx SIP call. For the cement 

kilns in Pennsylvania, the state provided their best estimates of the actual control 

efficiency expected for each kiln after the NOx SIP Call. There is a cement kiln in Maine, 

but it is not subject to the NOx SIP call. To calculate the additional reductions from the 

OTC 2006 Control Measure, MACTEC back calculated uncontrolled emissions from the 

2009 base year inventory based on the controls applied to account for the NOx SIP Call. 

Once the uncontrolled emissions were calculated, MACTEC applied the 60 percent 

emission reduction guideline recommended by the OTC Commissioners, except for the 

kilns in New York. Staff from New York indicated that a 40 percent emission reduction 

should be used for modeling purposes. 

5.1.4 Glass and Fiberglass Furnaces 

In Resolution 06-02, the OTC Commissioners recommended that OTC member states 

pursue as necessary and appropriate state-specific rulemakings or other implementation 

methods to establish emission reduction percentages, emission rates or technologies that 

would result in about an 85 percent reduction in NOx emissions from uncontrolled levels. 

The NOx emission reduction benefit was calculated by applying an 85 percent reduction to 

the projected 2009 base inventory, except in New Jersey and New York. New Jersey 

specified a 20 percent NOx reduction from glass furnaces in 2012 and a 35 percent 

reduction in 2018. New York specified a 70 percent NOx reduction from glass furnaces 

beginning in 2009. The estimated 85% reductions does not take into account existing 

controls at the facilities. The OTC states are currently working with the glass industry to 

obtain additional data to better identify the controls already in place. This will allow for a 

better calculation of the emission reduction benefits. 

5.1.5 Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers 

In 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 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-9 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

boilers based on guidelines that varied by boiler size and fuel type. Specifically, the 

following guidelines were provided: 

 NOx Reduction from 2009 Base Emissions by Fuel Type 

Boiler Size 

(mmBtu/hour) Natural Gas #2 Fuel Oil #4/#6 Fuel Oil Coal 

< 25 10 10 10 10 

25 to 50 50 50 50 50* 

50 to 100 10 10 10 10* 

100 to 250 75 40 40 40* 

>250 **   **  

* Resolution 06-02 did not specify a percent reduction for coal; for modeling purposes, the same percent 

reduction specified for #4/#6 fuel oil was used for coal 

** Resolution 06-02 specified the reduction for > 250mmBtu/hour boilers to be the “same as EGUs of similar 

size.” The OTC Commissioners have not yet recommended an emission rate or percent reduction for 

EGUs. As a result, no reductions for ICI boilers > 250 mmBtu/hour were included in the BOTW inventory. 

Since the above guidelines vary by boiler size and fuel type, the specific percent reduction 

applied to an individual 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. MACTEC used 

the following hierarchy 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 State/local agencies to fill in the data gaps 

(Allegheny County, District of Columbia, Maryland, New Jersey, Philadephia 

County); 

• 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 

describes a 10-100 mmBtu/hr natural gas-fired boiler) 

After performing this gap-filling exercise, MACTEC was able to assign over 97 percent of 

the NOx emissions to a specific boiler size range. For the remaining sources where 

MACTEC could not determine the boiler size (which accounted for only 3 percent of the 

NOx emissions), MACTEC assumed that these boilers were < 25 mmBtu/hr. 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-10 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

5.1.6 Commercial and Institutional Heating Oil 

The BOTW control measure for heating oil is based on NESCAUM’s report entitled “Low 

Sulfur Heating Oil in the Northeast States: An Overview of Benefits, Costs and 

Implementation Issues.” NESCAUM estimates that reducing the sulfur content of heating 

oil from 2,500 ppm to 500 ppm lowers SO2 emissions by 75 percent, PM emissions by 80 

percent, NOx emissions by 10 percent. The 500 ppm sulfur heating oil is not expected to 

available on a widespread basis until 2012 at the earliest. These percent reductions were 

applied to commercial distillate oil category (SCC 1-03-005-xx and 1-05-002-05). These 

percent reductions were applied based on the state’s recommendations in the matrix which 

identifies control measures to include and in which years the control measure should be 

accounted for in the modeling inventory. 

5.1.7 BOTW NonEGU Point Source NIF, SMOKE, and Summary Files 

The Version 3.1 file names and descriptions delivered to MARAMA are shown in Table 5-

5. 

Table E-1 shows the anticipated percent reductions by SCC and year for the nonEGU point 

source BOTW control measures. 

5.1.8 BOTW NonEGU Point Source Emission Summaries 

Emission summaries by state, year, and pollutant are presented in Tables 5-6 through 5-12 

for CO, NH3, NOx, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI, SO2, and VOC, respectively. 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-11 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Table 5-5 BOTW NonEGU Point Source NIF, IDA, and Summary File Names 

File Name Date Description 

MANEVU_BOTW2009_NonEGU_NIFV3_1.mdb Dec. 4, 2006 Version 3.1 of 2009 BOTW 

nonEGU source NIF inventory 

MANEVU_BOTW2012_NonEGU_NIFV3_1.mdb Dec. 4, 2006 Version 3.1 of 2012 BOTW 

nonEGU source NIF inventory 

MANEVU_BOTW2018_NonEGU_NIFV3_1.mdb Dec. 4, 2006 Version 3.1 of 2018 BOTW 

nonEGU source NIF inventory 

MANEVU_BOTW2009_NonEGU_IDAV3_1.txt Nov. 22, 2006 Version 3.1 of 2009 BOTW 

nonEGU source inventory in 

SMOKE IDA format 

MANEVU_BOTW2012_NonEGU_IDAV3_1.txt Nov. 22, 2006 Version 3.1 of 2012 BOTW 

nonEGU source inventory in 

SMOKE IDA format 

MANEVU_BOTW2018_NonEGU_IDA3V_1.txt Nov. 22, 2006 Version 3.1 of 2018 BOTW 

nonEGU source inventory in 

SMOKE IDA format 

MANEVU OTB BOTW NonEGU V3_1 State 

Summary.xls 

Nov. 22, 2006 Spreadsheet with state totals by 

pollutant for all nonEGU 

sources 

MANEVU OTB BOTW NonEGU V3_1 State SCC 

Summary.xls 

Dec. 4, 2006 Spreadsheet with SCC totals by 

state and pollutant for all 

nonEGU sources. 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-12 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Table 5-6 NonEGU Point Sources 

OTB/OTW and BOTW Annual CO Emission Projections 

(tons per year) 

2002 

2009 

OTB/W 

2009 

BOTW 

2012 

OTB/W 

2012 

BOTW 

2018 

OTB/W 

2018 

BOTW 

CT 2,157 2,251 2,251 2,306 2,306 2,415 2,415

DE 8,812 9,037 9,037 8,748 8,748 8,651 8,651

DC 247 283 283 299 299 327 327

ME 9,043 10,147 10,147 10,467 10,467 11,433 11,433

MD 94,536 104,012 104,012 111,174 111,174 141,342 141,342

MA 10,793 12,027 12,027 12,552 12,552 13,426 13,426

NH 774 858 858 871 871 907 907

NJ 8,209 10,076 10,076 10,806 10,806 12,244 12,244

NY 53,259 61,411 61,411 65,541 65,541 78,876 78,876

PA 105,815 116,430 116,430 121,251 121,251 140,908 140,908

RI 1,712 1,764 1,764 1,821 1,821 1,927 1,927

VT 220 250 250 254 254 267 267

Total 295,577 328,546 328,546 346,090 346,090 412,723 412,723

No BOTW controls were considered for CO. 

0

25,000

50,000

75,000

100,000

125,000

150,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT

Emissions (tpy)

2002

2009 OTB/W

2009 BOTW

2012 OTB/W

2012 BOTW

2018 OTB/W

2018 BOTW
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-13 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Table 5-7 NonEGU Point Sources 

OTB/OTW and BOTW Annual NH3 Emission Projections 

(tons per year) 

2002 

2009 

OTB/W 

2009 

BOTW 

2012 

OTB/W 

2012 

BOTW 

2018 

OTB/W 

2018 

BOTW 

CT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

DE 153 145 145 138 138 134 134

DC 4 5 5 5 5 5 5

ME 700 796 796 809 809 859 859

MD 305 347 347 366 366 410 410

MA 462 510 510 521 521 563 563

NH 37 46 46 50 50 60 60

NJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NY 1,027 1,081 1,081 1,128 1,128 1,296 1,296

PA 1,170 1,307 1,307 1,363 1,363 1,591 1,591

RI 58 64 64 68 68 68 68

VT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 3,916 4,301 4,301 4,448 4,448 4,986 4,986

No BOTW controls were considered for NH3. 

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT

Emissions (tpy)

2002

2009 OTB/W

2009 BOTW

2012 OTB/W

2012 BOTW

2018 OTB/W

2018 BOTW
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-14 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Table 5-8 NonEGU Point Sources 

OTB/OTW and BOTW Annual NOx Emission Projections 

(tons per year) 

2002 

2009 

OTB/W 

2009 

BOTW 

2012 

OTB/W 

2012 

BOTW 

2018 

OTB/W 

2018 

BOTW 

CT 6,773 7,236 6,820 7,465 7,047 7,921 7,501

DE 4,372 4,076 4,076 4,135 4,135 4,246 4,246

DC 480 548 548 577 577 627 627

ME 12,108 14,285 12,914 14,661 13,183 15,753 14,137

MD 21,940 19,401 16,015 20,399 16,819 22,797 18,888

MA 18,292 20,603 20,047 21,372 20,768 23,040 22,301

NH 1,188 1,384 1,120 1,394 1,131 1,435 1,169

NJ 15,812 16,498 16,463 17,091 15,901 18,805 17,464

NY 34,253 33,648 28,529 34,586 29,256 37,133 31,305

PA 89,136 89,932 76,215 93,526 72,779 103,137 79,186

RI 2,308 2,449 2,449 2,471 2,471 2,442 2,442

VT 386 462 462 460 460 466 466

Total 207,048 210,522 185,658 218,137 184,527 237,802 199,732

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT

Emissions (tpy)

2002

2009 OTB/W

2009 BOTW

2012 OTB/W

2012 BOTW

2018 OTB/W

2018 BOTW
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-15 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Table 5-9 NonEGU Point Sources 

OTB/OTW and BOTW Annual PM10-PRI Emission Projections 

(tons per year) 

2002 

2009 

OTB/W 

2009 

BOTW 

2012 

OTB/W 

2012 

BOTW 

2018 

OTB/W 

2018 

BOTW 

CT 990 1,035 1,035 1,058 1,058 1,106 1,104

DE 1,820 1,486 1,486 1,475 1,475 1,487 1,487

DC 157 178 178 186 182 198 194

ME 6,120 7,088 7,088 7,133 7,114 7,496 7,477

MD 4,739 4,797 4,797 5,040 5,039 5,828 5,827

MA 4,212 5,006 5,006 5,088 5,004 5,314 5,227

NH 918 1,084 1,084 1,097 1,097 1,129 1,129

NJ 3,439 4,205 4,205 4,417 4,412 4,959 4,953

NY 5,072 5,221 5,221 5,444 5,395 6,098 6,048

PA 23,282 25,169 25,169 26,307 26,258 29,516 29,466

RI 296 333 333 331 318 330 316

VT 235 267 267 272 272 296 296

Total 51,280 55,869 55,869 57,848 57,624 63,757 63,524

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT

Emissions (tpy)

2002

2009 OTB/W

2009 BOTW

2012 OTB/W

2012 BOTW

2018 OTB/W

2018 BOTW
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-16 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Table 5-10 NonEGU Point Sources 

OTB/OTW and BOTW Annual PM25-PRI Emission Projections 

(tons per year) 

2002 

2009 

OTB/W 

2009 

BOTW 

2012 

OTB/W 

2012 

BOTW 

2018 

OTB/W 

2018 

BOTW 

CT 822 871 871 894 894 939 937

DE 1,606 1,256 1,256 1,245 1,245 1,254 1,254

DC 128 145 145 152 149 164 161

ME 4,899 5,675 5,675 5,690 5,678 5,935 5,922

MD 2,772 2,861 2,861 3,011 3,010 3,503 3,501

MA 2,953 3,554 3,554 3,574 3,510 3,660 3,594

NH 857 1,008 1,008 1,021 1,021 1,052 1,052

NJ 2,947 3,588 3,588 3,764 3,760 4,234 4,230

NY 3,355 3,535 3,535 3,688 3,646 4,161 4,117

PA 12,360 13,578 13,578 14,159 14,114 15,878 15,831

RI 180 200 200 198 188 194 184

VT 198 226 226 229 229 246 246

Total 33,077 36,497 36,497 37,625 37,444 41,220 41,029

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT

Emissions (tpy)

2002

2009 OTB/W

2009 BOTW

2012 OTB/W

2012 BOTW

2018 OTB/W

2018 BOTW
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-17 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Table 5-11 NonEGU Point Sources 

OTB/OTW and BOTW Annual SO2 Emission Projections 

(tons per year) 

2002 

2009 

OTB/W 

2009 

BOTW 

2012 

OTB/W 

2012 

BOTW 

2018 

OTB/W 

2018 

BOTW 

CT 2,438 2,528 2,528 2,567 2,567 2,644 2,596

DE 35,706 7,117 7,117 7,401 7,401 7,610 7,610

DC 618 707 707 735 533 780 554

ME 14,412 18,656 18,656 18,492 18,393 18,794 18,692

MD 34,193 34,223 34,223 35,373 35,342 38,921 38,886

MA 14,766 18,185 18,185 18,442 17,305 18,955 17,778

NH 2,436 3,099 3,099 3,098 3,098 3,114 3,099

NJ 9,797 7,141 7,141 7,234 7,196 7,855 7,816

NY 58,227 62,922 62,922 64,484 64,432 67,545 67,491

PA 88,259 90,735 90,735 93,441 93,206 99,924 99,681

RI 2,651 3,163 3,163 3,182 3,018 3,164 3,000

VT 874 1,182 1,182 1,147 1,147 1,127 1,127

Total 264,377 249,658 249,658 255,596 253,638 270,433 268,330

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT

Emissions (tpy)

2002

2009 OTB/W

2009 BOTW

2012 OTB/W

2012 BOTW

2018 OTB/W

2018 BOTW
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-18 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Table 5-12 NonEGU Point Sources 

OTB/OTW and BOTW Annual VOC Emission Projections 

(tons per year) 

2002 

2009 

OTB/W 

2009 

BOTW 

2012 

OTB/W 

2012 

BOTW 

2018 

OTB/W 

2018 

BOTW 

CT 4,604 4,114 4,111 4,152 4,149 4,230 4,227

DE 4,645 2,987 2,981 2,311 2,305 1,993 1,987

DC 69 72 72 75 75 85 85

ME 4,477 4,740 4,740 4,985 4,985 5,709 5,708

MD 5,676 5,297 5,279 5,578 5,559 6,301 6,279

MA 7,794 8,381 8,273 9,061 8,940 10,564 10,418

NH 1,459 1,060 1,005 1,132 1,069 1,294 1,219

NJ 13,318 16,702 16,702 17,621 17,621 19,915 19,915

NY 9,933 10,157 10,141 10,750 10,732 12,354 12,333

PA 36,326 35,875 35,548 38,162 37,795 44,537 44,085

RI 1,898 1,640 1,628 1,695 1,683 1,812 1,799

VT 1,079 1,254 1,238 1,365 1,347 1,730 1,707

Total 91,278 92,279 91,718 96,887 96,260 110,524 109,762

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT

Emissions (tpy)

2002

2009 OTB/W

2009 BOTW

2012 OTB/W

2012 BOTW

2018 OTB/W

2018 BOTW
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-19 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

5.2 AREA SOURCES 

This Section describes the analysis of the OTC and MANE-VU control measures to reduce 

emissions from area sources. The control measures included in this analysis reduce 

emissions for the following pollutants and area source categories: 

• NOx measures: ICI boilers (natural gas, #2 fuel oil, #4/#6 fuel oil, and coal) and 

residential and commercial home heating oil; 

• Primary PM10 and PM2.5 measures: residential and commercial home heating oil; 

• SO2 measures: residential and commercial home heating oil, and ICI boilers 

(distillate oil). 

• VOC measures: adhesives and sealants, emulsified and cutback asphalt paving, 

consumer products, and portable fuel containers; 

For the MANE-VU modeling inventory, each state was asked to complete a matrix identify 

which control measures to include and in which years the control measure should be 

applied. Tables 5.13, 5.14, and 5.15 summarize the staff recommendations for control 

measures to include in the BOTW regional modeling inventory for NOx, SO2, and VOC 

respectively. The following subsections describe the emission reductions anticipated for 

each of the area source control measures. 

5.2.1 Adhesives and Sealants 

The OTC 2006 model rule for adhesives and 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. 

Adhesive and sealant emission sources are classified as both point sources and area 

sources. About 96 percent of adhesive and sealant VOC emissions in the OTC states fall 

into the area source category. The remaining four percent of the VOC emissions are 

included in the point source inventory. 

The emission reduction benefit estimation methodology for area sources is based on 

information developed and used by CARB for their RACT/BARCT determination in 1998. 

CARB estimates that the total industrial adhesive and sealant emissions in California to be 

about 45 tons per day (tpd). Solvent-based adhesive and sealant emissions are estimated to 

be about 35 tpd of VOC and water-based adhesive and sealant emissions are about 10 tpd 

of VOC. 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-20 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Table 5.13 State Staff Recommendations for Control Measures to Include in BOTW 

Regional Modeling – NOx Area Sources 

ICI Boilers 

< 25 mmBTU/hour 

ICI Boilers 

25-50 mmBtu/hour 

ICI Boilers 

50-100 mmBtu/hour 

Residential and 

Commercial 

Home Heating Oil 

State 2009 2012 2018 2009 2012 2018 2009 2012 2018 2009 2012 2018 

CT Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes 

DE No No No No No No No No No No No No 

DC No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes 

ME No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes 

MD No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes 

MA No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes 

NH No No No No No No No No No No No Yes 

NJ No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes 

NY Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes 

PA No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes 

RI No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes 

VT1 No No No No No No No No No No No No 

Yes - Include emission reductions from OTC 2006 control measure in modeling inventory 

No - Do not include emission reduction from OTC 2006 control measure in modeling inventory 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-21 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Table 5.14 State Staff Recommendations for Control Measures 

to Include in BOTW Regional Modeling – SO2 Area Sources 

 ICI Boilers 

< 25 mmBTU/hour 

ICI Boilers 

25-50 mmBtu/hour 

ICI Boilers 

50-100 mmBtu/hour 

Residential Home 

Heating Oil 

State 2009 2012 2018 2009 2012 2018 2009 2012 2018 2009 2012 2018 

CT No No No No No No No No No No No Yes 

DE No No No No No No No No No No No No 

DC No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes 

ME No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes 

MD No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes 

MA No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes 

NH No No No No No No No No No No No Yes 

NJ No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes 

NY No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes 

PA No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes 

RI No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes 

VT1 No No No No No No No No No No No No 

Yes - Include emission reductions from OTC 2006 control measure in modeling inventory 

No - Do not include emission reduction from OTC 2006 control measure in modeling inventory 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-22 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Table 5.15 State Staff Recommendations for Control Measures 

to Include in BOTW Regional Modeling – VOC Area Sources 

Adhesives and 

Sealants 

Emulsified and 

Cutback Asphalt 

Paving 

Consumer Products Portable Fuel 

Containers 

State 2009 2012 2018 2009 2012 2018 2009 2012 2018 2009 2012 2018 

CT Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

DE Yes Yes Yes No2 No2 No2 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

DC Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

ME Yes Yes Yes No3 No3 No3 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

MD Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

MA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes 

NH No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

NJ Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

NY Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

PA Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

RI Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

VT1 No No No No No No No No No No No No 

Yes - Include emission reductions from OTC 2006 control measure in modeling inventory 

No - Do not include emission reduction from OTC 2006 control measure in modeling inventory 

1) Vermont indicated that the modeling inventory should not reflect anything beyond the 2002 OTC 

control level for these source categories in Vermont. 

2) Delaware’s existing asphalt paving regulations are more stringent than the OTC 2006 control 

measure. 

3) Maine has not yet determined whether to include emission reductions from the OTC 2006 control 

measure for asphalt paving. Maine’s inventory includes emissions only from cutback asphalt; no 

emissions are reported for emulsified asphalt. 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-23 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

CARB estimated that emission reductions achieved by statewide compliance with the VOC 

limits in the RACT/BARCT determination will range from approximately 29 to 35 tpd 

(CARB 1998, pg. 18). These emission reductions correspond to a 64.4 to 77.8 percent 

reduction from uncontrolled levels. For OTC modeling purposes, we used the lower end 

of this range (i.e., 64.4 percent reduction) to estimate the emission benefit for area sources 

due to the OTC 2006 model rule. 

5.2.2 Asphalt Paving 

The OTC current guideline for asphalt paving calls for a complete ban on the use of 

cutback asphalt during the ozone season and limits the VOC content of emulsified asphalt 

to two percent or less. The proposal is still under evaluation. A 20 percent reduction in 

emissions from emulsified asphalt was assumed for the modeling inventory. 

The current regulations in all MANE-VU states generally ban the use of cutback asphalt 

during the ozone season. In some states, there are a few exemptions from the ban that 

allow for the use of cutback during the ozone season. It has not yet been determined 

whether states will modify their cutback asphalt rules to eliminate the exemptions. Since 

the VOC emissions from the use of cutback asphalt during the ozone season are generally 

very small, MACTEC assumed that there will be no additional emission reductions from 

the use of cutback asphalt during the ozone season. 

The emission reductions resulting from the two percent VOC content limit on emulsified 

asphalt depend on the baseline VOC content of emulsified asphalt. The baseline VOC 

content may range from 0 to 12 percent. New Jersey used a VOC content of 8 percent in 

their baseline emission calculations (based on the 8 percent limit in their current rule). 

Reducing the VOC content to 2 percent in New Jersey will result in a 75 percent reduction. 

Delaware already bans the use of emulsified asphalt that contains any VOC, so there is no 

reduction in Delaware. Several other states used an average VOC content of 2.5 percent 

when developing their emission inventory. Thus, reducing the average VOC content from 

2.5 percent to 2.0 percent results in a 20 percent reduction in VOC emissions. For States 

that did not supply a baseline VOC content for asphalt paving, we used the 20 percent 

reduction in VOC emissions from emulsified asphalt paving during the ozone season. 

5.2.3 Consumer Products 

The OTC 2006 model rule will modify the OTC 2001 model rule based on amendments 

adopted by CARB in July 2005. The emission reduction benefit estimation methodology 

is based on information developed by CARB. CARB estimates 6.05 tons per day of VOC 

reduced from their July 2005 amendments (CARB 2004, pg. 8), excluding the benefits 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-24 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

from the two products (anti-static products and shaving gels) with compliance dates in 

2008 or 2009. This equates to about 2,208 tons per year. The population of California as 

of July 1, 2005 is 36,132,147 (Census 2006). On a per capita basis, the emission reduction 

from the CARB July 2005 amendments equals 0.122 lbs/capita. 

Since the OTC’s 2006 control measure is very similar to the CARB July 2005 amendments 

(with the exclusion of the anti-static products and shaving gel 2008/2009 limits), the per 

capita emission reductions are expected to be the same in the OTR. The per capita factor 

after the implementation of the OTC 2001 model rule is 6.06 lbs/capita (Pechan 2001, pg. 

8). The percentage reduction from the OTC’s 2006 control measure was computed as 

shown below: 

Current OTC Emission Factor = 6.06 lbs/capita 

Benefit from CARB 2005 amendments = 0.122 lbs/capita 

Percent Reduction = 

= 

100%*(1 - (6.06 – 0.122)/6.06) 

2.0% 

The 2.0% reduction will be applied to all states except Vermont, which indicated that they 

do not want the modeling inventory to reflect anything beyond the 2002 OTC control level 

for consumer products in Vermont. 

5.2.4 Portable Fuel Containers 

The OTC 2006 model rule will modify the OTC 2001 model rule based on amendments 

adopted by CARB in 2006. Estimated emission reductions were based on information 

compiled by CARB to support their recent amendments. CARB estimated that PFC 

emissions in 2015 will be 31.9 tpd in California with no additional controls or amendments 

to the 2000 PFC rules. CARB further estimates that the 2006 amendment will reduce 

emission from PFCs by 18.4 tpd in 2015 in California compared to the 2000 PFC 

regulations. Thus, at full implementation, the expected incremental reduction is 

approximately 58 percent, after an estimated 75 percent reduction from the original 2000 

rule (CARB later adjusted the reduction to 65 percent due to unanticipated problems with 

spillage from the new cans). 

The OTC calculations assume that States will adopt the rule by July 2007 and will provide 

manufacturers one year from the date of the rule to comply. Thus, new compliant PFCs 

will not be on the market until July 2008. Assuming a 10-year turnover to compliant cans, 

only 10 percent of the existing inventory of PFCs will comply with the new requirements 

in the summer of 2009. Therefore, only 10 percent of the full emission benefit estimated 

by CARB will occur by 2009 – the incremental reduction will be about 5.8 percent in 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-25 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

2009. In 2012, there will be a 40 percent turnover to compliant cans, resulting in an 

incremental reductions of about 23.2 percent. By 2018, the will be 100 percent penetration 

to compliant PFCs, resulting in an incremental reduction of 58 percent in 2018. 

The emission reductions from the 2006 OTC PFC model rule were calculated only for the 

emissions accounted for in the area source inventory. Additional benefits (not estimated 

for this report) would be expected from equipment refueling vapor displacement and 

spillage that is accounted for in the nonroad inventory. 

5.2.5 Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Boilers 

In Resolution 06-02, the OTC Commissioners recommended that OTC member states 

pursue as necessary and 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. Specifically, the 

following guidelines were provided: 

 NOx Reduction from 2009 Base Emissions by Fuel Type 

Boiler Size 

(mmBtu/hour) Natural Gas #2 Fuel Oil #4/#6 Fuel Oil Coal 

< 25 10 10 10 10 

25 to 50 50 50 50 50* 

50 to 100 10 10 10 10* 

100 to 250 75 40 40 40* 

>250 **   **  

* Resolution 06-02 did not specify a percent reduction for coal; for modeling purposes, the same percent 

reduction specified for #4/#6 fuel oil was used for coal 

** Resolution 06-02 specified the reduction for > 250mmBtu/hour boilers to be the “same as EGUs of similar 

size.” The OTC Commissioners have not yet recommended an emission rate or percent reduction for 

EGUs. As a result, no reductions for ICI boilers > 250 mmBtu/hour were included in the BOTW inventory. 

Since the above guidelines vary by boiler size and fuel type, the specific percent reduction 

applied to an area source category depends on the SCC and design capacity of the source. 

The SCC identifies the fuel type (for example, SCC 21-02-004-xxx describes distillate oilfired industrial boilers, SCC 21-02-006-xxx describes natural gas-fired industrial boilers). 

The area source inventory does not contain any information on the sizes of the units 

included in the inventories. To apportion area source emissions to the boiler size ranges 

listed above, MACTEC used data from the Characterization of the U.S. 

Industrial/Commercial Boiler Population (May 2005, Oak Ridge National Laboratory). 

We used the national estimates of boiler capacity by size from Table ES-1 of the Oak 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-26 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Ridge report to calculate the percentage of total boiler capacity in each size range. Since 

the Oak Ridge report distinguished between industrial boilers and commercial/institutional 

boilers, we developed separate profiles for industrial boilers and for 

commercial/institutional boilers. We used these boiler size profiles to calculate weighted 

average percent reductions industrial boilers by fuel type and commercial/institutional 

boilers by fuel type. 

5.2.6 Residential and Commercial Heating Oil 

The BOTW control measure for heating oil is based on NESCAUM’s report entitled “Low 

Sulfur Heating Oil in the Northeast States: An Overview of Benefits, Costs and 

Implementation Issues.” NESCAUM estimates that reducing the sulfur content of heating 

oil from 2,000 ppm to 500 ppm lowers SO2 emissions by 75 percent, PM emissions by 80 

percent, NOx emissions by 10 percent. The 500 ppm sulfur heating oil is not expected to 

available on a widespread basis until 2012 at the earliest. These percent reductions were 

applied to residential distillate oil category (SCC 21-04-004-xxx) and commercial distillate 

oil category (SCC 21-03-004-xxx). These percent reductions were applied based on the 

state’s recommendations in the matrix which identifies control measures to include and in 

which years the control measure should be accounted for in the modeling inventory. 

5.2.7 BOTW Area Source NIF, SMOKE, and Summary Files 

The Version 3 file names and descriptions delivered to MARAMA are shown in Table 5-

16. 

Table E-1 shows the anticipated percent reductions by SCC and year for the nonEGU point 

source BOTW control measures. 

5.2.8 BOTW Area Source Emission Summaries 

Emission summaries by state, year, and pollutant are presented in Tables 5-17 through 5-

23 for CO, NH3, NOx, PM10-PRI, PM25-PRI, SO2, and VOC, respectively. 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-27 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Table 5-16 BOTW Area Source NIF, IDA, and Summary File Names 

File Name Date Description 

MANEVU_BOTW2009_Area_NIFV3_2.mdb Nov. 9, 2006 Version 3.2 of 2009 BOTW 

area source NIF inventory 

MANEVU_BOTW2012_Area_NIFV3_2.mdb Nov. 9, 2006 Version 3.2 of 2012 BOTW 

area source NIF inventory 

MANEVU_BOTW2018_Area_NIFV3_2.mdb Nov. 9, 2006 Version 3.2 of 2018 BOTW 

area source NIF inventory 

MANEVU_BOTW2009_Area_IDAV3_2.txt Nov. 20, 2006 Version 3.2 of 2009 BOTW 

area source inventory in 

SMOKE IDA format 

MANEVU_BOTW2012_Area_IDAV3_2.txt Nov. 20, 2006 Version 3.2 of 2012 BOTW 

area source inventory in 

SMOKE IDA format 

MANEVU_BOTW2018_Area_IDA3V_2.txt Nov. 20, 2006 Version 3.2 of 2018 BOTW 

area source inventory in 

SMOKE IDA format 

MANEVU OTB BOTW Area V3_2 State Summary.xls Nov. 8, 2006 Spreadsheet with state totals by 

pollutant for all area sources 

MANEVU OTB BOTW Area V3_2 State SCC 

Summary.xls 

Nov. 8, 2006 Spreadsheet with SCC totals by 

state and pollutant for all area 

sources. 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-28 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Table 5-17 Area Sources 

OTB/OTW and BOTW Annual CO Emission Projections 

(tons per year) 

2002 

2009 

OTB/W 

2009 

BOTW 

2012 

OTB/W 

2012 

BOTW 

2018 

OTB/W 

2018 

BOTW 

CT 70,198 65,865 65,865 63,874 63,874 59,797 59,797

DE 14,052 15,395 15,395 15,233 15,233 14,864 14,864

DC 2,300 2,417 2,417 2,460 2,460 2,512 2,512

ME 109,223 102,743 102,743 99,877 99,877 94,181 94,181

MD 141,178 143,653 143,653 144,233 144,233 144,649 144,649

MA 137,496 132,797 132,797 130,255 130,255 125,205 125,205

NH 79,647 76,504 76,504 75,319 75,319 73,038 73,038

NJ 97,657 90,432 90,432 88,048 88,048 83,119 83,119

NY 356,254 336,576 336,576 327,118 327,118 307,659 307,659

PA 266,935 266,887 266,887 264,012 264,012 257,396 257,396

RI 8,007 8,007 8,007 8,026 8,026 8,024 8,024

VT 43,849 42,683 42,683 42,172 42,172 41,283 41,283

Total 1,326,796 1,283,959 1,283,959 1,260,627 1,260,627 1,211,727 1,211,727

No BOTW controls were considered for CO. 

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT

Emissions (tpy)

2002

2009 OTB/W

2009 BOTW

2012 OTB/W

2012 BOTW

2018 OTB/W

2018 BOTW
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-29 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Table 5-18 Area Sources 

OTB/OTW and BOTW Annual NH3 Emission Projections 

(tons per year) 

2002 

2009 

OTB/W 

2009 

BOTW 

2012 

OTB/W 

2012 

BOTW 

2018 

OTB/W 

2018 

BOTW 

CT 5,318 5,208 5,208 5,156 5,156 5,061 5,061

DE 13,279 13,316 13,316 13,328 13,328 13,342 13,342

DC 14 16 16 16 16 17 17

ME 8,747 10,453 10,453 11,116 11,116 12,312 12,312

MD 25,834 31,879 31,879 34,222 34,222 38,155 38,155

MA 18,809 19,131 19,131 19,275 19,275 19,552 19,552

NH 2,158 2,466 2,466 2,584 2,584 2,789 2,789

NJ 17,572 19,457 19,457 20,154 20,154 21,435 21,435

NY 67,422 81,626 81,626 87,116 87,116 96,078 96,078

PA 79,911 98,281 98,281 105,418 105,418 117,400 117,400

RI 883 945 945 972 972 1,025 1,025

VT 9,848 12,156 12,156 13,062 13,062 14,580 14,580

Total 249,795 294,934 294,934 312,419 312,419 341,746 341,746

No BOTW controls were considered for NH3. 

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT

Emissions (tpy)

2002

2009 OTB/W

2009 BOTW

2012 OTB/W

2012 BOTW

2018 OTB/W

2018 BOTW
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-30 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Table 5-19 Area Sources 

OTB/OTW and BOTW Annual NOx Emission Projections 

(tons per year) 

2002 

2009 

OTB/W 

2009 

BOTW 

2012 

OTB/W 

2012 

BOTW 

2018 

OTB/W 

2018 

BOTW 

CT 12,689 13,173 12,245 13,342 12,389 13,388 11,795

DE 2,608 2,821 2,821 2,913 2,913 3,014 3,014

DC 1,644 1,961 1,961 2,081 2,052 2,259 2,229

ME 7,360 7,477 7,477 7,486 7,095 7,424 7,036

MD 15,678 16,858 16,858 17,315 17,007 18,073 17,746

MA 34,281 35,732 35,732 36,331 35,321 37,187 36,199

NH 10,960 11,879 11,879 12,055 12,055 12,430 12,180

NJ 26,692 24,032 24,032 23,981 21,976 23,660 21,684

NY 98,803 106,375 95,190 107,673 92,935 108,444 93,639

PA 47,591 50,162 50,162 50,793 49,773 50,829 49,829

RI 3,886 4,149 4,149 4,260 4,112 4,397 4,249

VT 3,208 3,419 3,419 3,429 3,429 3,430 3,430

Total 265,400 278,038 265,925 281,659 261,057 284,535 263,030

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT

Emissions (tpy)

2002

2009 OTB/W

2009 BOTW

2012 OTB/W

2012 BOTW

2018 OTB/W

2018 BOTW
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-31 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Table 5-20 Area Sources 

OTB/OTW and BOTW Annual PM10-PRI Emission Projections 

(tons per year) 

2002 

2009 

OTB/W 

2009 

BOTW 

2012 

OTB/W 

2012 

BOTW 

2018 

OTB/W 

2018 

BOTW 

CT 48,281 48,970 48,970 49,004 49,004 49,479 48,734

DE 13,039 13,928 13,928 14,236 14,236 14,844 14,844

DC 3,269 3,511 3,511 3,605 3,547 3,825 3,762

ME 168,953 175,979 175,979 179,689 179,004 189,619 188,928

MD 95,060 105,944 105,944 110,141 109,829 117,396 117,066

MA 192,860 198,668 198,668 200,692 200,215 204,922 204,456

NH 43,328 46,060 46,060 47,187 47,187 49,801 49,544

NJ 61,601 61,684 61,684 61,284 60,916 60,880 60,519

NY 369,595 382,124 382,124 385,925 383,234 392,027 389,385

PA 391,897 421,235 421,235 432,844 431,787 454,970 453,934

RI 8,295 8,962 8,962 9,244 8,976 9,797 9,514

VT 56,131 60,521 60,521 62,465 62,465 66,916 66,916

Total 1,452,309 1,527,586 1,527,586 1,556,316 1,550,400 1,614,476 1,607,602

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

500,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT

Emissions (tpy)

2002

2009 OTB/W

2009 BOTW

2012 OTB/W

2012 BOTW

2018 OTB/W

2018 BOTW
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-32 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Table 5-21 Area Sources 

OTB/OTW and BOTW Annual PM25-PRI Emission Projections 

(tons per year) 

2002 

2009 

OTB/W 

2009 

BOTW 

2012 

OTB/W 

2012 

BOTW 

2018 

OTB/W 

2018 

BOTW 

CT 14,247 13,766 13,766 13,517 13,517 13,033 12,366

DE 3,204 3,387 3,387 3,403 3,403 3,426 3,426

DC 805 860 860 879 827 917 860

ME 32,774 33,026 33,026 33,189 32,576 33,820 33,201

MD 27,318 28,923 28,923 29,508 29,228 30,449 30,153

MA 42,083 43,121 43,121 43,186 42,820 43,438 43,080

NH 17,532 17,965 17,965 18,050 18,050 18,316 18,087

NJ 19,350 18,590 18,590 18,271 17,924 17,653 17,313

NY 87,154 87,576 87,576 87,260 85,011 86,422 84,211

PA 74,925 79,169 79,169 80,728 79,775 83,570 82,637

RI 2,064 2,184 2,184 2,232 1,996 2,316 2,068

VT 11,065 11,482 11,482 11,652 11,652 12,059 12,059

Total 332,521 340,049 340,049 341,875 336,779 345,419 339,461

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT

Emissions (tpy)

2002

2009 OTB/W

2009 BOTW

2012 OTB/W

2012 BOTW

2018 OTB/W

2018 BOTW
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-33 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Table 5-22 Area Sources 

OTB/OTW and BOTW Annual SO2 Emission Projections 

(tons per year) 

2002 

2009 

OTB/W 

2009 

BOTW 

2012 

OTB/W 

2012 

BOTW 

2018 

OTB/W 

2018 

BOTW 

CT 12,418 12,581 12,581 12,604 12,604 12,184 3,398

DE 1,588 1,599 1,599 1,602 1,602 1,545 1,545

DC 1,337 1,487 1,487 1,541 499 1,632 522

ME 13,149 13,776 13,776 13,846 4,897 13,901 4,940

MD 12,393 13,685 13,685 14,074 8,762 14,741 9,118

MA 25,488 25,961 25,961 26,029 8,414 25,570 8,357

NH 7,072 7,463 7,463 7,470 7,470 7,421 3,118

NJ 10,744 10,672 10,672 10,697 4,435 10,510 4,374

NY 130,409 139,589 139,589 140,154 98,160 141,408 100,452

PA 63,679 67,535 67,535 67,446 49,212 66,363 48,475

RI 4,557 5,024 5,024 5,189 1,316 5,398 1,368

VT 4,087 4,646 4,646 4,687 4,687 4,764 4,764

Total 286,921 304,018 304,018 305,339 202,058 305,437 190,431

0

25,000

50,000

75,000

100,000

125,000

150,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT

Emissions (tpy)

2002

2009 OTB/W

2009 BOTW

2012 OTB/W

2012 BOTW

2018 OTB/W

2018 BOTW
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-34 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Table 5-23 Area Sources 

OTB/OTW and BOTW Annual VOC Emission Projections 

(tons per year) 

2002 

2009 

OTB/W 

2009 

BOTW 

2012 

OTB/W 

2012 

BOTW 

2018 

OTB/W 

2018 

BOTW 

CT 87,302 75,693 73,738 73,560 71,249 71,274 68,395

DE 15,519 14,245 13,794 13,943 13,408 13,744 13,066

DC 6,432 5,420 5,300 5,352 5,144 5,255 4,991

ME 100,621 91,910 90,869 91,667 90,457 92,410 90,866

MD 120,254 110,385 107,527 108,067 104,400 110,046 104,615

MA 162,145 148,625 145,059 145,674 140,848 140,558 134,963

NH 65,370 63,069 61,860 63,356 61,913 64,368 62,649

NJ 167,882 147,617 143,089 143,752 138,646 139,626 134,089

NY 507,292 462,811 451,669 456,856 443,940 457,421 440,892

PA 240,785 228,444 219,733 230,393 219,897 243,421 230,011

RI 31,402 26,695 26,572 25,548 25,315 23,561 23,305

VT 23,265 24,068 24,068 24,635 24,634 26,198 26,197

Total 1,528,269 1,398,982 1,363,278 1,382,803 1,339,851 1,387,882 1,334,039

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

500,000

550,000

CT DE DC ME MD MA NH NJ NY PA RI VT

Emissions (tpy)

2002

2009 OTB/W

2009 BOTW

2012 OTB/W

2012 BOTW

2018 OTB/W

2018 BOTW
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Section 5 – Beyond-On-The-Way Emission Inventory Page 5-35 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

5.3 Nonroad Mobile Sources 

In the June 2007 MOU, the OTC Commissioners recommended that states pursue statespecific rulemakings for one nonroad source categories – portable fuel containers. The 

OTC 2006 control measure for portable fuel containers will result in addition VOC 

emission reduction from the refueling of nonroad equipment. However, these reductions 

could not be estimated due to resource and time constraints. 

5.4 Electric Generating Units 

In the June 2008 Statement on EGUs, the OTC Commissioners directed OTC staff to 

complete an evaluation and recommendations for a program beyond CAIR that includes 

strategies to address the base, intermediate and peak load emissions. No specific emission 

reduction targets were identified. States specified that no additional reductions from EGUs 

be included in the BOTW inventory. 

5.5 Onroad Mobile Sources 

In Resolution 06-02, the OTC Commissioners recommended that the OTC member states 

pursue a region fuel program consistent with the Energy Act of 2005. No specific 

emission reduction targets were identified. States specified that no additional reductions 

from onroad mobile sources be included in the BOTW inventory. 

In the June 2007 MOU, the OTC Commissioners recommended that states pursue statespecific rulemakings to implement a mandatory diesel engine chip reflash program. It is 

our understanding that the emission reductions from the diesel engine chip reflash program 

are already accounted for in MANE-VU’s OTB emission inventory. 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Appendix A – Non EGU Point Source Growth Factors Page A-1 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Appendix A – NonEGU Point Source Growth Factors 

Table A-1 Connecticut Growth Factors by SIC Code 

SIC GF_02_09 GF_02_12 GF_02_18 CTDOL_CAT 

0181 1.0019 1.0027 1.0042 Agricultural, Crop Production 

1422 0.9400 0.9143 0.8629 Mining 

1429 0.9400 0.9143 0.8629 Mining 

2051 0.9355 0.9079 0.8526 Manufacturing, Food 

2096 0.9355 0.9079 0.8526 Manufacturing, Food 

2261 0.9254 0.8934 0.8295 Manufacturing, Textile Product Mills 

2262 0.9254 0.8934 0.8295 Manufacturing, Textile Product Mills 

2284 0.9254 0.8934 0.8295 Manufacturing, Textile Product Mills 

2298 0.9254 0.8934 0.8295 Manufacturing, Textile Product Mills 

2434 1.0679 1.0969 1.1551 Manufacturing, Wood Products 

2522 1.0435 1.0621 1.0994 Manufacturing, Furniture & Related 

2541 1.0679 1.0969 1.1551 Manufacturing, Wood Products 

2621 0.8706 0.8152 0.7043 Manufacturing, Paper 

2631 0.8706 0.8152 0.7043 Manufacturing, Paper 

2652 0.8706 0.8152 0.7043 Manufacturing, Paper 

2653 0.8706 0.8152 0.7043 Manufacturing, Paper 

2672 0.8706 0.8152 0.7043 Manufacturing, Paper 

2673 0.8706 0.8152 0.7043 Manufacturing, Paper 

2711 0.8386 0.7695 0.6312 Manufacturing, Printing & Related Activ 

2752 0.8386 0.7695 0.6312 Manufacturing, Printing & Related Activ 

2754 0.8386 0.7695 0.6312 Manufacturing, Printing & Related Activ 

2759 0.8386 0.7695 0.6312 Manufacturing, Printing & Related Activ 

2821 1.1024 1.1464 1.2342 Manufacturing, Chemical 

2833 1.1024 1.1464 1.2342 Manufacturing, Chemical 

2869 1.1024 1.1464 1.2342 Manufacturing, Chemical 

2875 1.1024 1.1464 1.2342 Manufacturing, Chemical 

3052 0.9591 0.9416 0.9066 Manufacturing, Plastic & Rubber Product 

3069 0.9591 0.9416 0.9066 Manufacturing, Plastic & Rubber Product 

3081 0.9591 0.9416 0.9066 Manufacturing, Plastic & Rubber Product 

3086 0.9591 0.9416 0.9066 Manufacturing, Plastic & Rubber Product 

3087 0.9591 0.9416 0.9066 Manufacturing, Plastic & Rubber Product 

3272 0.9841 0.9772 0.9636 Manufacturing, Miscellaneous 

3312 0.8713 0.8162 0.7059 Manufacturing, Primary Metal 

3351 0.8713 0.8162 0.7059 Manufacturing, Primary Metal 

3357 0.8713 0.8162 0.7059 Manufacturing, Primary Metal 

3423 0.9150 0.8786 0.8057 Manufacturing, Fabricated Metal 

3429 0.9150 0.8786 0.8057 Manufacturing, Fabricated Metal 

3444 0.9150 0.8786 0.8057 Manufacturing, Fabricated Metal 

3469 0.9150 0.8786 0.8057 Manufacturing, Fabricated Metal 

3471 0.9150 0.8786 0.8057 Manufacturing, Fabricated Metal 

3479 0.9150 0.8786 0.8057 Manufacturing, Fabricated Metal 

3497 0.9150 0.8786 0.8057 Manufacturing, Fabricated Metal 

3562 0.8778 0.8254 0.7206 Manufacturing, Machinery 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Appendix A – Non EGU Point Source Growth Factors Page A-2 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

SIC GF_02_09 GF_02_12 GF_02_18 CTDOL_CAT 

3569 0.8778 0.8254 0.7206 Manufacturing, Machinery 

3579 0.8452 0.7788 0.6461 Manufacturing, Computer & Electronic Eq 

3634 0.9149 0.8784 0.8054 Manufacturing, Electrical Equipment, Ap 

3675 0.9149 0.8784 0.8054 Manufacturing, Electrical Equipment, Ap 

3714 0.9705 0.9578 0.9326 Manufacturing, Transportation Equipment 

3721 0.9705 0.9578 0.9326 Manufacturing, Transportation Equipment 

3724 0.9705 0.9578 0.9326 Manufacturing, Transportation Equipment 

3728 0.9705 0.9578 0.9326 Manufacturing, Transportation Equipment 

3731 0.9705 0.9578 0.9326 Manufacturing, Transportation Equipment 

3827 0.9841 0.9772 0.9636 Manufacturing, Miscellaneous 

3949 0.9841 0.9772 0.9636 Manufacturing, Miscellaneous 

3951 0.9841 0.9772 0.9636 Manufacturing, Miscellaneous 

4226 1.0921 1.1316 1.2106 Transportation & Warehousing, Warehousi 

4911 0.9550 0.9358 0.8972 Utilities 

4922 0.9550 0.9358 0.8972 Utilities 

4924 0.9550 0.9358 0.8972 Utilities 

4931 1.1439 1.2056 1.3290 Waste Management & Remediation Services 

4952 1.1439 1.2056 1.3290 Waste Management & Remediation Services 

4953 1.1439 1.2056 1.3290 Waste Management & Remediation Services 

4961 0.9550 0.9358 0.8972 Utilities 

5171 1.0605 1.0864 1.1382 Wholesale Trade, Nondurable Goods 

6036 1.0569 1.0814 1.1302 Finance & Insurance 

6512 1.0197 1.0282 1.0451 Real Estate & Rental & Leasing 

6513 1.0197 1.0282 1.0451 Real Estate & Rental & Leasing 

7389 1.0569 1.0814 1.1302 Finance & Insurance 

8051 1.0824 1.1177 1.1883 Health Care & Social Assistance, Nursin 

8062 1.0583 1.0833 1.1334 Health Care & Social Assistance, Hospit 

8063 1.0583 1.0833 1.1334 Health Care & Social Assistance, Hospit 

8211 1.0642 1.0918 1.1468 Educational Services 

8221 1.0642 1.0918 1.1468 Educational Services 

8631 1.0642 1.0918 1.1468 Educational Services 

8734 1.1189 1.1699 1.2718 Professional, Scientific, and Technical 

9223 1.0185 1.0264 1.0423 Government 

9511 1.0185 1.0264 1.0423 Government 

9621 1.0185 1.0264 1.0423 Government 

9711 1.0185 1.0264 1.0423 Government 

3900 0.9841 0.9772 0.9636 Manufacturing, Miscellaneous 

5093 1.0527 1.0754 1.1206 Wholesale Trade, Durable Goods 

4200 0.9871 0.9815 0.9705 Transportation & Warehousing, Truck Tra 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Appendix A – Non EGU Point Source Growth Factors Page A-3 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Table A-2 Non-EGU Point Source Growth Factors by SCC Code 

See Electronic File: MANE-VU_NonEGU_gf_scc.xls 

This table contains 12,791 records with NonEGU point source growth factors by county and SCC. 

The format for the tables is as follows: 

Column A – County FIPS code 

Column B – Source Classification Code (SCC) 

Column C – EGAS_02_09 this is the EGAS 5.0 factor for projecting from 2002 to 2009 

Column D – AEO5_02_09 this is the DOE AEO 2005 factor for projecting from 2002 to 2009 

Column E – ST_02_09 this is the state-supplied factor for projecting from 2002 to 2009 

Column F – GF_02_09 this is the final factor actually used for projecting from 2002 to 2009 (it 

is the state-supplied factor, if available; if no state-supplied factor, then it is the AEO2005 

factor; if no AEO2005 factor, then it is the default EGAS 5.0 factor) 

Column G – EGAS_02_12 this is the EGAS 5.0 factor for projecting from 2002 to 2012 

Column H – AEO5_02_12 this is the DOE AEO 2005 factor for projecting from 2002 to 2012 

Column I – ST_02_12 this is the state-supplied factor for projecting from 2002 to 2012 

Column J – GF_02_09 this is the final factor actually used for projecting from 2002 to 2012 (it 

is the state-supplied factor, if available; if no state-supplied factor, then it is the AEO2005 

factor; if no AEO2005 factor, then it is the default EGAS 5.0 factor) 

Column K – EGAS_02_18 this is the EGAS 5.0 factor for projecting from 2002 to 2018 

Column J – AEO5_02_18 this is the DOE AEO 2005 factor for projecting from 2002 to 2018 

Column M– ST_02_18 this is the state-supplied factor for projecting from 2002 to 2018 

Column N – GF_02_09 this is the final factor actually used for projecting from 2002 to 2012 (it 

is the state-supplied factor, if available; if no state-supplied factor, then it is the AEO2005 

factor; if no AEO2005 factor, then it is the default EGAS 5.0 factor) 

Column O – SCC description 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-1 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Appendix B – NonEGU Point Source Control Factors 

Table B-1 NonEGU Emission Units Affected by the NOx SIP Call Phase I 

FIPS SITE ID Facility Name EU ID 

Ozone 

Season 

Allowance 

(tpy) 

Prorated 

Annual 

Emissions 

(tpy) 

Unit 

Description 

09003 1509 PRATT & WHITNEY DIV UTC P0049 11 26 FT-8 COGENERATION GAS 

TURBINE 

09011 0604 PFIZER INC P0001 33 79 BLR B&W FM140-97 #8 

09011 0604 PFIZER INC R0012 31 74 BLR CE #5 (101-4) 

09011 3102 SPRAGUE PAPERBOARD INC R0003 75 180 BLR B&W PFI-22-0 #1 

24001 001-0011 WESTVACO FINE PAPERS 1 500 1200 001-0011-3-0018 

24001 001-0011 WESTVACO FINE PAPERS 2 440 1056 001-0011-3-0019 

25009 1190138 GENERAL ELECTRIC AIRCRAFT 03 29 68 BOILER #3-

BABCOCK+WILCOX PPL-2897 

DUAL FUEL EV99-3 

25009 1190138 GENERAL ELECTRIC AIRCRAFT 05 24 58 TURBINE #1-GE G5301 DUAL 

FUEL BLDG 99-8 

25017 1191844 MIT 02 132 317 TURBINE #1-ABB GT10 

DUEL FUEL(EXHAUST TO 

HRSG) 

25025 1190507 TRIGEN BOSTON ENERGY 01 47 113 BOILER #1-

BABCOCK+WILCOX 

HSB8477A DUAL FUEL 

25025 1190507 TRIGEN BOSTON ENERGY 02 47 113 BOILER #2-

BABCOCK+WILCOX 

JSB8477B DUAL FUEL 

25025 1190507 TRIGEN BOSTON ENERGY 03 47 113 BOILER #3-

FOSTER+WHEELER SC DUAL 

FUEL 

25025 1190507 TRIGEN BOSTON ENERGY 04 47 113 BOILER #4-

BABCOCK+WILCOX 

HSB8608A DUAL FUEL 

36031 5154800008 INTERNATIONAL PAPER 

TICONDEROG 

POWERH 227 545 EMISSION UNIT 

36055 8261400205 KODAK PARK DIVISION U00015 1721 4130 EMISSION UNIT 

36091 5412600007 INTERNATIONAL PAPER 

HUDSON RIV 

UBOILR 124 298 EMISSION UNIT 

42003 4200300022 SHENANGO INC. 005 13 31 BOILER #9, NATURAL GAS 

42017 420170306 EXELON GENERATION 

CO/FAIRLESS 

043 2 5 POWER HOUSE BOILER NO. 3 

 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-2 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

FIPS SITE ID Facility Name EU ID 

Ozone 

Season 

Allowance 

(tpy) 

Prorated 

Annual 

Emissions 

(tpy) 

Unit 

Description 

42017 420170306 EXELON GENERATION 

CO/FAIRLESS 

044 73 175 POWER HOUSE BOILER NO. 4 

42017 420170306 EXELON GENERATION 

CO/FAIRLESS 

045 61 146 POWER HOUSE BOILER NO. 5 

42045 420450016 KIMBERLY CLARK PA 

LLC/CHESTER 

034 2 5 

42045 420450220 FPL ENERGY MH50 LP/MARCUS 

HOOK 

031 82 197 COGENERATION UNIT - ABB 

TYPE B 

42047 420470005 WEYERHAEUSER/JOHNSONBURG 

MILL 

040 85 204 BOILER #81 

42047 420470005 WEYERHAEUSER/JOHNSONBURG 

MILL 

041 86 206 BOILER #82 

42091 420910028 MERCK & CO/WEST POINT 039 101 242 COGEN II GAS TURBINE 

42101 4210101551 SUNOCO CHEMICALS (FORMER 

ALLIE 

052 86 206 BL-703: BOILER #3 

42131 421310009 PROCTER & GAMBLE PAPER 

PROD CO 

035 203 482 WESTINGHOUSE 251B12 

42133 421330016 PH GLATFELTER CO/SPRING 

GROVE 

034 146 350 #4 POWER BOILER 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-3 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Table B-2 Cement Kilns Affected by the NOx SIP Call Phase I 

FIPS SITE ID Facility Name EU ID 

Control 

Factor 

Unit 

Description

24013 013-0012 LEHIGH PORTLAND CEMENT 39 25.00 013-0012-6-0256 013-0012-6-0256 

24021 021-0013 ESSROC CEMENT 21 25.00 021-0013-6-0465 021-0013-6-0465 

24021 021-0013 ESSROC CEMENT 22 25.00 021-0013-6-0466 021-0013-6-0466 

24043 043-0008 INDEPENDENT CEMENT/ST. 

LAWEREN 

24 25.00 043-0008-6-0495 043-0008-6-0495 

36001 4012400001 LAFARGE BUILDING MATERIALS INC 041000 25.00 EMISSION UNIT 

36039 4192600021 ST LAWRENCE CEMENT CORPCATSKI U00K18 25.00 EMISSION UNIT 

36113 5520500013 GLENS FALLS LEHIGH CEMENT 0UKILN 25.00 EMISSION UNIT 

42011 420110039 LEHIGH CEMENT CO /EVANSVILLE 121 70.00 PORTLAND CEMENT KILN #1 

42011 420110039 LEHIGH CEMENT CO /EVANSVILLE 122 70.00 PORTLAND CEMENT KILN #2 

42019 420190024 ARMSTRONG CEMENT & SUPPLY 101 16.00 NO.1 KILN 

42019 420190024 ARMSTRONG CEMENT & SUPPLY 121 16.00 NO.2 KILN 

42073 420730024 CEMEX INC/WAMPUM CEMENT PLT 226 12.50 

42073 420730024 CEMEX INC/WAMPUM CEMENT PLT 227 0.00 

42073 420730024 CEMEX INC/WAMPUM CEMENT PLT 228 12.70 

42073 420730026 ESSROC/BESSEMER 501 8.00 

42073 420730026 ESSROC/BESSEMER 502 8.00 

42077 420770019 LAFARGE CORP/WHITEHALL PLT 101 12.28 K-2 KILN 

42077 420770019 LAFARGE CORP/WHITEHALL PLT 114 100.00 K-3 KILN 

42095 420950006 HERCULES CEMENT CO 

LP/STOCKERT 

102 6.88 NO. 1 CEMENT KILN 

42095 420950006 HERCULES CEMENT CO 

LP/STOCKERT 

122 6.88 NO. 3 CEMENT KILN 

42095 420950012 KEYSTONE PORTLAND 

CEMENT/EAST 

101 27.00 CEMENT KILN NO. 1 

42095 420950012 KEYSTONE PORTLAND 

CEMENT/EAST 

102 27.00 CEMENT KILN NO. 2 

42095 420950045 ESSROC/NAZARETH LOWER CEMENT 142 41.00 

42095 420950045 ESSROC/NAZARETH LOWER CEMENT 143 41.00 

42095 420950127 ESSROC/NAZARETH CEMENT PLT 3 101 41.00 

42095 420950127 ESSROC/NAZARETH CEMENT PLT 3 102 41.00 

42095 420950127 ESSROC/NAZARETH CEMENT PLT 3 103 41.00 

42095 420950127 ESSROC/NAZARETH CEMENT PLT 3 104 41.00 

42133 421330060 LEHIGH CEMENT CO/YORK 

OPERATION 

200 27.00 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-4 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Table B-3 Large IC Engines Affected by the NOx SIP Call Phase II 

FIPS SITE ID Facility Name EU ID 

Control 

Factor 

Unit 

Description

24027 027-0223 TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS PIPE LINE 1 80.00 027-0223-5-0054 boiler 

42005 420050015 DOMINION TRANS INC/SOUTH BEND 101 80.00 ENGINE #1 (2000 BHP) 

42005 420050015 DOMINION TRANS INC/SOUTH BEND 102 80.00 ENGINE #2 (2000 BHP) 

42005 420050015 DOMINION TRANS INC/SOUTH BEND 103 80.00 ENGINE #3 (2000 BHP) 

42005 420050015 DOMINION TRANS INC/SOUTH BEND 104 80.00 ENGINE #4 (2000 BHP) 

42005 420050015 DOMINION TRANS INC/SOUTH BEND 105 80.00 ENGINE #5 (2000 BHP) 

42005 420050015 DOMINION TRANS INC/SOUTH BEND 106 80.00 ENGINE #6 (2000 BHP) 

42029 420290047 TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS/FRAZER 

ST 

741 80.00 #11 I-C GAS COMPRESSOR 

ENGINE 

42029 420290047 TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS/FRAZER 

ST 

742 80.00 #12 I-C GAS COMPRESSOR 

ENGINE 

42029 420290047 TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS/FRAZER 

ST 

743 80.00 #13 I-C GAS COMPRESSOR 

ENGINE 

42063 420630018 PA STATE SYS OF HIGHER ED/INDI 101 90.00 COOPER-BESSEMER ENGINE #1 

42063 420630018 PA STATE SYS OF HIGHER ED/INDI 101 90.00 COOPER-BESSEMER ENGINE #1 

42063 420630018 PA STATE SYS OF HIGHER ED/INDI 101 90.00 COOPER-BESSEMER ENGINE #1 

42063 420630018 PA STATE SYS OF HIGHER ED/INDI 101 90.00 COOPER-BESSEMER ENGINE #1 

42063 420630018 PA STATE SYS OF HIGHER ED/INDI 102 90.00 COOPER-BESSEMER ENGINE #2 

42063 420630018 PA STATE SYS OF HIGHER ED/INDI 102 90.00 COOPER-BESSEMER ENGINE #2 

42063 420630018 PA STATE SYS OF HIGHER ED/INDI 102 90.00 COOPER-BESSEMER ENGINE #2 

42063 420630018 PA STATE SYS OF HIGHER ED/INDI 102 90.00 COOPER-BESSEMER ENGINE #2 

42063 420630018 PA STATE SYS OF HIGHER ED/INDI 103 90.00 COOPER-BESSEMER ENGINE #3 

42063 420630018 PA STATE SYS OF HIGHER ED/INDI 103 90.00 COOPER-BESSEMER ENGINE #3 

42063 420630018 PA STATE SYS OF HIGHER ED/INDI 103 90.00 COOPER-BESSEMER ENGINE #3 

42063 420630018 PA STATE SYS OF HIGHER ED/INDI 103 90.00 COOPER-BESSEMER ENGINE #3 

42063 420630018 PA STATE SYS OF HIGHER ED/INDI 104 90.00 COOPER-BESSEMER ENGINE #4 

42063 420630018 PA STATE SYS OF HIGHER ED/INDI 104 90.00 COOPER-BESSEMER ENGINE #4 

42063 420630018 PA STATE SYS OF HIGHER ED/INDI 104 90.00 COOPER-BESSEMER ENGINE #4 

42063 420630018 PA STATE SYS OF HIGHER ED/INDI 104 90.00 COOPER-BESSEMER ENGINE #4 

42105 421050005 TENNESSEE GAS PIPELINE CO/313 P111 80.00 3,000HP KVT-512 ENGINE 

42105 421050005 TENNESSEE GAS PIPELINE CO/313 P112 80.00 2,000HP GMVH-10C ENGINE 

42133 421330053 TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS/STATION 1 036 80.00 COOPER-BESSEMER ENGINE #4 

42133 421330053 TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS/STATION 1 037 80.00 COOPER-BESSEMER ENGINE #5 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-5 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

B-4 NonEGU Control Factors for Post-2002 MACT Categories 

SCC PLLTCODE CE_MACT SUBPART MACT CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 

20100102 NOX 17.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 

20100202 NOX 17.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 

20100702 NOX 17.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 

20100802 NOX 17.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 

20100902 NOX 17.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 

20200102 NOX 17.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 

20200104 NOX 17.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 

20200202 NOX 17.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 

20200204 NOX 17.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 

20200301 NOX 17.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 

20200501 NOX 17.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 

20200702 NOX 17.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 

20200706 NOX 17.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 

20200902 NOX 17.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 

20201001 NOX 17.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 

20201002 NOX 17.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 

20201012 NOX 17.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 

20201014 NOX 17.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 

20201602 NOX 17.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 

20201702 NOX 17.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 

20300101 NOX 17.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 

20300301 NOX 17.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 

30400101 PM10-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 

30400102 PM10-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 

30400103 PM10-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 

30400104 PM10-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 

30400105 PM10-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 

30400106 PM10-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 

30400107 PM10-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 

30400108 PM10-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 

30400109 PM10-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 

30400110 PM10-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 

30400111 PM10-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 

30400112 PM10-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 

30400113 PM10-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 

30400114 PM10-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 

30400115 PM10-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 

30400116 PM10-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 

30400117 PM10-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 

30400118 PM10-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 

30400120 PM10-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 

30400121 PM10-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 

30400130 PM10-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 

30400131 PM10-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 

30400132 PM10-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 

30400133 PM10-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 

30400150 PM10-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 

30400160 PM10-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 

30400199 PM10-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 

30500301 PM10-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-6 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

SCC PLLTCODE CE_MACT SUBPART MACT CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 

30500302 PM10-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 

30500303 PM10-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 

30500304 PM10-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 

30500305 PM10-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 

30500306 PM10-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 

30500307 PM10-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 

30500308 PM10-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 

30500309 PM10-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 

30500310 PM10-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 

30500311 PM10-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 

30500312 PM10-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 

30500313 PM10-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 

30500314 PM10-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 

30500315 PM10-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 

30500316 PM10-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 

30500317 PM10-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 

30500318 PM10-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 

30500319 PM10-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 

30500321 PM10-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 

30500322 PM10-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 

30500330 PM10-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 

30500331 PM10-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 

30500332 PM10-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 

30500333 PM10-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 

30500334 PM10-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 

30500335 PM10-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 

30500340 PM10-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 

30500342 PM10-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 

30500350 PM10-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 

30500351 PM10-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 

30500355 PM10-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 

30500360 PM10-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 

30500361 PM10-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 

30500370 PM10-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 

30500397 PM10-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 

30500398 PM10-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 

30500399 PM10-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 

30501601 PM10-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 

30501602 PM10-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 

30501603 PM10-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 

30501604 PM10-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 

30501605 PM10-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 

30501606 PM10-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 

30501607 PM10-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 

30501608 PM10-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 

30501609 PM10-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 

30501610 PM10-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 

30501611 PM10-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 

30501612 PM10-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 

30501613 PM10-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 

30501614 PM10-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 

30501615 PM10-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-7 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

SCC PLLTCODE CE_MACT SUBPART MACT CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 

30501616 PM10-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 

30501617 PM10-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 

30501618 PM10-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 

30501619 PM10-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 

30501620 PM10-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 

30501621 PM10-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 

30501622 PM10-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 

30501623 PM10-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 

30501624 PM10-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 

30501625 PM10-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 

30501626 PM10-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 

30501627 PM10-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 

30501628 PM10-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 

30501629 PM10-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 

30501630 PM10-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 

30501631 PM10-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 

30501632 PM10-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 

30501633 PM10-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 

30501640 PM10-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 

30501650 PM10-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 

30501660 PM10-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 

30501699 PM10-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 

30400101 PM25-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 

30400102 PM25-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 

30400103 PM25-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 

30400104 PM25-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 

30400105 PM25-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 

30400106 PM25-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 

30400107 PM25-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 

30400108 PM25-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 

30400109 PM25-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 

30400110 PM25-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 

30400111 PM25-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 

30400112 PM25-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 

30400113 PM25-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 

30400114 PM25-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 

30400115 PM25-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 

30400116 PM25-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 

30400117 PM25-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 

30400118 PM25-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 

30400120 PM25-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 

30400121 PM25-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 

30400130 PM25-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 

30400131 PM25-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 

30400132 PM25-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 

30400133 PM25-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 

30400150 PM25-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 

30400160 PM25-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 

30400199 PM25-PRI 90.000 RRR Secondary Aluminum Production 

30500301 PM25-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 

30500302 PM25-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 

30500303 PM25-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-8 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

SCC PLLTCODE CE_MACT SUBPART MACT CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 

30500304 PM25-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 

30500305 PM25-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 

30500306 PM25-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 

30500307 PM25-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 

30500308 PM25-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 

30500309 PM25-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 

30500310 PM25-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 

30500311 PM25-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 

30500312 PM25-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 

30500313 PM25-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 

30500314 PM25-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 

30500315 PM25-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 

30500316 PM25-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 

30500317 PM25-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 

30500318 PM25-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 

30500319 PM25-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 

30500321 PM25-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 

30500322 PM25-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 

30500330 PM25-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 

30500331 PM25-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 

30500332 PM25-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 

30500333 PM25-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 

30500334 PM25-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 

30500335 PM25-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 

30500340 PM25-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 

30500342 PM25-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 

30500350 PM25-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 

30500351 PM25-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 

30500355 PM25-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 

30500360 PM25-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 

30500361 PM25-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 

30500370 PM25-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 

30500397 PM25-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 

30500398 PM25-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 

30500399 PM25-PRI 45.100 JJJJJ Brick and Structural Clay 

30501601 PM25-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 

30501602 PM25-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 

30501603 PM25-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 

30501604 PM25-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 

30501605 PM25-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 

30501606 PM25-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 

30501607 PM25-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 

30501608 PM25-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 

30501609 PM25-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 

30501610 PM25-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 

30501611 PM25-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 

30501612 PM25-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 

30501613 PM25-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 

30501614 PM25-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 

30501615 PM25-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 

30501616 PM25-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 

30501617 PM25-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-9 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

SCC PLLTCODE CE_MACT SUBPART MACT CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 

30501618 PM25-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 

30501619 PM25-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 

30501620 PM25-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 

30501621 PM25-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 

30501622 PM25-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 

30501623 PM25-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 

30501624 PM25-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 

30501625 PM25-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 

30501626 PM25-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 

30501627 PM25-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 

30501628 PM25-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 

30501629 PM25-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 

30501630 PM25-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 

30501631 PM25-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 

30501632 PM25-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 

30501633 PM25-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 

30501640 PM25-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 

30501650 PM25-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 

30501660 PM25-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 

30501699 PM25-PRI 28.000 AAAAA Lime Manufacturing 

20100101 VOC 0.250 YYYY Stationary Combustion Turbines 

20100102 VOC 40.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 

20100201 VOC 0.250 YYYY Stationary Combustion Turbines 

20100202 VOC 40.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 

20100702 VOC 40.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 

20100802 VOC 40.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 

20100902 VOC 40.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 

20200101 VOC 0.250 YYYY Stationary Combustion Turbines 

20200102 VOC 40.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 

20200103 VOC 0.250 YYYY Stationary Combustion Turbines 

20200104 VOC 40.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 

20200201 VOC 0.250 YYYY Stationary Combustion Turbines 

20200202 VOC 40.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 

20200203 VOC 0.250 YYYY Stationary Combustion Turbines 

20200204 VOC 40.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 

20200209 VOC 0.250 YYYY Stationary Combustion Turbines 

20200301 VOC 40.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 

20200501 VOC 40.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 

20200702 VOC 40.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 

20200706 VOC 40.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 

20200902 VOC 40.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 

20201001 VOC 40.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 

20201002 VOC 40.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 

20201012 VOC 40.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 

20201014 VOC 40.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 

20201602 VOC 40.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 

20201702 VOC 40.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 

20300101 VOC 40.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 

20300102 VOC 0.250 YYYY Stationary Combustion Turbines 

20300109 VOC 0.250 YYYY Stationary Combustion Turbines 

20300202 VOC 0.250 YYYY Stationary Combustion Turbines 

20300203 VOC 0.250 YYYY Stationary Combustion Turbines 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-10 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

SCC PLLTCODE CE_MACT SUBPART MACT CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 

20300209 VOC 0.250 YYYY Stationary Combustion Turbines 

20300301 VOC 40.000 ZZZZ Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines 

20300701 VOC 0.250 YYYY Stationary Combustion Turbines 

30100501 VOC 26.100 YY Generic MACT (Carbon Black) 

30100502 VOC 26.100 YY Generic MACT (Carbon Black) 

30100503 VOC 26.100 YY Generic MACT (Carbon Black) 

30100504 VOC 26.100 YY Generic MACT (Carbon Black) 

30100506 VOC 26.100 YY Generic MACT (Carbon Black) 

30100507 VOC 26.100 YY Generic MACT (Carbon Black) 

30100508 VOC 26.100 YY Generic MACT (Carbon Black) 

30100509 VOC 26.100 YY Generic MACT (Carbon Black) 

30100510 VOC 26.100 YY Generic MACT (Carbon Black) 

30100599 VOC 26.100 YY Generic MACT (Carbon Black) 

30101005 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

30101010 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

30101011 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

30101012 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

30101013 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

30101014 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

30101015 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

30101021 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

30101022 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

30101023 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

30101025 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

30101026 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

30101027 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

30101028 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

30101030 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

30101033 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

30101034 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

30101035 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

30101036 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

30101037 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

30101040 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

30101045 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

30101046 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

30101047 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

30101050 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

30101051 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

30101052 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

30101053 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

30101054 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

30101055 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

30101061 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

30101062 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

30101063 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

30101064 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

30101073 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

30101074 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

30101075 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

30101076 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

30101077 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-11 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

SCC PLLTCODE CE_MACT SUBPART MACT CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 

30101080 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

30101085 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

30101086 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

30101087 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

30101099 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

30101827 VOC 55.700 OOO Polymers and Resins III 

30101837 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

30101880 VOC 67.400 MMMMM Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Ope 

30101881 VOC 67.400 MMMMM Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Ope 

30101882 VOC 67.400 MMMMM Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Ope 

30101883 VOC 67.400 MMMMM Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Ope 

30101884 VOC 67.400 MMMMM Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Ope 

30101885 VOC 67.400 MMMMM Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Ope 

30101890 VOC 67.400 MMMMM Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Ope 

30101891 VOC 67.400 MMMMM Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Ope 

30101892 VOC 67.400 MMMMM Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Ope 

30101893 VOC 67.400 MMMMM Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Ope 

30101894 VOC 67.400 MMMMM Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Ope 

30101899 VOC 67.400 MMMMM Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Ope 

30103201 VOC 87.400 UUU Petroleum Refineries 

30103202 VOC 87.400 UUU Petroleum Refineries 

30103203 VOC 87.400 UUU Petroleum Refineries 

30103204 VOC 87.400 UUU Petroleum Refineries 

30103205 VOC 87.400 UUU Petroleum Refineries 

30103299 VOC 87.400 UUU Petroleum Refineries 

30103301 VOC 64.820 MMM Pesticide Active Ingredient 

30103311 VOC 64.820 MMM Pesticide Active Ingredient 

30103312 VOC 64.820 MMM Pesticide Active Ingredient 

30103399 VOC 64.820 MMM Pesticide Active Ingredient 

30103901 VOC 44.500 YY Generic MACT (Cyanide) 

30103902 VOC 44.500 YY Generic MACT (Cyanide) 

30103903 VOC 44.500 YY Generic MACT (Cyanide) 

30105001 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

30105101 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

30105105 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

30105108 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

30105110 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

30105112 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

30105114 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

30105116 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

30105118 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

30105120 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

30105122 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

30105124 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

30105130 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

30110002 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

30110003 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

30110004 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

30110005 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

30110080 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

30110099 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

30111103 VOC 43.900 QQQQQ Friction Products Manufacturing 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-12 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

SCC PLLTCODE CE_MACT SUBPART MACT CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 

30111199 VOC 43.900 QQQQQ Friction Products Manufacturing 

30113001 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

30113003 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

30113004 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

30113005 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

30113006 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

30113007 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

30201901 VOC 38.690 GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Produ 

30201902 VOC 38.690 GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Produ 

30201903 VOC 38.690 GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Produ 

30201904 VOC 38.690 GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Produ 

30201905 VOC 38.690 GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Produ 

30201906 VOC 38.690 GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Produ 

30201907 VOC 38.690 GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Produ 

30201908 VOC 38.690 GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Produ 

30201909 VOC 38.690 GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Produ 

30201911 VOC 38.690 GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Produ 

30201912 VOC 38.690 GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Produ 

30201913 VOC 38.690 GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Produ 

30201914 VOC 38.690 GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Produ 

30201915 VOC 38.690 GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Produ 

30201916 VOC 38.690 GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Produ 

30201917 VOC 38.690 GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Produ 

30201918 VOC 38.690 GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Produ 

30201919 VOC 38.690 GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Produ 

30201920 VOC 38.690 GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Produ 

30201921 VOC 38.690 GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Produ 

30201923 VOC 38.690 GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Produ 

30201925 VOC 38.690 GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Produ 

30201926 VOC 38.690 GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Produ 

30201927 VOC 38.690 GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Produ 

30201930 VOC 38.690 GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Produ 

30201931 VOC 38.690 GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Produ 

30201932 VOC 38.690 GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Produ 

30201933 VOC 38.690 GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Produ 

30201935 VOC 38.690 GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Produ 

30201939 VOC 38.690 GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Produ 

30201941 VOC 38.690 GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Produ 

30201942 VOC 38.690 GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Produ 

30201945 VOC 38.690 GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Produ 

30201949 VOC 38.690 GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Produ 

30201950 VOC 38.690 GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Produ 

30201960 VOC 38.690 GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Produ 

30201997 VOC 38.690 GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Produ 

30201998 VOC 38.690 GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Produ 

30201999 VOC 38.690 GGGG Solvent Extraction for Vegetable Oil Produ 

30203404 VOC 12.500 CCCC Manufacturing Nutritional Yeast 

30203405 VOC 12.500 CCCC Manufacturing Nutritional Yeast 

30203406 VOC 12.500 CCCC Manufacturing Nutritional Yeast 

30203407 VOC 12.500 CCCC Manufacturing Nutritional Yeast 

30203410 VOC 12.500 CCCC Manufacturing Nutritional Yeast 

30203415 VOC 12.500 CCCC Manufacturing Nutritional Yeast 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-13 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

SCC PLLTCODE CE_MACT SUBPART MACT CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 

30203420 VOC 12.500 CCCC Manufacturing Nutritional Yeast 

30203421 VOC 12.500 CCCC Manufacturing Nutritional Yeast 

30203422 VOC 12.500 CCCC Manufacturing Nutritional Yeast 

30203423 VOC 12.500 CCCC Manufacturing Nutritional Yeast 

30203424 VOC 12.500 CCCC Manufacturing Nutritional Yeast 

30203504 VOC 12.500 CCCC Manufacturing Nutritional Yeast 

30203505 VOC 12.500 CCCC Manufacturing Nutritional Yeast 

30203506 VOC 12.500 CCCC Manufacturing Nutritional Yeast 

30203507 VOC 12.500 CCCC Manufacturing Nutritional Yeast 

30203510 VOC 12.500 CCCC Manufacturing Nutritional Yeast 

30203530 VOC 12.500 CCCC Manufacturing Nutritional Yeast 

30203531 VOC 12.500 CCCC Manufacturing Nutritional Yeast 

30203532 VOC 12.500 CCCC Manufacturing Nutritional Yeast 

30203533 VOC 12.500 CCCC Manufacturing Nutritional Yeast 

30203534 VOC 12.500 CCCC Manufacturing Nutritional Yeast 

30203535 VOC 12.500 CCCC Manufacturing Nutritional Yeast 

30203536 VOC 12.500 CCCC Manufacturing Nutritional Yeast 

30203540 VOC 12.500 CCCC Manufacturing Nutritional Yeast 

30300303 VOC 50.000 CCCCC Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, Battery St 

30300304 VOC 50.000 CCCCC Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, Battery St 

30400301 VOC 40.000 EEEEE Iron and Steel Foundries 

30400302 VOC 40.000 EEEEE Iron and Steel Foundries 

30400303 VOC 40.000 EEEEE Iron and Steel Foundries 

30400304 VOC 40.000 EEEEE Iron and Steel Foundries 

30400305 VOC 40.000 EEEEE Iron and Steel Foundries 

30400310 VOC 40.000 EEEEE Iron and Steel Foundries 

30400314 VOC 40.000 EEEEE Iron and Steel Foundries 

30400315 VOC 40.000 EEEEE Iron and Steel Foundries 

30400316 VOC 40.000 EEEEE Iron and Steel Foundries 

30400317 VOC 40.000 EEEEE Iron and Steel Foundries 

30400318 VOC 40.000 EEEEE Iron and Steel Foundries 

30400319 VOC 40.000 EEEEE Iron and Steel Foundries 

30400320 VOC 40.000 EEEEE Iron and Steel Foundries 

30400321 VOC 40.000 EEEEE Iron and Steel Foundries 

30400322 VOC 40.000 EEEEE Iron and Steel Foundries 

30400325 VOC 40.000 EEEEE Iron and Steel Foundries 

30400330 VOC 40.000 EEEEE Iron and Steel Foundries 

30400331 VOC 40.000 EEEEE Iron and Steel Foundries 

30400332 VOC 40.000 EEEEE Iron and Steel Foundries 

30400333 VOC 40.000 EEEEE Iron and Steel Foundries 

30400340 VOC 40.000 EEEEE Iron and Steel Foundries 

30400341 VOC 40.000 EEEEE Iron and Steel Foundries 

30400342 VOC 40.000 EEEEE Iron and Steel Foundries 

30400350 VOC 40.000 EEEEE Iron and Steel Foundries 

30400351 VOC 40.000 EEEEE Iron and Steel Foundries 

30400352 VOC 40.000 EEEEE Iron and Steel Foundries 

30400353 VOC 40.000 EEEEE Iron and Steel Foundries 

30400354 VOC 40.000 EEEEE Iron and Steel Foundries 

30400355 VOC 40.000 EEEEE Iron and Steel Foundries 

30400356 VOC 40.000 EEEEE Iron and Steel Foundries 

30400357 VOC 40.000 EEEEE Iron and Steel Foundries 

30400358 VOC 40.000 EEEEE Iron and Steel Foundries 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-14 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

SCC PLLTCODE CE_MACT SUBPART MACT CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 

30400360 VOC 40.000 EEEEE Iron and Steel Foundries 

30400370 VOC 40.000 EEEEE Iron and Steel Foundries 

30400371 VOC 40.000 EEEEE Iron and Steel Foundries 

30400398 VOC 40.000 EEEEE Iron and Steel Foundries 

30400399 VOC 40.000 EEEEE Iron and Steel Foundries 

30500101 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 

30500102 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 

30500103 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 

30500104 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 

30500105 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 

30500106 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 

30500107 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 

30500108 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 

30500110 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 

30500111 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 

30500112 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 

30500113 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 

30500114 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 

30500115 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 

30500116 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 

30500117 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 

30500118 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 

30500119 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 

30500120 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 

30500121 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 

30500130 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 

30500131 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 

30500132 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 

30500133 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 

30500134 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 

30500135 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 

30500140 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 

30500141 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 

30500142 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 

30500143 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 

30500144 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 

30500145 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 

30500146 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 

30500147 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 

30500150 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 

30500151 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 

30500152 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 

30500153 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 

30500154 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 

30500198 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 

30500199 VOC 28.000 LLLLL Asphalt Process and Asphalt Roofing 

30501201 VOC 74.000 HHHH Wet Formed Fiberglass Mat Production 

30501202 VOC 74.000 HHHH Wet Formed Fiberglass Mat Production 

30501203 VOC 74.000 HHHH Wet Formed Fiberglass Mat Production 

30501204 VOC 74.000 HHHH Wet Formed Fiberglass Mat Production 

30501205 VOC 74.000 HHHH Wet Formed Fiberglass Mat Production 

30501206 VOC 74.000 HHHH Wet Formed Fiberglass Mat Production 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-15 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

SCC PLLTCODE CE_MACT SUBPART MACT CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 

30501207 VOC 74.000 HHHH Wet Formed Fiberglass Mat Production 

30501208 VOC 74.000 HHHH Wet Formed Fiberglass Mat Production 

30501209 VOC 74.000 HHHH Wet Formed Fiberglass Mat Production 

30501211 VOC 74.000 HHHH Wet Formed Fiberglass Mat Production 

30501212 VOC 74.000 HHHH Wet Formed Fiberglass Mat Production 

30501213 VOC 74.000 HHHH Wet Formed Fiberglass Mat Production 

30501214 VOC 74.000 HHHH Wet Formed Fiberglass Mat Production 

30501215 VOC 74.000 HHHH Wet Formed Fiberglass Mat Production 

30501221 VOC 74.000 HHHH Wet Formed Fiberglass Mat Production 

30501222 VOC 74.000 HHHH Wet Formed Fiberglass Mat Production 

30501223 VOC 74.000 HHHH Wet Formed Fiberglass Mat Production 

30501224 VOC 74.000 HHHH Wet Formed Fiberglass Mat Production 

30501299 VOC 74.000 HHHH Wet Formed Fiberglass Mat Production 

30600201 VOC 87.400 UUU Petroleum Refineries (FCC) 

30600202 VOC 87.400 UUU Petroleum Refineries (FCC) 

30600301 VOC 87.400 UUU Petroleum Refineries (FCC) 

30600402 VOC 87.400 UUU Petroleum Refineries (FCC) 

30600901 VOC 65.630 UUU Petroleum Refineries 

30600902 VOC 65.630 UUU Petroleum Refineries 

30600903 VOC 65.630 UUU Petroleum Refineries 

30600904 VOC 65.630 UUU Petroleum Refineries 

30600905 VOC 65.630 UUU Petroleum Refineries 

30600906 VOC 65.630 UUU Petroleum Refineries 

30600999 VOC 65.630 UUU Petroleum Refineries 

30601001 VOC 65.630 UUU Petroleum Refineries 

30601101 VOC 65.630 UUU Petroleum Refineries 

30601201 VOC 65.630 UUU Petroleum Refineries 

30601301 VOC 65.630 UUU Petroleum Refineries 

30601401 VOC 65.630 UUU Petroleum Refineries 

30609901 VOC 65.630 UUU Petroleum Refineries 

30609902 VOC 65.630 UUU Petroleum Refineries 

30609903 VOC 65.630 UUU Petroleum Refineries 

30609904 VOC 65.630 UUU Petroleum Refineries 

30609905 VOC 65.630 UUU Petroleum Refineries 

30610001 VOC 65.630 UUU Petroleum Refineries 

30688801 VOC 87.400 UUU Petroleum Refineries 

30688802 VOC 87.400 UUU Petroleum Refineries 

30688803 VOC 87.400 UUU Petroleum Refineries 

30688804 VOC 87.400 UUU Petroleum Refineries 

30688805 VOC 87.400 UUU Petroleum Refineries 

30700103 VOC 7.020 MM Comustion Sources at Kraft, Soda, and Sulf 

30700104 VOC 7.020 MM Comustion Sources at Kraft, Soda, and Sulf 

30700106 VOC 7.020 MM Comustion Sources at Kraft, Soda, and Sulf 

30700110 VOC 7.020 MM Comustion Sources at Kraft, Soda, and Sulf 

30700602 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700604 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700606 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700607 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700608 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700610 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700611 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700621 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-16 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

SCC PLLTCODE CE_MACT SUBPART MACT CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 

30700625 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700626 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700628 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700629 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700630 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700631 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700632 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700635 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700640 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700651 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700655 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700661 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700701 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700702 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700703 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700704 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700705 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700706 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700707 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700708 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700709 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700710 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700711 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700712 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700713 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700714 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700715 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700716 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700717 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700718 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700720 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700725 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700727 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700730 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700734 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700735 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700736 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700737 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700740 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700744 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700746 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700747 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700750 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700752 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700753 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700756 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700757 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700760 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700762 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700763 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700766 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700767 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-17 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

SCC PLLTCODE CE_MACT SUBPART MACT CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 

30700769 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700770 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700771 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700780 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700781 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700783 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700785 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700788 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700789 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700790 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700791 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700792 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700793 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700798 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700799 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700921 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700923 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700925 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700927 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700931 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700932 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700933 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700934 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700935 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700936 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700937 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700939 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700940 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700950 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700960 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700971 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700980 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700981 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700982 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700983 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30700984 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30701001 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30701008 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30701009 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30701010 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30701015 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30701020 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30701030 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30701040 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30701053 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30701054 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30701055 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30701057 VOC 41.200 DDDD Plywood and Composite Wood Products 

30701199 VOC 82.050 JJJJ Paper and Other Web Coating 

30800101 VOC 47.600 XXXX Rubber Tire Manufacturing 

30800102 VOC 47.600 XXXX Rubber Tire Manufacturing 

30800103 VOC 47.600 XXXX Rubber Tire Manufacturing 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-18 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

SCC PLLTCODE CE_MACT SUBPART MACT CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 

30800104 VOC 47.600 XXXX Rubber Tire Manufacturing 

30800105 VOC 47.600 XXXX Rubber Tire Manufacturing 

30800106 VOC 47.600 XXXX Rubber Tire Manufacturing 

30800107 VOC 47.600 XXXX Rubber Tire Manufacturing 

30800108 VOC 47.600 XXXX Rubber Tire Manufacturing 

30800109 VOC 47.600 XXXX Rubber Tire Manufacturing 

30800110 VOC 47.600 XXXX Rubber Tire Manufacturing 

30800111 VOC 47.600 XXXX Rubber Tire Manufacturing 

30800112 VOC 47.600 XXXX Rubber Tire Manufacturing 

30800113 VOC 47.600 XXXX Rubber Tire Manufacturing 

30800114 VOC 47.600 XXXX Rubber Tire Manufacturing 

30800115 VOC 47.600 XXXX Rubber Tire Manufacturing 

30800116 VOC 47.600 XXXX Rubber Tire Manufacturing 

30800117 VOC 47.600 XXXX Rubber Tire Manufacturing 

30800120 VOC 47.600 XXXX Rubber Tire Manufacturing 

30800121 VOC 47.600 XXXX Rubber Tire Manufacturing 

30800122 VOC 47.600 XXXX Rubber Tire Manufacturing 

30800123 VOC 47.600 XXXX Rubber Tire Manufacturing 

30800124 VOC 47.600 XXXX Rubber Tire Manufacturing 

30800125 VOC 47.600 XXXX Rubber Tire Manufacturing 

30800126 VOC 47.600 XXXX Rubber Tire Manufacturing 

30800127 VOC 47.600 XXXX Rubber Tire Manufacturing 

30800128 VOC 47.600 XXXX Rubber Tire Manufacturing 

30800129 VOC 47.600 XXXX Rubber Tire Manufacturing 

30800130 VOC 47.600 XXXX Rubber Tire Manufacturing 

30800131 VOC 47.600 XXXX Rubber Tire Manufacturing 

30800132 VOC 47.600 XXXX Rubber Tire Manufacturing 

30800133 VOC 47.600 XXXX Rubber Tire Manufacturing 

30800197 VOC 47.600 XXXX Rubber Tire Manufacturing 

30800198 VOC 47.600 XXXX Rubber Tire Manufacturing 

30800199 VOC 47.600 XXXX Rubber Tire Manufacturing 

30800701 VOC 70.000 WWWW Reinforced Plastics 

30800702 VOC 70.000 WWWW Reinforced Plastics 

30800703 VOC 70.000 WWWW Reinforced Plastics 

30800704 VOC 70.000 WWWW Reinforced Plastics 

30800705 VOC 70.000 WWWW Reinforced Plastics 

30800720 VOC 70.000 WWWW Reinforced Plastics 

30800721 VOC 70.000 WWWW Reinforced Plastics 

30800722 VOC 70.000 WWWW Reinforced Plastics 

30800723 VOC 70.000 WWWW Reinforced Plastics 

30800724 VOC 70.000 WWWW Reinforced Plastics 

30800799 VOC 70.000 WWWW Reinforced Plastics 

30801001 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

31401001 VOC 43.900 QQQQQ Friction Products Manufacturing 

31401002 VOC 43.900 QQQQQ Friction Products Manufacturing 

31401501 VOC 35.790 VVVV Boat Manufacturing 

31401503 VOC 35.790 VVVV Boat Manufacturing 

31401504 VOC 35.790 VVVV Boat Manufacturing 

31401510 VOC 35.790 VVVV Boat Manufacturing 

31401511 VOC 35.790 VVVV Boat Manufacturing 

31401512 VOC 35.790 VVVV Boat Manufacturing 

31401513 VOC 35.790 VVVV Boat Manufacturing 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-19 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

SCC PLLTCODE CE_MACT SUBPART MACT CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 

31401514 VOC 35.790 VVVV Boat Manufacturing 

31401515 VOC 35.790 VVVV Boat Manufacturing 

31401516 VOC 35.790 VVVV Boat Manufacturing 

31401517 VOC 35.790 VVVV Boat Manufacturing 

31401518 VOC 35.790 VVVV Boat Manufacturing 

31401525 VOC 35.790 VVVV Boat Manufacturing 

31401530 VOC 35.790 VVVV Boat Manufacturing 

31401531 VOC 35.790 VVVV Boat Manufacturing 

31401540 VOC 35.790 VVVV Boat Manufacturing 

31401541 VOC 35.790 VVVV Boat Manufacturing 

31401550 VOC 35.790 VVVV Boat Manufacturing 

31401551 VOC 35.790 VVVV Boat Manufacturing 

31401552 VOC 35.790 VVVV Boat Manufacturing 

31401553 VOC 35.790 VVVV Boat Manufacturing 

31401560 VOC 35.790 VVVV Boat Manufacturing 

31401561 VOC 35.790 VVVV Boat Manufacturing 

31401562 VOC 35.790 VVVV Boat Manufacturing 

31401563 VOC 35.790 VVVV Boat Manufacturing 

31401570 VOC 35.790 VVVV Boat Manufacturing 

31401571 VOC 35.790 VVVV Boat Manufacturing 

31604001 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

31604002 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

31604003 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

32099997 VOC 38.900 TTTT Leather Finishing Operations 

32099998 VOC 38.900 TTTT Leather Finishing Operations 

32099999 VOC 38.900 TTTT Leather Finishing Operations 

40201101 VOC 60.170 OOOO Fabric Printing, Coating, & Dyeing 

40201103 VOC 60.170 OOOO Fabric Printing, Coating, & Dyeing 

40201104 VOC 60.170 OOOO Fabric Printing, Coating, & Dyeing 

40201105 VOC 60.170 OOOO Fabric Printing, Coating, & Dyeing 

40201111 VOC 60.170 OOOO Fabric Printing, Coating, & Dyeing 

40201112 VOC 60.170 OOOO Fabric Printing, Coating, & Dyeing 

40201113 VOC 60.170 OOOO Fabric Printing, Coating, & Dyeing 

40201114 VOC 60.170 OOOO Fabric Printing, Coating, & Dyeing 

40201115 VOC 60.170 OOOO Fabric Printing, Coating, & Dyeing 

40201116 VOC 60.170 OOOO Fabric Printing, Coating, & Dyeing 

40201121 VOC 60.170 OOOO Fabric Printing, Coating, & Dyeing 

40201122 VOC 60.170 OOOO Fabric Printing, Coating, & Dyeing 

40201197 VOC 60.170 OOOO Fabric Printing, Coating, & Dyeing 

40201198 VOC 60.170 OOOO Fabric Printing, Coating, & Dyeing 

40201199 VOC 60.170 OOOO Fabric Printing, Coating, & Dyeing 

40201201 VOC 60.170 OOOO Fabric Printing, Coating, & Dyeing 

40201210 VOC 60.170 OOOO Fabric Printing, Coating, & Dyeing 

40201301 VOC 82.050 JJJJ Paper and Other Web Coating 

40201303 VOC 82.050 JJJJ Paper and Other Web Coating 

40201304 VOC 82.050 JJJJ Paper and Other Web Coating 

40201305 VOC 82.050 JJJJ Paper and Other Web Coating 

40201310 VOC 82.050 JJJJ Paper and Other Web Coating 

40201320 VOC 82.050 JJJJ Paper and Other Web Coating 

40201330 VOC 82.050 JJJJ Paper and Other Web Coating 

40201399 VOC 82.050 JJJJ Paper and Other Web Coating 

40201601 VOC 66.730 IIII Auto and Light Trucks Surface Coating 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-20 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

SCC PLLTCODE CE_MACT SUBPART MACT CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 

40201602 VOC 66.730 IIII Auto and Light Trucks Surface Coating 

40201603 VOC 66.730 IIII Auto and Light Trucks Surface Coating 

40201604 VOC 66.730 IIII Auto and Light Trucks Surface Coating 

40201605 VOC 66.730 IIII Auto and Light Trucks Surface Coating 

40201606 VOC 66.730 IIII Auto and Light Trucks Surface Coating 

40201607 VOC 66.730 IIII Auto and Light Trucks Surface Coating 

40201608 VOC 66.730 IIII Auto and Light Trucks Surface Coating 

40201609 VOC 66.730 IIII Auto and Light Trucks Surface Coating 

40201619 VOC 66.730 IIII Auto and Light Trucks Surface Coating 

40201620 VOC 66.730 IIII Auto and Light Trucks Surface Coating 

40201621 VOC 66.730 IIII Auto and Light Trucks Surface Coating 

40201622 VOC 66.730 IIII Auto and Light Trucks Surface Coating 

40201623 VOC 66.730 IIII Auto and Light Trucks Surface Coating 

40201624 VOC 66.730 IIII Auto and Light Trucks Surface Coating 

40201625 VOC 66.730 IIII Auto and Light Trucks Surface Coating 

40201626 VOC 66.730 IIII Auto and Light Trucks Surface Coating 

40201627 VOC 66.730 IIII Auto and Light Trucks Surface Coating 

40201628 VOC 66.730 IIII Auto and Light Trucks Surface Coating 

40201629 VOC 66.730 IIII Auto and Light Trucks Surface Coating 

40201630 VOC 66.730 IIII Auto and Light Trucks Surface Coating 

40201631 VOC 66.730 IIII Auto and Light Trucks Surface Coating 

40201632 VOC 66.730 IIII Auto and Light Trucks Surface Coating 

40201699 VOC 66.730 IIII Auto and Light Trucks Surface Coating 

40201702 VOC 70.830 KKKK Metal Can 

40201703 VOC 70.830 KKKK Metal Can 

40201704 VOC 70.830 KKKK Metal Can 

40201705 VOC 70.830 KKKK Metal Can 

40201706 VOC 70.830 KKKK Metal Can 

40201721 VOC 70.830 KKKK Metal Can 

40201722 VOC 70.830 KKKK Metal Can 

40201723 VOC 70.830 KKKK Metal Can 

40201724 VOC 70.830 KKKK Metal Can 

40201725 VOC 70.830 KKKK Metal Can 

40201726 VOC 70.830 KKKK Metal Can 

40201727 VOC 70.830 KKKK Metal Can 

40201728 VOC 70.830 KKKK Metal Can 

40201729 VOC 70.830 KKKK Metal Can 

40201731 VOC 70.830 KKKK Metal Can 

40201732 VOC 70.830 KKKK Metal Can 

40201733 VOC 70.830 KKKK Metal Can 

40201734 VOC 70.830 KKKK Metal Can 

40201735 VOC 70.830 KKKK Metal Can 

40201736 VOC 70.830 KKKK Metal Can 

40201737 VOC 70.830 KKKK Metal Can 

40201738 VOC 70.830 KKKK Metal Can 

40201739 VOC 70.830 KKKK Metal Can 

40201799 VOC 70.830 KKKK Metal Can 

40201801 VOC 53.060 SSSS Metal Coil 

40201802 VOC 53.060 SSSS Metal Coil 

40201803 VOC 53.060 SSSS Metal Coil 

40201804 VOC 53.060 SSSS Metal Coil 

40201805 VOC 53.060 SSSS Metal Coil 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-21 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

SCC PLLTCODE CE_MACT SUBPART MACT CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 

40201806 VOC 53.060 SSSS Metal Coil 

40201807 VOC 53.060 SSSS Metal Coil 

40201899 VOC 53.060 SSSS Metal Coil 

40202001 VOC 73.070 RRRR Metal Furniture 

40202002 VOC 73.070 RRRR Metal Furniture 

40202003 VOC 73.070 RRRR Metal Furniture 

40202004 VOC 73.070 RRRR Metal Furniture 

40202005 VOC 73.070 RRRR Metal Furniture 

40202010 VOC 73.070 RRRR Metal Furniture 

40202011 VOC 73.070 RRRR Metal Furniture 

40202012 VOC 73.070 RRRR Metal Furniture 

40202013 VOC 73.070 RRRR Metal Furniture 

40202014 VOC 73.070 RRRR Metal Furniture 

40202015 VOC 73.070 RRRR Metal Furniture 

40202020 VOC 73.070 RRRR Metal Furniture 

40202021 VOC 73.070 RRRR Metal Furniture 

40202022 VOC 73.070 RRRR Metal Furniture 

40202023 VOC 73.070 RRRR Metal Furniture 

40202024 VOC 73.070 RRRR Metal Furniture 

40202025 VOC 73.070 RRRR Metal Furniture 

40202031 VOC 73.070 RRRR Metal Furniture 

40202032 VOC 73.070 RRRR Metal Furniture 

40202033 VOC 73.070 RRRR Metal Furniture 

40202034 VOC 73.070 RRRR Metal Furniture 

40202035 VOC 73.070 RRRR Metal Furniture 

40202036 VOC 73.070 RRRR Metal Furniture 

40202037 VOC 73.070 RRRR Metal Furniture 

40202038 VOC 73.070 RRRR Metal Furniture 

40202039 VOC 73.070 RRRR Metal Furniture 

40202099 VOC 73.070 RRRR Metal Furniture 

40202101 VOC 74.000 QQQQ Wood Building Products 

40202103 VOC 74.000 QQQQ Wood Building Products 

40202104 VOC 74.000 QQQQ Wood Building Products 

40202105 VOC 74.000 QQQQ Wood Building Products 

40202106 VOC 74.000 QQQQ Wood Building Products 

40202107 VOC 74.000 QQQQ Wood Building Products 

40202108 VOC 74.000 QQQQ Wood Building Products 

40202109 VOC 74.000 QQQQ Wood Building Products 

40202110 VOC 74.000 QQQQ Wood Building Products 

40202111 VOC 74.000 QQQQ Wood Building Products 

40202117 VOC 74.000 QQQQ Wood Building Products 

40202118 VOC 74.000 QQQQ Wood Building Products 

40202131 VOC 74.000 QQQQ Wood Building Products 

40202132 VOC 74.000 QQQQ Wood Building Products 

40202133 VOC 74.000 QQQQ Wood Building Products 

40202140 VOC 74.000 QQQQ Wood Building Products 

40202199 VOC 74.000 QQQQ Wood Building Products 

40202201 VOC 77.000 PPPP Plastic Parts Coating 

40202202 VOC 77.000 PPPP Plastic Parts Coating 

40202203 VOC 77.000 PPPP Plastic Parts Coating 

40202204 VOC 77.000 PPPP Plastic Parts Coating 

40202205 VOC 77.000 PPPP Plastic Parts Coating 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-22 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

SCC PLLTCODE CE_MACT SUBPART MACT CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 

40202206 VOC 77.000 PPPP Plastic Parts Coating 

40202207 VOC 77.000 PPPP Plastic Parts Coating 

40202208 VOC 77.000 PPPP Plastic Parts Coating 

40202209 VOC 77.000 PPPP Plastic Parts Coating 

40202210 VOC 77.000 PPPP Plastic Parts Coating 

40202211 VOC 77.000 PPPP Plastic Parts Coating 

40202212 VOC 77.000 PPPP Plastic Parts Coating 

40202213 VOC 77.000 PPPP Plastic Parts Coating 

40202214 VOC 77.000 PPPP Plastic Parts Coating 

40202215 VOC 77.000 PPPP Plastic Parts Coating 

40202220 VOC 77.000 PPPP Plastic Parts Coating 

40202229 VOC 77.000 PPPP Plastic Parts Coating 

40202230 VOC 77.000 PPPP Plastic Parts Coating 

40202239 VOC 77.000 PPPP Plastic Parts Coating 

40202240 VOC 77.000 PPPP Plastic Parts Coating 

40202249 VOC 77.000 PPPP Plastic Parts Coating 

40202250 VOC 77.000 PPPP Plastic Parts Coating 

40202259 VOC 77.000 PPPP Plastic Parts Coating 

40202270 VOC 77.000 PPPP Plastic Parts Coating 

40202280 VOC 77.000 PPPP Plastic Parts Coating 

40202299 VOC 77.000 PPPP Plastic Parts Coating 

40202501 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Metal Parts and Products 

40202502 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Metal Parts and Products 

40202503 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Metal Parts and Products 

40202504 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Metal Parts and Products 

40202505 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Metal Parts and Products 

40202510 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Metal Parts and Products 

40202511 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Metal Parts and Products 

40202512 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Metal Parts and Products 

40202515 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Metal Parts and Products 

40202520 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Metal Parts and Products 

40202521 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Metal Parts and Products 

40202522 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Metal Parts and Products 

40202523 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Metal Parts and Products 

40202524 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Metal Parts and Products 

40202525 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Metal Parts and Products 

40202531 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Metal Parts and Products 

40202532 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Metal Parts and Products 

40202533 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Metal Parts and Products 

40202534 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Metal Parts and Products 

40202535 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Metal Parts and Products 

40202536 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Metal Parts and Products 

40202537 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Metal Parts and Products 

40202542 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Metal Parts and Products 

40202543 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Metal Parts and Products 

40202544 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Metal Parts and Products 

40202545 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Metal Parts and Products 

40202546 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Metal Parts and Products 

40202599 VOC 47.930 MMMM Misc. Metal Parts and Products 

40202601 VOC 66.200 HHHHH Misc. Coating Manufacturing 

40202602 VOC 66.200 HHHHH Misc. Coating Manufacturing 

40202603 VOC 66.200 HHHHH Misc. Coating Manufacturing 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-23 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

SCC PLLTCODE CE_MACT SUBPART MACT CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 

40202604 VOC 66.200 HHHHH Misc. Coating Manufacturing 

40202605 VOC 66.200 HHHHH Misc. Coating Manufacturing 

40202606 VOC 66.200 HHHHH Misc. Coating Manufacturing 

40202607 VOC 66.200 HHHHH Misc. Coating Manufacturing 

40202699 VOC 66.200 HHHHH Misc. Coating Manufacturing 

40388801 VOC 65.630 UUU Petroleum Refineries 

40388802 VOC 65.630 UUU Petroleum Refineries 

40388803 VOC 65.630 UUU Petroleum Refineries 

40388804 VOC 65.630 UUU Petroleum Refineries 

40388805 VOC 65.630 UUU Petroleum Refineries 

40399999 VOC 65.630 UUU Petroleum Refineries 

50400101 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50400102 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50400103 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50400104 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50400150 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50400151 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50400201 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50400202 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410001 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410002 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410003 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410004 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410005 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410010 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410020 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410021 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410022 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410030 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410040 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410101 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410110 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410111 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410112 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410120 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410121 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410122 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410123 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410124 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410210 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410211 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410212 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410213 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410214 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410215 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410216 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410310 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410311 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410312 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410313 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410314 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410321 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-24 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

SCC PLLTCODE CE_MACT SUBPART MACT CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 

50410322 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410405 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410406 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410407 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410408 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410409 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410420 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410510 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410511 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410512 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410513 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410514 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410520 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410521 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410522 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410523 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410524 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410525 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410530 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410531 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410532 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410533 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410534 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410535 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410536 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410537 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410538 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410539 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410540 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410541 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410542 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410543 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410560 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410561 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410562 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410563 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410564 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410565 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410610 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410620 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410621 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410622 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410623 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410640 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410641 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410642 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410643 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410644 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410645 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410710 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410711 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410712 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-25 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

SCC PLLTCODE CE_MACT SUBPART MACT CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 

50410720 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410721 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410722 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410723 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410724 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410725 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410726 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410740 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410760 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410761 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410762 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410763 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410764 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410765 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410766 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50410780 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50480001 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50482001 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50482002 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50482599 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

50490004 VOC 50.080 GGGGG Site Remediation 

62540001 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

62540010 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

62540020 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

62540021 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

62540022 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

62540023 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

62540024 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

62540025 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

62540030 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

62540040 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

62540041 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

62540042 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

62540050 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

62580001 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

62582001 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

62582002 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

62582501 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

62582502 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

62582503 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

62582599 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64130001 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64130010 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64130011 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64130025 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64130101 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64130110 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64130111 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64130112 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64130125 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64130201 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64130210 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-26 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

SCC PLLTCODE CE_MACT SUBPART MACT CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 

64130211 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64130225 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64131001 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64131010 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64131011 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64131015 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64131020 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64131025 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64131030 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64132001 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64132010 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64132011 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64132020 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64132025 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64132030 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64133001 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64133010 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64133011 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64133020 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64133025 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64133030 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64180001 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64182001 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64182002 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64182599 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64420001 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64420010 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64420011 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64420012 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64420013 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64420014 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64420015 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64420016 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64420020 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64420021 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64420022 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64420030 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64420031 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64420032 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64420033 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64420034 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64420040 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64420041 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64420042 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64430001 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64430010 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64430011 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64430012 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64430013 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64430014 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64430015 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64430016 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-27 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

SCC PLLTCODE CE_MACT SUBPART MACT CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 

64430017 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64430030 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64431001 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64431010 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64431011 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64431012 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64431013 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64431014 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64431015 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64431016 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64431017 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64431030 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64450001 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64450010 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64450011 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64450012 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64450013 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64450014 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64450020 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64450021 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64450022 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64450030 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64450031 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64450032 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64450033 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64450034 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64450035 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64450036 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64450040 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64450041 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64450042 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64450050 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64450051 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64450052 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64450053 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64450060 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64450061 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64450062 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64520001 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64520010 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64520011 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64520020 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64520021 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64520022 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64520023 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64520030 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64520031 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64520032 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64520040 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64520041 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64521001 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64521010 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-28 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

SCC PLLTCODE CE_MACT SUBPART MACT CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 

64521011 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64521020 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64521021 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64521022 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64521023 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64521040 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64521041 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64610001 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64610010 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64610011 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64610012 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64610020 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64610021 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64610022 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64610030 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64610031 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64610032 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64610040 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64610041 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64610050 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64610101 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64610110 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64610111 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64610112 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64610120 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64610121 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64610122 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64610130 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64610131 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64610132 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64610140 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64610141 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64610142 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64610143 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64610150 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64610201 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64610210 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64610211 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64610212 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64610220 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64610221 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64610222 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64610230 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64610231 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64610232 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64610240 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64610241 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64610242 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64610250 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64610301 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64610310 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64610311 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-29 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

SCC PLLTCODE CE_MACT SUBPART MACT CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 

64610312 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64610320 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64610321 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64610322 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64610330 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64610331 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64610332 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64610340 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64610350 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64615001 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64615010 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64615011 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64615012 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64615020 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64615021 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64615022 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64615023 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64615030 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64620001 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64620011 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64620012 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64620013 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64620015 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64620016 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64620017 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64620018 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64620020 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64620021 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64620022 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64620025 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64620026 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64620027 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64620030 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64620031 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64620032 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64620033 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64620034 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64620035 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64620036 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64620037 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64620038 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64630001 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64630010 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64630011 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64630012 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64630015 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64630016 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64630025 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64630026 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64630030 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64630035 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64630040 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-30 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

SCC PLLTCODE CE_MACT SUBPART MACT CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 

64630041 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64630042 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64630050 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64630051 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64630052 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64630053 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64630080 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64630081 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64630082 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64630083 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64631001 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64631010 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64631011 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64631012 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64631015 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64631016 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64631025 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64631026 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64631030 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64631040 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64631050 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64631051 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64631052 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64631053 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64631080 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64631081 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64631082 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64631083 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64632001 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64632010 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64632011 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64632015 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64632016 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64632020 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64632030 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64632040 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64632041 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64632042 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64632050 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64632051 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64632052 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64632053 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64632080 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64632081 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64632082 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64632083 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64680001 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64682001 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64682002 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64682501 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64682502 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64682599 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-31 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

SCC PLLTCODE CE_MACT SUBPART MACT CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 

64820010 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64821001 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64821010 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64822001 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64822010 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64823001 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64823010 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64824001 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64824010 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64880001 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64882001 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64882002 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64882599 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

64920001 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64920010 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64920011 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64920012 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64920013 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64920020 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64920021 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64920022 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64920030 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64920031 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64920032 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64920033 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64920034 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64930001 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64930010 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64930011 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64930012 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64930020 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64930021 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64930030 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64930031 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64930035 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64930040 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64930041 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64930045 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64930050 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64931001 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64931010 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64931011 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64931012 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64931020 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64931021 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64931022 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64931030 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64931031 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64931032 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64931040 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64931041 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64931050 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-32 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

SCC PLLTCODE CE_MACT SUBPART MACT CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 

64980001 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64982001 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64982002 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

64982599 VOC 62.900 UUUU Cellulose Products 

65135001 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

65140001 VOC 44.500 YY Generic MACT (Cyanide) 

65140010 VOC 44.500 YY Generic MACT (Cyanide) 

65140011 VOC 44.500 YY Generic MACT (Cyanide) 

65140012 VOC 44.500 YY Generic MACT (Cyanide) 

65140013 VOC 44.500 YY Generic MACT (Cyanide) 

65140014 VOC 44.500 YY Generic MACT (Cyanide) 

65140015 VOC 44.500 YY Generic MACT (Cyanide) 

65140016 VOC 44.500 YY Generic MACT (Cyanide) 

65140017 VOC 44.500 YY Generic MACT (Cyanide) 

65140018 VOC 44.500 YY Generic MACT (Cyanide) 

65140030 VOC 44.500 YY Generic MACT (Cyanide) 

68430001 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

68430010 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

68430011 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

68430020 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

68430030 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

68430031 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

68430032 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

68445001 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

68445010 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

68445013 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

68445020 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

68445022 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

68445101 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

68445201 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

68510001 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

68510010 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

68510011 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

68580001 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

68582001 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

68582002 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 

68582599 VOC 66.200 FFFF Misc. Organic Chemical Production and Proc 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-33 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Table B-5 NonEGU Source Shutdowns 

FIPS SITE ID FACILTY NAME EU ID UNIT DESCRIPTION 

10003 1000300021 SUNCO INC R M 001 BOILER #1 

10003 1000300021 SUNCO INC R M 002 BOILER #2 

10003 1000300021 SUNCO INC R M 003 BOILER #3 

10003 1000300016 MOTIVA ENTERPRISES LLC 072 METHANOL PLT HTR 41-H-1 

10003 1000300004 WILMINGTON PIECE DYE CO ALL ALL 

10003 1000300032 GENERAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION ALL ALL 

10003 1000300074 METACHEM PRODUCTS LLC ALL ALL 

10003 1000300127 VPI FILM LLC ALL ALL 

10003 1000300129 LAFARGE NORTH AMERICA INC ALL ALL 

10003 1000300350 KANEKA DELAWARE CORPORATION ALL ALL 

25001 1200202 PARTYLITE WORLDWIDE ALL ALL 

25001 1200614 BOURNE LANDFILL ALL ALL 

25003 1170002 ADVANCED INFORMATION ALL ALL 

25003 1170005 CATAMOUNT PELLET FUE ALL ALL 

25003 1170048 SPRAGUE NORTH ADAMS ALL ALL 

25003 1170056 BERKSHIRE GAS STOCKB ALL ALL 

25003 1170078 MACDERMID GRAPHIC AR ALL ALL 

25003 1170091 LANE CONSTRUCTION CO ALL ALL 

25005 1200009 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS ALL ALL 

25005 1200031 CONDEA VISTA CO ALL ALL 

25005 1200036 ELKAY REVERE CORP ALL ALL 

25005 1200037 AEROVOX INCORPORATED ALL ALL 

25005 1200065 ROSEMAR SILVER COMPA ALL ALL 

25005 1200080 ATTLEBORO REFINING C ALL ALL 

25005 1200116 STEDRO TEXTILES ALL ALL 

25005 1200138 CLIFTEX CORPORATION ALL ALL 

25005 1200169 PAUL DEVER STATE SCH ALL ALL 

25005 1200209 PHARMACY SERVICE COR ALL ALL 

25005 1200216 BRISTOL COUNTY JAIL ALL ALL 

25005 1200235 SEA WATCH INTERNATIO ALL ALL 

25005 1200393 OLSONS GREENHOUSES ALL ALL 

25005 1200468 AA WILL MATERIALS-FR ALL ALL 

25005 1200498 CRAPO HILL LANDFILL ALL ALL 

25005 1200510 KREW INCORPORATED ALL ALL 

25005 1200513 AEROVOX INCORPORATED ALL ALL 

25005 1200542 LALLY COLUMN CORP ALL ALL 

25005 1200673 HOMELAND BUILDERS ALL ALL 

25005 1200824 JUSTIN CLOTHING CO ALL ALL 

25005 1200880 VELVET DRIVE TRANSMI ALL ALL 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-34 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

FIPS SITE ID FACILTY NAME EU ID UNIT DESCRIPTION 

25005 1192308 INTERSTATE MAT & RUB ALL ALL 

25009 1210057 COASTAL METAL FINISH ALL ALL 

25009 1210058 AMESBURY CHAIR ALL ALL 

25009 1210075 HAMPSHIRE FABRICS ALL ALL 

25009 1210099 WASTE MANAGEMENT HUN ALL ALL 

25009 1210110 CUSTOM INDUSTRIES IN ALL ALL 

25009 1210114 SAGAMORE INDUSTRIAL ALL ALL 

25009 1210143 LABELS INC ALL ALL 

25009 1210154 NEWARK ATLANTIC PAPE ALL ALL 

25009 1210208 TEK COATING COMPANY ALL ALL 

25009 1210209 NATIONAL NORTHEAST ALL ALL 

25009 1210223 STARENSIER INC ALL ALL 

25009 1210400 SANMINA CORPORATION ALL ALL 

25009 1210401 COVANTA HAVERHILL IN ALL ALL 

25009 1210404 TEKE FURNITURE RESTO ALL ALL 

25009 1190756 PERMAIR LEATHERS INC ALL ALL 

25009 1190842 SLB SNACKS INC ALL ALL 

25009 1190983 SALEM OIL & GREASE C ALL ALL 

25009 1191036 JCR ELECTRONICS ALL ALL 

25009 1195900 LEPAGES INC ALL ALL 

25013 0420008 DELUXE FINANCIAL ALL ALL 

25013 0420010 FRYE COPYSYSTEMS INC ALL ALL 

25013 0420013 JAHN FOUNDRY CORPORA ALL ALL 

25013 0420052 APW/WRIGHT LINE ALL ALL 

25013 0420130 KODAK POLYCHROME GRA ALL ALL 

25013 0420175 FIBERMARK DSI ALL ALL 

25013 0420218 SPRINGFIELD PRINTING ALL ALL 

25013 0420252 KODAK POLYCHROME GRA ALL ALL 

25013 0420528 NATIONAL METAL INDUS ALL ALL 

25015 0420060 BERKSHIRE GAS HATFIE ALL ALL 

25015 0420105 INDUSTRIAL POWER SER ALL ALL 

25015 0420170 TECHALLOY COMPANY IN ALL ALL 

25015 0420424 MAGNAT MACHINETECH I ALL ALL 

25015 0420463 INDUSTRIAL PROP OF E ALL ALL 

25015 0420540 GENERAL CABLE CORP ALL ALL 

25015 0420614 REXAM IMAGE PRODUCTS ALL ALL 

25017 1210013 MERRIMACK MAGNETICS ALL ALL 

25017 1210050 MAJILITE MFG INC ALL ALL 

25017 1210064 FINISH UNLIMITED INC ALL ALL 

25017 1190080 MASS BROKEN STONE CO ALL ALL 

25017 1210127 USM CORPORATION ALL ALL 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-35 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

FIPS SITE ID FACILTY NAME EU ID UNIT DESCRIPTION 

25017 1210147 UMASS LOWELL-RESIDEN ALL ALL 

25017 1210182 JOAN FABRICS CORP ALL ALL 

25017 1190203 SC WAKEFIELD 200 ALL ALL 

25017 1190212 OLYMPUS SPECIALTY HO ALL ALL 

25017 1190258 ROYAL INSTITUTIONAL ALL ALL 

25017 1210334 T&T INDUSTRIAL ALL ALL 

25017 1190465 PRINTED CIRCUIT CORP ALL ALL 

25017 1190611 GEORGE MEADE FOUNDRY ALL ALL 

25017 1190734 NEW ENGLAND CONFECTI ALL ALL 

25017 1180794 SCHOTT CML FIBEROPTI ALL ALL 

25017 1190984 SUNGARD AVAILABILITY ALL ALL 

25017 1191008 RAYTHEON SYSTEMS CO ALL ALL 

25017 1191217 BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CO ALL ALL 

25017 1191267 AGFA DIVISION OF BAY ALL ALL 

25017 1191351 MIT EDUCATIONAL FACI ALL ALL 

25017 1191389 LONGVIEW FIBRE COMPA ALL ALL 

25017 1191534 SWISSTRONICS INCORPO ALL ALL 

25017 1191653 FOCAL INCORPORATED ALL ALL 

25017 1191668 LEE PRODUCTS COMPANY ALL ALL 

25017 1191735 TYCO ELECTRONICS COR ALL ALL 

25017 1191897 GENZYME CORPORATION ALL ALL 

25017 1194001 WF WOOD INC ALL ALL 

25017 1194010 RR DONNELLEY & SONS ALL ALL 

25017 1214012 PERFORMANCE CORRUGAT ALL ALL 

25021 1190246 SOUTHWOOD COMMUNITY ALL ALL 

25021 1190313 INNOVATIVE MEMBRANE ALL ALL 

25021 1180359 BEVILACQUA PAVING CO ALL ALL 

25021 1200515 FOXBOROUGH REALTY AS ALL ALL 

25021 1200616 PLAINVILLE GENERATIN ALL ALL 

25021 1190670 RAYTHEON ELECTRONIC ALL ALL 

25021 1190714 TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL ALL ALL 

25021 1190962 NIDEC AMERICA CORPOR ALL ALL 

25021 1191562 BARCLAY HOUSE THE ALL ALL 

25021 1191726 MWRA QUINCY PS ALL ALL 

25021 1192130 CURRY WOODWORKING IN ALL ALL 

25021 1199000 MEDFIELD STATE HOSPI ALL ALL 

25023 1200637 FRANKLIN FIXTURES IN ALL ALL 

25023 1200698 CRANBERRY GRAPHICS I ALL ALL 

25023 1192101 GTR FINISHING CORPOR ALL ALL 

25023 1192109 ALGER CORPORATION TH ALL ALL 

25023 1192210 IMPERIA CORPORATION ALL ALL 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Appendix B – Non EGU Point Source Control Factors Page B-36 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

FIPS SITE ID FACILTY NAME EU ID UNIT DESCRIPTION 

25023 1199994 TEST-RADIUS-FITZGERA ALL ALL 

25025 1190035 BOSTON WATER & SEWER ALL ALL 

25025 1190057 NEPONSET RIVER VALLE ALL ALL 

25025 1190101 UNIFIRST CORP ALL ALL 

25025 1190357 DAMRELL EWER PARTNER ALL ALL 

25025 1190478 WINTHROP COMMUNITY H ALL ALL 

25025 1190649 ZAPCO READVILLE COGE ALL ALL 

25025 1190808 PUBLIC HEALTH COMMUN ALL ALL 

25025 1191551 BEACON CAPITAL PARTN ALL ALL 

25025 1191566 NEW ENGLAND TRAWLER ALL ALL 

25025 1191621 FEDERAL MOGUL FRICTI ALL ALL 

25025 1191662 EQUITY OFFICE ALL ALL 

25025 1191956 CHANNEL CENTER:PARCE ALL ALL 

25025 1195596 SYNTHON IND INCORPOR ALL ALL 

25027 1180010 CANTERBURY TOWERS ALL ALL 

25027 1180014 ER BUCK CHAIR COMPAN ALL ALL 

25027 1180029 GENERAL ELECTRIC FIT ALL ALL 

25027 1180091 ANGLO FABRICS COMPAN ALL ALL 

25027 1180100 ZAPCO ENERGY TACTICS ALL ALL 

25027 1180111 CINCINATTI MILACRON ALL ALL 

25027 1180114 NEW ENGLAND PLATING ALL ALL 

25027 1180129 GF WRIGHT STEEL & WI ALL ALL 

25027 1180132 STANDARDFOUNDRY ALL ALL 

25027 1180174 WORCESTER TOOL & STA ALL ALL 

25027 1180203 WORCESTER COUNTY HOS ALL ALL 

25027 1180244 HI TECH METALS & FIN ALL ALL 

25027 1180340 GHM INDUSTRIES INC ALL ALL 

25027 1180353 ADVANCED MICROSENSOR ALL ALL 

25027 1180355 NEWARK AMERICA ALL ALL 

25027 1180373 ZYGO TERAOPTIX ALL ALL 

25027 1180389 ETHAN ALLEN-DUDLEY ALL ALL 

25027 1180439 INLAND PAPERBOARD & ALL ALL 

25027 1180484 NELMOR COMPANY ALL ALL 

25027 1180518 JAMESBURY INCORPORAT ALL ALL 

25027 1180556 M&H TIRE CO INC ALL ALL 

25027 1180568 CROFT CORPORATION ALL ALL 

25027 1180796 LINCOLN PLAZA CENTER ALL ALL 

25027 1180994 COZ PLASTICS INC ALL ALL 

25027 1181045 WORCESTER TAPER PIN ALL ALL 

33011 3301100093 BATESVILLE MANUFACTURING ALL ALL 

33015 3301500058 VENTURE SEABROOK ALL ALL 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Appendix C – Area Source Growth Factors Page C-1 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Appendix C – Area Source Growth Factors 

Table C-1 Area Source Growth Factors by SCC Code 

See Electronic File: MANE-VU_Area_gf_scc.xls 

This table contains records with area source growth factors by county and SCC. The format for the 

tables is as follows: 

Column A – County FIPS code 

Column B – Source Classification Code (SCC) 

Column C – EGAS_02_09 this is the EGAS 5.0 factor for projecting from 2002 to 2009 

Column D – AEO5_02_09 this is the DOE AEO 2005 factor for projecting from 2002 to 2009 

Column E – ST_02_09 this is the state-supplied factor for projecting from 2002 to 2009 

Column F – GF_02_09 this is the final factor actually used for projecting from 2002 to 2009 (it 

is the state-supplied factor, if available; if no state-supplied factor, then it is the AEO2005 

factor; if no AEO2005 factor, then it is the default EGAS 5.0 factor) 

Column G – EGAS_02_12 this is the EGAS 5.0 factor for projecting from 2002 to 2012 

Column H – AEO5_02_12 this is the DOE AEO 2005 factor for projecting from 2002 to 2012 

Column I – ST_02_12 this is the state-supplied factor for projecting from 2002 to 2012 

Column J – GF_02_09 this is the final factor actually used for projecting from 2002 to 2012 (it 

is the state-supplied factor, if available; if no state-supplied factor, then it is the AEO2005 

factor; if no AEO2005 factor, then it is the default EGAS 5.0 factor) 

Column K – EGAS_02_18 this is the EGAS 5.0 factor for projecting from 2002 to 2018 

Column J – AEO5_02_18 this is the DOE AEO 2005 factor for projecting from 2002 to 2018 

Column M– ST_02_18 this is the state-supplied factor for projecting from 2002 to 2018 

Column N – GF_02_09 this is the final factor actually used for projecting from 2002 to 2012 (it 

is the state-supplied factor, if available; if no state-supplied factor, then it is the AEO2005 

factor; if no AEO2005 factor, then it is the default EGAS 5.0 factor) 

Column O – SCC description 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Appendix D –Area Source Control Factors Page D-1 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Appendix D – Area Source Control Factors 

Table D-1 Area Source Control Factors for 2001 OTC VOC Model Rules 

FIPSST SCC PLLTCODE CE_2009 CE_2012 CE_2018 SCC Description 

AIM Coatings 

09 2401001000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Architectural 

Coatings;Surface Coating 

09 2401008000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Traffic 

Markings;Surface Coating 

10 2401002000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Architectural Coatings 

- Solvent-based;Surface Coating 

10 2401003000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Architectural Coatings 

- Water-based;Surface Coating 

10 2401008000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Traffic 

Markings;Surface Coating 

10 2401102000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Industrial 

Maintenance Coatings- Solve;Surface Coating 

10 2401103000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Industrial 

Maintenance Coatings- Water;Surface Coating 

11 2401001000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Architectural 

Coatings;Surface Coating 

11 2401008000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Traffic 

Markings;Surface Coating 

11 2401100000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Industrial 

Maintenance Coatings;Surface Coating 

11 2401200000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Other Special Purpose 

Coatings;Surface Coating 

23 2401001000 VOC 29.50 29.50 29.50 Total: All Solvent Types;Architectural 

Coatings;Surface Coating 

23 2401008000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Traffic 

Markings;Surface Coating 

23 2401100000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Industrial 

Maintenance Coatings;Surface Coating 

23 2401200000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Other Special Purpose 

Coatings;Surface Coating 

24 2401002000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Architectural Coatings 

- Solvent-based;Surface Coating 

24 2401003000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Architectural Coatings 

- Water-based;Surface Coating 

24 2401008000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Traffic 

Markings;Surface Coating 

24 2401008999 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Solvents: NEC;Traffic Markings;Surface 

Coating 

24 2401100000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Industrial 

Maintenance Coatings;Surface Coating 

24 2401200000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Other Special Purpose 

Coatings;Surface Coating 

25 2401001000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Architectural 

Coatings;Surface Coating 

25 2401008000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Traffic 

Markings;Surface Coating 

25 2401100000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Industrial 

Maintenance Coatings;Surface Coating 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Appendix D –Area Source Control Factors Page D-2 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

FIPSST SCC PLLTCODE CE_2009 CE_2012 CE_2018 SCC Description 

25 2401200000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Other Special Purpose 

Coatings;Surface Coating 

33 2401001000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Architectural 

Coatings;Surface Coating 

33 2401008000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Traffic 

Markings;Surface Coating 

33 2401100000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Industrial 

Maintenance Coatings;Surface Coating 

33 2401200000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Other Special Purpose 

Coatings;Surface Coating 

34 2401001000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Architectural 

Coatings;Surface Coating 

34 2401008000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Traffic 

Markings;Surface Coating 

34 2401100000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Industrial 

Maintenance Coatings;Surface Coating 

34 2401200000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Other Special Purpose 

Coatings;Surface Coating 

36 2401001000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Architectural 

Coatings;Surface Coating 

36 2401008000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Traffic 

Markings;Surface Coating 

42 2401001000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Architectural 

Coatings;Surface Coating 

42 2401008000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Traffic 

Markings;Surface Coating 

42 2401100000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Industrial 

Maintenance Coatings;Surface Coating 

42 2401200000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Other Special Purpose 

Coatings;Surface Coating 

44 2401001000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Architectural 

Coatings;Surface Coating 

44 2401008000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Traffic 

Markings;Surface Coating 

50 2401001000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Architectural 

Coatings;Surface Coating 

50 2401008000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Traffic 

Markings;Surface Coating 

50 2401100000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Industrial 

Maintenance Coatings;Surface Coating 

50 2401200000 VOC 31.00 31.00 31.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Other Special Purpose 

Coatings;Surface Coating 

Consumer Products 

09 2465000000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;All 

Products/Processes;Miscellaneous Nonindustrial: Consumer 

10 2460100000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;All Personal Care 

Products;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: 

Consumer and Commerc 

10 2460200000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;All Household 

Products;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: 

Consumer and Commerc 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Appendix D –Area Source Control Factors Page D-3 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

FIPSST SCC PLLTCODE CE_2009 CE_2012 CE_2018 SCC Description 

10 2460400000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;All Automotive 

Aftermarket Products;Miscellaneous Nonindustrial: Consumer and Commerc 

10 2460500000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;All Coatings and 

Related Products;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: 

Consumer and Commerc 

10 2460600000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;All Adhesives and 

Sealants;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: 

Consumer and Commerc 

10 2460800000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;All FIFRA Related 

Products;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: 

Consumer and Commerc 

10 2460900000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;Miscellaneous 

Products (Not Otherwise 

Covered);Miscellaneous Non-industrial: 

Consumer and Commerc 

11 2460100000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;All Personal Care 

Products;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: 

Consumer and Commerc 

11 2460200000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;All Household 

Products;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: 

Consumer and Commerc 

11 2460400000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;All Automotive 

Aftermarket Products;Miscellaneous Nonindustrial: Consumer and Commerc 

11 2460500000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;All Coatings and 

Related Products;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: 

Consumer and Commerc 

11 2460600000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;All Adhesives and 

Sealants;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: 

Consumer and Commerc 

11 2460800000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;All FIFRA Related 

Products;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: 

Consumer and Commerc 

11 2460900000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;Miscellaneous 

Products (Not Otherwise 

Covered);Miscellaneous Non-industrial: 

Consumer and Commerc 

23 2460100000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;All Personal Care 

Products;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: 

Consumer and Commerc 

23 2460200000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;All Household 

Products;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: 

Consumer and Commerc 

23 2460400000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;All Automotive 

Aftermarket Products;Miscellaneous Nonindustrial: Consumer and Commerc 

23 2460500000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;All Coatings and 

Related Products;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: 

Consumer and Commerc 

23 2460600000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;All Adhesives and 

Sealants;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: 

Consumer and Commerc 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Appendix D –Area Source Control Factors Page D-4 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

FIPSST SCC PLLTCODE CE_2009 CE_2012 CE_2018 SCC Description 

23 2460800000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;All FIFRA Related 

Products;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: 

Consumer and Commerc 

23 2460900000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;Miscellaneous 

Products (Not Otherwise 

Covered);Miscellaneous Non-industrial: 

Consumer and Commerc 

24 2465000000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;All 

Products/Processes;Miscellaneous Nonindustrial: Consumer 

25 2460000000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;All 

Processes;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: 

Consumer and Commerc 

33 2460000000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;All 

Processes;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: 

Consumer and Commerc 

34 2460100000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;All Personal Care 

Products;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: 

Consumer and Commerc 

34 2460200000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;All Household 

Products;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: 

Consumer and Commerc 

34 2460400000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;All Automotive 

Aftermarket Products;Miscellaneous Nonindustrial: Consumer and Commerc 

34 2460500000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;All Coatings and 

Related Products;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: 

Consumer and Commerc 

34 2460600000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;All Adhesives and 

Sealants;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: 

Consumer and Commerc 

34 2460800000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;All FIFRA Related 

Products;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: 

Consumer and Commerc 

34 2460900000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;Miscellaneous 

Products (Not Otherwise 

Covered);Miscellaneous Non-industrial: 

Consumer and Commerc 

34 2465000000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;All 

Products/Processes;Miscellaneous Nonindustrial: Consumer 

36 2460000000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;All 

Processes;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: 

Consumer and Commerc 

42 2465000000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;All 

Products/Processes;Miscellaneous Nonindustrial: Consumer 

44 2460100000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;All Personal Care 

Products;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: 

Consumer and Commerc 

44 2460200000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;All Household 

Products;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: 

Consumer and Commerc 

44 2460400000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;All Automotive 

Aftermarket Products;Miscellaneous Nonindustrial: Consumer and Commerc 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Appendix D –Area Source Control Factors Page D-5 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

FIPSST SCC PLLTCODE CE_2009 CE_2012 CE_2018 SCC Description 

44 2460500000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;All Coatings and 

Related Products;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: 

Consumer and Commerc 

44 2460600000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;All Adhesives and 

Sealants;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: 

Consumer and Commerc 

44 2460800000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;All FIFRA Related 

Products;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: 

Consumer and Commerc 

44 2460900000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;Miscellaneous 

Products (Not Otherwise 

Covered);Miscellaneous Non-industrial: 

Consumer and Commerc 

50 2460100000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;All Personal Care 

Products;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: 

Consumer and Commerc 

50 2460200000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;All Household 

Products;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: 

Consumer and Commerc 

50 2460400000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;All Automotive 

Aftermarket Products;Miscellaneous Nonindustrial: Consumer and Commerc 

50 2460500000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;All Coatings and 

Related Products;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: 

Consumer and Commerc 

50 2460600000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;All Adhesives and 

Sealants;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: 

Consumer and Commerc 

50 2460800000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;All FIFRA Related 

Products;Miscellaneous Non-industrial: 

Consumer and Commerc 

50 2460900000 VOC 14.20 14.20 14.20 Total: All Solvent Types;Miscellaneous 

Products (Not Otherwise 

Covered);Miscellaneous Non-industrial: 

Consumer and Commerc 

Mobile Equipment Repair and Refinishing 

09 2401005000 VOC 38.00 38.00 38.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Auto Refinishing: SIC 

7532;Surface Coating 

10 2401005500 VOC 38.00 38.00 38.00 Surface Preparation Solvents;Auto Refinishing: 

SIC 7532;Surface Coating 

10 2401005600 VOC 38.00 38.00 38.00 Primers;Auto Refinishing: SIC 7532;Surface 

Coating 

10 2401005700 VOC 38.00 38.00 38.00 Top Coats;Auto Refinishing: SIC 7532;Surface 

Coating 

10 2401005800 VOC 38.00 38.00 38.00 Clean-up Solvents;Auto Refinishing: SIC 

7532;Surface Coating 

11 2401005000 VOC 38.00 38.00 38.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Auto Refinishing: SIC 

7532;Surface Coating 

23 2401005000 VOC 38.00 38.00 38.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Auto Refinishing: SIC 

7532;Surface Coating 

24 2401005000 VOC 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Auto Refinishing: SIC 

7532;Surface Coating 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Appendix D –Area Source Control Factors Page D-6 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

FIPSST SCC PLLTCODE CE_2009 CE_2012 CE_2018 SCC Description 

25 2401005000 VOC 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Auto Refinishing: SIC 

7532;Surface Coating 

33 2401005000 VOC 38.00 38.00 38.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Auto Refinishing: SIC 

7532;Surface Coating 

34 2401005000 VOC 19.00 19.00 19.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Auto Refinishing: SIC 

7532;Surface Coating 

36 2401005000 VOC 38.00 38.00 38.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Auto Refinishing: SIC 

7532;Surface Coating 

42 2401005000 VOC 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Auto Refinishing: SIC 

7532;Surface Coating 

44 2401005000 VOC 38.00 38.00 38.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Auto Refinishing: SIC 

7532;Surface Coating 

50 2401005000 VOC 38.00 38.00 38.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Auto Refinishing: SIC 

7532;Surface Coating 

Solvent Cleaning Operations 

09 2415000000 VOC 66.00 66.00 66.00 Total: All Solvent Types;All Processes/All 

Industries;Degreasing 

23 2415000000 VOC 66.00 66.00 66.00 Total: All Solvent Types;All Processes/All 

Industries;Degreasing 

23 2415030000 VOC 66.00 66.00 66.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Electronic and Other 

Elec. (SIC 36): All Processes;Degreasing 

23 2415045000 VOC 66.00 66.00 66.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Miscellaneous 

Manufacturing (SIC 39): All 

Processe;Degreasing 

23 2415065000 VOC 66.00 66.00 66.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Auto Repair Services 

(SIC 75): All Processes;Degreasing 

23 2415300000 VOC 66.00 66.00 66.00 Total: All Solvent Types;All Industries: Cold 

Cleaning;Degreasing 

25 2415000000 VOC 7.00 7.00 7.00 Total: All Solvent Types;All Industries: Cold 

Cleaning;Degreasing 

33 2415000000 VOC 66.00 66.00 66.00 Total: All Solvent Types;All Industries: Cold 

Cleaning;Degreasing 

34 2415000000 VOC 17.00 17.00 17.00 Total: All Solvent Types;All Processes/All 

Industries;Degreasing 

36 2415020000 VOC 66.00 66.00 66.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Fabricated Metal 

Products (SIC 34): All Processes;Degreasing 

36 2415025000 VOC 66.00 66.00 66.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Industrial Machinery 

and Equipment (SIC 35): All P;Degreasing 

36 2415035000 VOC 66.00 66.00 66.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Transportation 

Equipment (SIC 37): All Processes;Degreasing 

36 2415045000 VOC 66.00 66.00 66.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Miscellaneous 

Manufacturing (SIC 39): All 

Processe;Degreasing 

36 2415055000 VOC 66.00 66.00 66.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Automotive Dealers 

(SIC 55): All Processes;Degreasing 

36 2415060000 VOC 66.00 66.00 66.00 Total: All Solvent Types;Miscellaneous Repair 

Services (SIC 76): All Proces;Degreasing 

44 2415000000 VOC 66.00 66.00 66.00 Total: All Solvent Types;All Processes/All 

Industries;Degreasing 

 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Appendix D –Area Source Control Factors Page D-7 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

FIPSST SCC PLLTCODE CE_2009 CE_2012 CE_2018 SCC Description 

Portable Fuel Containers 

09 2501060300 VOC 41.3 63.8 75.0 Total;Portable Containers: Residential & 

Com;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage 

10 2501011010 VOC 41.3 63.8 75.0 Vapor Losses;Portable Containers: 

Residential;Petroleum and Petroleum Product 

Storage 

10 2501011011 VOC 41.3 63.8 75.0 Permeation;Portable Containers: 

Residential;Petroleum and Petroleum Product 

Storage 

10 2501011012 VOC 41.3 63.8 75.0 Diurnal;Portable Containers: 

Residential;Petroleum and Petroleum Product 

Storage 

10 2501011015 VOC 41.3 63.8 75.0 Spillage;Portable Containers: 

Residential;Petroleum and Petroleum Product 

Storage 

10 2501011016 VOC 41.3 63.8 75.0 Transport;Portable Containers: 

Residential;Petroleum and Petroleum Product 

Storage 

10 2501012010 VOC 41.3 63.8 75.0 Vapor Losses;Portable Containers: 

Commercial;Petroleum and Petroleum Product 

Storage 

10 2501012011 VOC 41.3 63.8 75.0 Permeation;Portable Containers: 

Commercial;Petroleum and Petroleum Product 

Storage 

10 2501012012 VOC 41.3 63.8 75.0 Diurnal;Portable Containers: 

Commercial;Petroleum and Petroleum Product 

Storage 

10 2501012015 VOC 41.3 63.8 75.0 Spillage;Portable Containers: 

Commercial;Petroleum and Petroleum Product 

Storage 

10 2501012016 VOC 41.3 63.8 75.0 Transport;Portable Containers: 

Commercial;Petroleum and Petroleum Product 

Storage 

11 2501011011 VOC 41.3 63.8 75.0 Permeation;Portable Containers: 

Residential;Petroleum and Petroleum Product 

Storage 

11 2501011012 VOC 41.3 63.8 75.0 Diurnal;Portable Containers: 

Residential;Petroleum and Petroleum Product 

Storage 

11 2501011016 VOC 41.3 63.8 75.0 Transport;Portable Containers: 

Residential;Petroleum and Petroleum Product 

Storage 

11 2501012011 VOC 41.3 63.8 75.0 Permeation;Portable Containers: 

Commercial;Petroleum and Petroleum Product 

Storage 

11 2501012012 VOC 41.3 63.8 75.0 Diurnal;Portable Containers: 

Commercial;Petroleum and Petroleum Product 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Appendix D –Area Source Control Factors Page D-8 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

FIPSST SCC PLLTCODE CE_2009 CE_2012 CE_2018 SCC Description 

Storage 

11 2501012016 VOC 41.3 63.8 75.0 Transport;Portable Containers: 

Commercial;Petroleum and Petroleum Product 

Storage 

23 2501060300 VOC 41.3 63.8 75.0 Total;Portable Containers: Residential & 

Com;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage 

24 2501011011 VOC 48.8 71.3 75.0 Permeation;Portable Containers: 

Residential;Petroleum and Petroleum Product 

Storage 

24 2501011012 VOC 48.8 71.3 75.0 Diurnal;Portable Containers: 

Residential;Petroleum and Petroleum Product 

Storage 

24 2501011016 VOC 48.8 71.3 75.0 Transport;Portable Containers: 

Residential;Petroleum and Petroleum Product 

Storage 

24 2501012011 VOC 48.8 71.3 75.0 Permeation;Portable Containers: 

Commercial;Petroleum and Petroleum Product 

Storage 

24 2501012012 VOC 48.8 71.3 75.0 Diurnal;Portable Containers: 

Commercial;Petroleum and Petroleum Product 

Storage 

24 2501012016 VOC 48.8 71.3 75.0 Transport;Portable Containers: 

Commercial;Petroleum and Petroleum Product 

Storage 

25 2501011000 VOC 18.8 41.3 75.0 ;; 

25 2501012000 VOC 18.8 41.3 75.0 ;; 

33 2501060300 VOC 26.3 48.8 75.0 Total;Portable Containers: Residential & 

Com;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage 

34 2501000120 VOC 33.8 56.3 75.0 Gasoline;All Storage Types: Breathing 

Loss;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage 

36 2501011011 VOC 48.8 71.3 75.0 Permeation;Portable Containers: 

Residential;Petroleum and Petroleum Product 

Storage 

36 2501011012 VOC 48.8 71.3 75.0 Diurnal;Portable Containers: 

Residential;Petroleum and Petroleum Product 

Storage 

36 2501011016 VOC 48.8 71.3 75.0 Transport;Portable Containers: 

Residential;Petroleum and Petroleum Product 

Storage 

36 2501012011 VOC 48.8 71.3 75.0 Permeation;Portable Containers: 

Commercial;Petroleum and Petroleum Product 

Storage 

36 2501012012 VOC 48.8 71.3 75.0 Diurnal;Portable Containers: 

Commercial;Petroleum and Petroleum Product 

Storage 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Appendix D –Area Source Control Factors Page D-9 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

FIPSST SCC PLLTCODE CE_2009 CE_2012 CE_2018 SCC Description 

36 2501012016 VOC 48.8 71.3 75.0 Transport;Portable Containers: 

Commercial;Petroleum and Petroleum Product 

Storage 

42 2501060300 VOC 48.8 71.3 75.0 Total;Portable Containers: Residential & 

Com;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage 

44 2501060300 VOC 18.8 41.3 75.0 Total;Portable Containers: Residential & 

Com;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage 

50 2501060300 VOC 18.8 41.3 75.0 Total;Portable Containers: Residential & 

Com;Petroleum and Petroleum Product Storage 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Appendix D –Area Source Control Factors Page D-10 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Table D-2 Area Source Control Factors for On-Board Vapor Recovery 

FIPS SCC PLLTCODE CE_2009 CE_2012 CE_2018 SCC Description 

09001 2501060101 VOC 23.81 28.57 38.10 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Uncontrolled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

09001 2501060102 VOC 23.81 28.57 38.10 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Controlled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

09003 2501060101 VOC 23.81 33.33 38.10 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Uncontrolled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

09003 2501060102 VOC 23.81 33.33 38.10 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Controlled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

09005 2501060101 VOC 23.81 33.33 38.10 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Uncontrolled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

09005 2501060102 VOC 23.81 33.33 38.10 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Controlled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

09007 2501060101 VOC 23.81 33.33 38.10 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Uncontrolled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

09007 2501060102 VOC 23.81 33.33 38.10 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Controlled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

09009 2501060101 VOC 23.81 33.33 38.10 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Uncontrolled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

09009 2501060102 VOC 23.81 33.33 38.10 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Controlled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

09011 2501060101 VOC 23.81 33.33 38.10 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Uncontrolled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

09011 2501060102 VOC 23.81 33.33 38.10 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Controlled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

09013 2501060101 VOC 23.81 33.33 38.10 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Uncontrolled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

09013 2501060102 VOC 23.81 33.33 38.10 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Controlled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

09015 2501060101 VOC 23.81 33.33 38.10 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Uncontrolled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

09015 2501060102 VOC 23.81 33.33 38.10 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Controlled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

10001 2501060100 VOC 40.54 48.65 56.76 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

10003 2501060100 VOC 40.54 48.65 56.76 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

10005 2501060100 VOC 40.54 48.65 56.76 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

11001 2501060100 VOC 40.54 48.65 56.76 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

23001 2501060100 VOC 53.68 67.65 79.41 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

23003 2501060100 VOC 53.80 68.35 79.75 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

23005 2501060100 VOC 28.57 33.33 42.86 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

23007 2501060100 VOC 53.80 68.35 79.75 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

23009 2501060100 VOC 53.80 68.35 79.75 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

23011 2501060100 VOC 53.68 67.65 79.41 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

23013 2501060100 VOC 53.68 67.65 79.41 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

23015 2501060100 VOC 53.68 67.65 79.41 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

23017 2501060100 VOC 53.80 68.35 79.75 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

23019 2501060100 VOC 53.80 68.35 79.75 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

23021 2501060100 VOC 53.80 68.35 79.75 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

23023 2501060100 VOC 28.57 33.33 42.86 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

23025 2501060100 VOC 53.80 68.35 79.75 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

23027 2501060100 VOC 53.80 68.35 79.75 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

23029 2501060100 VOC 53.80 68.35 79.75 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

23031 2501060100 VOC 28.57 33.33 42.86 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

24001 2501060100 VOC 54.24 68.36 80.23 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Appendix D –Area Source Control Factors Page D-11 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

FIPS SCC PLLTCODE CE_2009 CE_2012 CE_2018 SCC Description 

24003 2501060100 VOC 26.09 34.78 43.48 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

24005 2501060100 VOC 26.09 34.78 43.48 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

24009 2501060100 VOC 26.09 34.78 43.48 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

24011 2501060100 VOC 54.24 68.36 80.23 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

24013 2501060100 VOC 26.09 34.78 43.48 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

24015 2501060100 VOC 26.09 34.78 43.48 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

24017 2501060100 VOC 26.09 34.78 43.48 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

24019 2501060100 VOC 54.24 68.36 80.23 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

24021 2501060100 VOC 26.09 34.78 43.48 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

24023 2501060100 VOC 54.24 68.36 80.23 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

24025 2501060100 VOC 26.09 34.78 43.48 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

24027 2501060100 VOC 26.09 34.78 43.48 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

24029 2501060100 VOC 53.53 68.24 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

24031 2501060100 VOC 26.09 34.78 43.48 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

24033 2501060100 VOC 26.09 34.78 43.48 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

24035 2501060100 VOC 53.53 68.24 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

24037 2501060100 VOC 54.24 68.36 80.23 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

24039 2501060100 VOC 54.24 68.36 80.23 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

24041 2501060100 VOC 54.24 68.36 80.23 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

24043 2501060100 VOC 54.24 68.36 80.23 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

24045 2501060100 VOC 54.24 68.36 80.23 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

24047 2501060100 VOC 54.24 68.36 80.23 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

24510 2501060100 VOC 26.09 34.78 43.48 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

25001 2501060102 VOC 38.24 47.06 55.88 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Controlled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

25003 2501060102 VOC 38.24 50.00 55.88 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Controlled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

25005 2501060102 VOC 38.24 47.06 55.88 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Controlled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

25007 2501060102 VOC 38.24 47.06 55.88 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Controlled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

25009 2501060102 VOC 38.24 47.06 55.88 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Controlled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

25011 2501060102 VOC 38.24 50.00 55.88 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Controlled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

25013 2501060102 VOC 38.24 50.00 55.88 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Controlled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

25015 2501060102 VOC 38.24 50.00 55.88 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Controlled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

25017 2501060102 VOC 38.24 47.06 55.88 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Controlled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

25019 2501060102 VOC 38.24 47.06 55.88 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Controlled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

25021 2501060102 VOC 38.24 47.06 55.88 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Controlled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

25023 2501060102 VOC 38.24 47.06 55.88 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Controlled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

25025 2501060102 VOC 38.24 47.06 55.88 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Controlled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

25027 2501060102 VOC 38.24 47.06 55.88 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Controlled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

33001 2501060100 VOC 53.75 68.13 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

33003 2501060100 VOC 53.75 68.13 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

33005 2501060100 VOC 53.75 68.13 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

33007 2501060100 VOC 53.75 68.13 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Appendix D –Area Source Control Factors Page D-12 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

FIPS SCC PLLTCODE CE_2009 CE_2012 CE_2018 SCC Description 

33009 2501060100 VOC 53.75 68.13 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

33011 2501060100 VOC 38.24 50.00 55.88 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

33013 2501060100 VOC 38.24 50.00 55.88 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

33015 2501060100 VOC 38.24 50.00 55.88 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

33017 2501060100 VOC 38.24 50.00 55.88 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

33019 2501060100 VOC 53.75 68.13 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

34001 2501060100 VOC 38.89 47.22 58.33 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

34003 2501060100 VOC 38.89 47.22 58.33 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

34005 2501060100 VOC 38.89 47.22 58.33 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

34007 2501060100 VOC 38.89 47.22 58.33 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

34009 2501060100 VOC 38.89 47.22 58.33 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

34011 2501060100 VOC 38.89 47.22 58.33 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

34013 2501060100 VOC 38.89 47.22 58.33 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

34015 2501060100 VOC 38.89 47.22 58.33 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

34017 2501060100 VOC 38.89 47.22 58.33 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

34019 2501060100 VOC 38.89 47.22 58.33 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

34021 2501060100 VOC 38.89 47.22 58.33 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

34023 2501060100 VOC 38.89 47.22 58.33 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

34025 2501060100 VOC 38.89 47.22 58.33 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

34027 2501060100 VOC 38.89 47.22 58.33 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

34029 2501060100 VOC 38.89 47.22 58.33 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

34031 2501060100 VOC 38.89 47.22 58.33 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

34033 2501060100 VOC 38.89 47.22 58.33 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

34035 2501060100 VOC 38.89 47.22 58.33 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

34037 2501060100 VOC 38.89 47.22 58.33 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

34039 2501060100 VOC 38.89 47.22 58.33 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

34041 2501060100 VOC 38.89 47.22 58.33 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

36001 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

36003 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

36005 2501060100 VOC 34.48 41.38 51.72 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

36007 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

36009 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

36011 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

36013 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

36015 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

36017 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

36019 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

36021 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

36023 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

36025 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

36027 2501060100 VOC 53.80 67.72 79.75 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

36029 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

36031 2501060100 VOC 53.57 67.86 79.76 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

36033 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

36035 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

36037 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

36039 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

36041 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

36043 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

36045 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Appendix D –Area Source Control Factors Page D-13 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

FIPS SCC PLLTCODE CE_2009 CE_2012 CE_2018 SCC Description 

36047 2501060100 VOC 34.48 41.38 51.72 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

36049 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

36051 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

36053 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

36055 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

36057 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

36059 2501060100 VOC 34.48 41.38 51.72 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

36061 2501060100 VOC 34.48 41.38 51.72 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

36063 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

36065 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

36067 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

36069 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

36071 2501060100 VOC 34.48 41.38 51.72 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

36073 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

36075 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

36077 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

36079 2501060100 VOC 53.80 67.72 79.75 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

36081 2501060100 VOC 34.48 41.38 51.72 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

36083 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

36085 2501060100 VOC 34.48 41.38 51.72 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

36087 2501060100 VOC 34.48 41.38 51.72 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

36089 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

36091 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

36093 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

36095 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

36097 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

36099 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

36101 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

36103 2501060100 VOC 34.48 41.38 51.72 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

36105 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

36107 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

36109 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

36111 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

36113 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

36115 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

36117 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

36119 2501060100 VOC 34.48 41.38 51.72 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

36121 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

36123 2501060100 VOC 54.29 68.57 80.00 Stage 2: Total;Gasoline Service Stations 

42001 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Uncontrolled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

42003 2501060102 VOC 26.09 34.78 43.48 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Controlled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

42005 2501060102 VOC 26.09 34.78 39.13 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Controlled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

42007 2501060102 VOC 26.09 34.78 43.48 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Controlled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

42009 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Uncontrolled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

42011 2501060101 VOC 26.09 34.78 39.13 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Uncontrolled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

42013 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Uncontrolled;Gasoline Service 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Appendix D –Area Source Control Factors Page D-14 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

FIPS SCC PLLTCODE CE_2009 CE_2012 CE_2018 SCC Description 

Stations 

42015 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Uncontrolled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

42017 2501060102 VOC 30.43 34.78 43.48 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Controlled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

42019 2501060102 VOC 26.09 34.78 43.48 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Controlled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

42021 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Uncontrolled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

42023 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Uncontrolled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

42025 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Uncontrolled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

42027 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Uncontrolled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

42029 2501060102 VOC 30.43 34.78 43.48 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Controlled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

42031 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Uncontrolled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

42033 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Uncontrolled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

42035 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Uncontrolled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

42037 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Uncontrolled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

42039 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Uncontrolled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

42041 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Uncontrolled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

42043 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Uncontrolled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

42045 2501060102 VOC 30.43 34.78 43.48 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Controlled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

42047 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Uncontrolled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

42049 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Uncontrolled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

42051 2501060102 VOC 26.09 34.78 43.48 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Controlled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

42053 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Uncontrolled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

42055 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Uncontrolled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

42057 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Uncontrolled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

42059 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Uncontrolled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

42061 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Uncontrolled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

42063 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Uncontrolled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

42065 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Uncontrolled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

42067 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Uncontrolled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

42069 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Uncontrolled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

42071 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Uncontrolled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

42073 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Uncontrolled;Gasoline Service 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Appendix D –Area Source Control Factors Page D-15 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

FIPS SCC PLLTCODE CE_2009 CE_2012 CE_2018 SCC Description 

Stations 

42075 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Uncontrolled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

42077 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Uncontrolled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

42079 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Uncontrolled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

42081 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Uncontrolled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

42083 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Uncontrolled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

42085 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Uncontrolled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

42087 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Uncontrolled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

42089 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Uncontrolled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

42091 2501060102 VOC 30.43 34.78 43.48 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Controlled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

42093 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Uncontrolled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

42095 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Uncontrolled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

42097 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Uncontrolled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

42099 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Uncontrolled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

42101 2501060102 VOC 30.43 34.78 43.48 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Controlled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

42103 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Uncontrolled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

42105 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Uncontrolled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

42107 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Uncontrolled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

42109 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Uncontrolled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

42111 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Uncontrolled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

42113 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Uncontrolled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

42115 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Uncontrolled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

42117 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Uncontrolled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

42119 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Uncontrolled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

42121 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Uncontrolled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

42123 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Uncontrolled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

42125 2501060102 VOC 26.09 34.78 43.48 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Controlled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

42127 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Uncontrolled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

42129 2501060102 VOC 26.09 34.78 43.48 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Controlled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

42131 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Uncontrolled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

42133 2501060101 VOC 53.98 68.75 80.11 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Uncontrolled;Gasoline Service 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Appendix D –Area Source Control Factors Page D-16 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

FIPS SCC PLLTCODE CE_2009 CE_2012 CE_2018 SCC Description 

Stations 

44001 2501060000 VOC 38.24 50.00 55.88 Total: All Gasoline/All Processes;Gasoline Service Stations 

44003 2501060000 VOC 38.24 50.00 55.88 Total: All Gasoline/All Processes;Gasoline Service Stations 

44005 2501060000 VOC 38.24 50.00 55.88 Total: All Gasoline/All Processes;Gasoline Service Stations 

44007 2501060000 VOC 38.24 50.00 55.88 Total: All Gasoline/All Processes;Gasoline Service Stations 

44009 2501060000 VOC 38.24 50.00 55.88 Total: All Gasoline/All Processes;Gasoline Service Stations 

50001 2501060101 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Uncontrolled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

50001 2501060102 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Controlled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

50001 2501060103 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Spillage;Gasoline Service Stations 

50003 2501060101 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Uncontrolled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

50003 2501060102 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Controlled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

50003 2501060103 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Spillage;Gasoline Service Stations 

50005 2501060101 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Uncontrolled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

50005 2501060102 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Controlled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

50005 2501060103 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Spillage;Gasoline Service Stations 

50007 2501060101 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Uncontrolled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

50007 2501060102 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Controlled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

50007 2501060103 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Spillage;Gasoline Service Stations 

50009 2501060101 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Uncontrolled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

50009 2501060102 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Controlled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

50009 2501060103 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Spillage;Gasoline Service Stations 

50011 2501060101 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Uncontrolled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

50011 2501060102 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Controlled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

50011 2501060103 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Spillage;Gasoline Service Stations 

50013 2501060101 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Uncontrolled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

50013 2501060102 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Controlled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

50013 2501060103 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Spillage;Gasoline Service Stations 

50015 2501060101 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Uncontrolled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

50015 2501060102 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Controlled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

50015 2501060103 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Spillage;Gasoline Service Stations 

50017 2501060101 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Uncontrolled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

50017 2501060102 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Controlled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

50017 2501060103 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Spillage;Gasoline Service Stations 

50019 2501060101 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Uncontrolled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

50019 2501060102 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Controlled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

50019 2501060103 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Spillage;Gasoline Service Stations 

50021 2501060101 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Uncontrolled;Gasoline Service 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Appendix D –Area Source Control Factors Page D-17 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

FIPS SCC PLLTCODE CE_2009 CE_2012 CE_2018 SCC Description 

Stations 

50021 2501060102 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Controlled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

50021 2501060103 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Spillage;Gasoline Service Stations 

50023 2501060101 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Uncontrolled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

50023 2501060102 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Controlled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

50023 2501060103 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Spillage;Gasoline Service Stations 

50025 2501060101 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Uncontrolled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

50025 2501060102 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Controlled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

50025 2501060103 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Spillage;Gasoline Service Stations 

50027 2501060101 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Uncontrolled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

50027 2501060102 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Displacement Loss/Controlled;Gasoline Service 

Stations 

50027 2501060103 VOC 37.14 48.57 57.14 Stage 2: Spillage;Gasoline Service Stations 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Appendix D –Area Source Control Factors Page D-18 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Table D-3 Area Source Growth/Control Factors for Residential Wood Combustion 

 Growth and Control Factor 

SCC SCC Description Assumptions 

2002-

2009 

2002-

2012 

2002-

2018 

2104008000 Total: Woodstoves and Fireplaces 1 - 0.01056*(Year-2002) 

(Assumes 19.4% fireplaces 

71.6%old woodstoves 

9.1%new woodstoves) 

0.926 0.894 0.831 

2104008001 Fireplaces: General Increase 1%/yr: 1 + 0.01*(Year-2002) 1.070 1.100 1.160 

2104008002 Fireplaces: Insert; non-EPA 

certified 

Decrease 2%/yr: 1 - 0.02*(Year-2002) 0.860 0.800 0.680 

2104008003 Fireplaces: Insert; EPA certified; 

non-catalytic 

Increase 2%/yr: 1 + 0.02*(Year-2002) 1.140 1.200 1.320 

2104008004 Fireplaces: Insert; EPA certified; 

catalytic 

Increase 2%/yr (same as 2104008003) 1.140 1.200 1.320 

2104008010 Woodstoves: General Decrease 2%/yr (same as 2104008002) 0.860 0.800 0.680 

2104008030 Catalytic Woodstoves: General Increase 2%/yr (same as 2104008003) 1.140 1.200 1.320 

2104008050 Non-catalytic Woodstoves: EPA 

certified 

Increase 2%/yr (same as 2104008003) 1.140 1.200 1.320 

2104008051 Non-catalytic Woodstoves: NonEPA certified Decrease 2%/yr (same as 2104008002) 0.860 0.800 0.680 

2104008052 Non-catalytic Woodstoves: Low 

Emitting 

Increase 2%/yr (same as 2104008003) 1.140 1.200 1.320 

2104008053 Non-catalytic Woodstoves: Pellet 

Fired 

Increase 2%/yr (same as 2104008003) 1.140 1.200 1.320 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Appendix E – BOTW Source Control Factors Page E-1 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Table E-1 NonEGU BOTW Control Factors for Adhesives and Sealants Application, 

Asphalt Production Plants, Cement Kilns, and Glass/Fiberglass Furnaces 

FIPS SITEID EU ID 

PROCESS 

ID SCC PLLTCODE CE_2009 CE_2012 CE_2018 

Control Measure: Adhesives and Sealants Application 

09003 6484 R0131 01 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

09003 6484 R0132 01 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

09015 0647 P0085 01 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

10001 1000100004 003 2 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

10001 1000100004 005 2 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

10001 1000100004 005 3 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

10001 1000100004 005 4 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

10001 1000100004 005 5 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

10003 1000300365 002 2 40200706 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

10003 1000300365 002 1 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

23001 2300100076 003 2 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

24003 003-0250 232 01F232 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

24003 003-0250 232 01S232 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

24005 005-2407 17 01F17 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

24005 005-2407 17 01S17 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

24025 025-0006 45 01F45 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

24025 025-0006 45 01S45 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

24025 025-0423 5 01F5 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

24025 025-0423 5 01S5 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

24025 025-0423 6 01F6 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

24025 025-0423 6 01S6 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

24025 025-0423 7 01F7 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

24025 025-0423 7 01S7 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

24045 045-0082 12 01F12 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

24045 045-0082 12 01S12 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25005 1200077 12 0108 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25005 1200100 23 0111 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25005 1200100 26 0114 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25005 1200100 28 0116 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25005 1200101 08 0107 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25005 1200101 09 0108 40200706 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25005 1200101 10 0109 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25005 1200101 11 0110 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25005 1200101 12 0111 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25005 1200183 07 0203 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25005 1200388 04 0104 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25005 1200388 05 0105 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25005 1200388 05 0205 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25005 1200509 04 0104 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25005 1200585 02 0102 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25005 1200673 07 0107 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Appendix E – BOTW Source Control Factors Page E-2 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

FIPS SITEID EU ID 

PROCESS 

ID SCC PLLTCODE CE_2009 CE_2012 CE_2018 

25005 1200707 08 0106 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25005 1200851 11 0110 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25009 1190683 03 0103 40200706 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25009 1190690 09 0108 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25009 1210026 15 0115 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25009 1210046 01 0101 40200706 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25009 1210083 05 0104 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25009 1210093 09 0209 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25009 1210110 01 0101 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25009 1210212 30 0321 40200706 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25009 1210212 30 0721 40200706 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25009 1210212 32 0322 40200706 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25009 1210212 32 0622 40200706 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25009 1210212 32 0922 40200706 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25009 1210276 03 0102 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25009 1210332 01 0101 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25009 1210332 02 0102 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25009 1210332 03 0103 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25009 1210341 10 0110 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25009 1211013 07 0105 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25009 1211013 08 0306 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25009 1211013 33 0331 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25009 1211013 72 0259 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25009 1211013 89 0253 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25013 0420145 16 0112 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25013 0420213 01 0201 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25013 0420260 02 0102 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25013 0420265 06 0105 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25013 0420561 01 0101 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25013 0420798 05 0105 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25013 0420821 10 0106 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25015 0420558 01 0101 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25017 1180795 02 0102 40200706 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25017 1180795 03 0103 40200706 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25017 1180795 04 0104 40200706 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25017 1180795 05 0105 40200706 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25017 1180795 06 0106 40200706 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25017 1180795 07 0107 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25017 1180795 08 0108 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25017 1180795 09 0109 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25017 1190355 05 0101 40200706 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25017 1190424 04 0104 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25017 1190424 08 0106 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25017 1190424 11 0107 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25017 1190424 20 0110 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25017 1190424 24 0111 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25017 1190424 28 0112 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Appendix E – BOTW Source Control Factors Page E-3 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

FIPS SITEID EU ID 

PROCESS 

ID SCC PLLTCODE CE_2009 CE_2012 CE_2018 

25017 1190424 32 0213 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25017 1190424 37 0117 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25017 1190429 06 0106 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25017 1190560 02 0101 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25017 1190560 23 0106 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25017 1190585 08 0104 40200706 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25017 1190585 17 0106 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25017 1190692 09 0107 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25017 1190692 10 0108 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25017 1190692 11 0108 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25017 1190953 04 0104 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25017 1190999 11 0111 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25017 1190999 11 0211 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25017 1190999 13 0313 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25017 1191104 03 0103 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25017 1191192 05 0104 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25017 1191296 26 0116 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25017 1191296 27 0117 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25017 1191471 04 0103 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25017 1191564 08 0108 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25017 1191844 53 0135 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25017 1191844 53 0335 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25017 1192051 12 0107 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25017 1192051 26 0115 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25017 1210036 03 0103 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25017 1210036 05 0104 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25017 1210036 07 0105 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25017 1210373 01 0101 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25017 1210373 02 0102 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25017 1210373 03 0103 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25017 1210373 04 0104 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25017 1210373 04 0204 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25017 1210373 05 0105 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25017 1210373 05 0205 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25017 1210373 06 0106 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25017 1210373 06 0206 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25017 1210373 09 0109 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25017 1210373 10 0110 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25017 1210912 02 0202 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25021 1190319 04 0103 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25021 1190319 11 0111 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25021 1190569 23 0215 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25021 1192106 03 0103 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25021 1192121 07 0107 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25021 1192131 03 0103 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25021 1192491 07 0107 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25021 1192491 08 0108 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Appendix E – BOTW Source Control Factors Page E-4 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

FIPS SITEID EU ID 

PROCESS 

ID SCC PLLTCODE CE_2009 CE_2012 CE_2018 

25021 1200125 55 0146 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25021 1200125 56 0147 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25021 1200127 10 0209 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25021 1200228 04 0203 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25021 1200452 04 0102 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25023 1192198 11 0107 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25023 1192198 12 0108 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25023 1192198 19 0109 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25023 1192198 23 0109 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25023 1192198 25 0109 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25023 1192198 26 0109 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25023 1192203 01 0101 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25023 1192237 08 0102 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25023 1192436 09 0105 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25023 1200177 05 0105 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25023 1200637 04 0104 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25023 1200637 07 0105 40200707 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25025 1191397 05 0106 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25025 1191397 06 0107 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25027 1180025 01 0301 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25027 1180115 17 0209 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25027 1180115 25 0311 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25027 1180115 36 0117 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25027 1180115 39 0118 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25027 1180115 77 0251 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25027 1180225 04 0104 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25027 1180265 05 0205 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25027 1180310 03 0203 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25027 1180310 03 0303 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25027 1180505 07 0107 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25027 1180505 23 0123 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25027 1180998 27 0111 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25027 1180998 30 0113 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25027 1200856 12 0110 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25027 1200856 13 0111 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

33011 3301100076 004 1 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

33011 3301100076 005 1 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

33011 3301100076 009 1 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

33017 3301700010 001 1 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

33017 3301700010 002 1 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

36063 9290900018 ADHES1 HM1FP 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

36069 8329900028 000005 WABFP 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

36103 1473000001 EI0001 E10EI 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

36103 1473000001 U00002 103FP 40200706 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

36115 5533000016 U00011 SL2FP 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

36117 8543600007 1MLDRB SC3FP 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

36117 8543600007 2KLZRS SC2FP 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Appendix E – BOTW Source Control Factors Page E-5 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

FIPS SITEID EU ID 

PROCESS 

ID SCC PLLTCODE CE_2009 CE_2012 CE_2018 

42001 420010009 103 1 40200706 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

42013 420130480 101 2 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

42017 420171041 101 1 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

42019 420190029 104 1 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

42019 420190029 105 1 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

42019 420190090 102 1 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

42019 420190090 102 2 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

42019 420190090 102 3 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

42019 420190090 102 4 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

42019 420190090 102 5 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

42019 420190090 102 6 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

42035 420350429 P105 1 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

42035 420350429 P106 1 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

42039 420390013 106 1 40200707 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

42039 420390014 102 1 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

42039 420390014 103 1 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

42039 420390014 104 1 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

42039 420390014 105 1 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

42045 420450954 121 1 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

42055 420550022 100 1 40200706 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

42055 420550022 101 1 40200706 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

42061 420610016 104 1 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

42061 420610016 105 1 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

42061 420610032 101 2 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

42061 420610032 101 4 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

42061 420610032 101 6 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

42061 420610032 102 2 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

42061 420610032 102 4 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

42061 420610032 102 6 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

42061 420610032 103 2 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

42061 420610032 103 4 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

42069 420690023 107 1 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

42069 420690023 108 1 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

42071 420710802 102 1 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

42071 420710804 102 1 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

42077 420770071 101 1 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

42077 420770071 101 2 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

42077 420770071 102 1 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

42077 420770071 102 2 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

42077 420770071 103 1 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

42077 420770071 104 1 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

42077 420770071 105 1 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

42081 420810039 113 1 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

42081 420810559 P104 1 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

42091 420910826 002 1 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

42097 420970001 105 1 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

42097 420970001 201 1 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Appendix E – BOTW Source Control Factors Page E-6 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

FIPS SITEID EU ID 

PROCESS 

ID SCC PLLTCODE CE_2009 CE_2012 CE_2018 

42097 420970001 202 1 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

42097 420970034 104 1 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

42097 420970034 105A 1 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

42101 4210101591 004 1 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

42101 4210102051 005 10 40200712 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

42101 4210102051 005 11 40200712 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

42101 4210102051 005 12 40200712 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

42101 4210102051 006 5 40200712 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

42101 4210102051 007 6 40200712 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

42101 4210102051 008 14 40200712 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

42101 4210102051 009 7 40200712 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

42101 4210103217 010 2 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

42109 421090001 113 1 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

42109 421090001 140 1 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

42119 421190477 P101 1 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

42129 421290071 105 1 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

42129 421290311 101 1 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

42133 421330034 103 1 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

42133 421330055 101 1 40200706 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

42133 421330055 101 2 40200706 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

44003 AIR1438 8 8 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

44007 AIR1859 2 2 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

44007 AIR3850 1 1 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

44007 AIR537 2 2 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

44009 AIR594 7 7 40200710 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

50005 9 4 1 40200701 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

Control Measure: Asphalt Production Plants 

34001 70003 U101 OS1 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00 

34001 70003 U101 OS2 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00 

34001 70003 U12 OS0 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00 

34001 70003 U13 OS0 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00 

34001 70003 U6 OS1 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00 

34001 70015 U401 OS1601 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00 

34001 70015 U401 OS2101 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00 

34001 70015 U401 OS401 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00 

34007 50373 U11 OS1 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00 

34007 50373 U6 OS1 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00 

34009 73014 U9 OS3 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00 

34009 73014 U9 OS7 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00 

34013 05005 U2 OS1 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00 

34015 55261 U4 OS1 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00 

34017 11171 U2 OS1 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00 

34021 60031 U6 OS1 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00 

34023 15129 U7 OS1 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00 

34025 20022 U1 OS1 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00 

34025 20023 U2 OS1 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00 

34025 20025 U26 OS1 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Appendix E – BOTW Source Control Factors Page E-7 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

FIPS SITEID EU ID 

PROCESS 

ID SCC PLLTCODE CE_2009 CE_2012 CE_2018 

34025 20025 U3 OS2 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00 

34027 25009 U13 OS1 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00 

34027 25009 U2 OS1 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00 

34027 25268 U100 OS101 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00 

34027 25268 U1601 OS1601 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00 

34027 25268 U1601 OS1602 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00 

34029 78010 U1500 OS1501 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00 

34029 78010 U1500 OS1502 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00 

34029 78010 U1601 OS1601 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00 

34029 78010 U900 OS1 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00 

34029 78012 U101 OS1 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00 

34029 78014 U2 OS1 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00 

34031 30005 U100 OS113 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00 

34031 30005 U2300 OS2301 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00 

34031 30005 U2300 OS2332 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00 

34031 30085 U100 OS201 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00 

34031 30085 U100 OS901 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00 

34031 30085 U100 OS903 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00 

34035 35014 U100 OS113 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00 

34035 35014 U100 OS2301 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00 

34035 36009 U1000 OS1201 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00 

34035 36009 U1000 OS1202 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00 

34035 36009 U1000 OS1301 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00 

34035 36009 U1000 OS1401 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00 

34037 83008 U4 OS1 30500207 NOX 0.00 35.00 35.00 

36081 2630200138 D00001 P01FP 30500251 NOX 35.00 35.00 35.00 

36085 2640300031 3ADRYR 302FP 30500251 NOX 35.00 35.00 35.00 

36119 3550800247 1MIXER 001FP 30500205 NOX 35.00 35.00 35.00 

Control Measure: Cement Kilns 

23013 2301300028 001 1 30500706 NOX 60.00 60.00 60.00 

24013 013-0012 39 01S39 30500606 NOX 46.67 46.67 46.67 

24021 021-0013 21 01S21 30500706 NOX 46.67 46.67 46.67 

24021 021-0013 22 01S22 30500706 NOX 46.67 46.67 46.67 

24043 043-0008 24 01S24 30500606 NOX 46.67 46.67 46.67 

36001 4012200004 U00002 OX1FP 30501202 NOX 70.00 70.00 70.00 

36001 4012200004 U00003 FZ1FP 30501204 NOX 70.00 70.00 70.00 

36001 4012200004 U00003 FZ2FP 30501204 NOX 70.00 70.00 70.00 

36001 4012200004 U00003 SS1FP 30501206 NOX 70.00 70.00 70.00 

36001 4012200004 U00012 OX2FP 30501202 NOX 70.00 70.00 70.00 

36001 4012200004 U00013 FC2FP 30501204 NOX 70.00 70.00 70.00 

36001 4012400001 041000 K12FP 30500706 NOX 20.00 20.00 20.00 

36039 4192600021 U00K18 00CEP 30500706 NOX 20.00 20.00 20.00 

36113 5520500013 0UKILN G02FP 30500606 NOX 20.00 20.00 20.00 

42019 420190024 101 4 30500706 NOX 0.00 52.38 52.38 

42019 420190024 121 4 30500706 NOX 0.00 52.38 52.38 

42073 420730024 226 1 30500606 NOX 0.00 54.29 54.29 

42073 420730024 227 1 30500606 NOX 0.00 60.00 60.00 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Appendix E – BOTW Source Control Factors Page E-8 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

FIPS SITEID EU ID 

PROCESS 

ID SCC PLLTCODE CE_2009 CE_2012 CE_2018 

42073 420730024 228 1 30500606 NOX 0.00 54.18 54.18 

42073 420730026 501 1 30500706 NOX 0.00 56.52 56.52 

42073 420730026 502 1 30500706 NOX 0.00 56.52 56.52 

42077 420770019 101 2 30500606 NOX 0.00 54.40 54.40 

42079 420790013 101 1 30501201 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00 

42079 420790013 102 1 30501201 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00 

42079 420790013 103 1 30501204 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00 

42079 420790013 104 1 30501204 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00 

42079 420790060 104 1 30501301 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00 

42095 420950006 102 1 30500606 NOX 0.00 57.04 57.04 

42095 420950006 122 1 30500606 NOX 0.00 57.04 57.04 

42095 420950012 101 2 30500706 NOX 0.00 45.21 45.21 

42095 420950012 102 2 30500706 NOX 0.00 45.21 45.21 

42095 420950045 142 1 30500606 NOX 0.00 32.20 32.20 

42095 420950045 143 1 30500606 NOX 0.00 32.20 32.20 

42095 420950127 101 1 30500606 NOX 0.00 32.20 32.20 

42095 420950127 102 1 30500606 NOX 0.00 32.20 32.20 

42095 420950127 103 1 30500606 NOX 0.00 32.20 32.20 

42095 420950127 104 1 30500606 NOX 0.00 32.20 32.20 

42133 421330060 200 4 39000602 NOX 0.00 45.21 45.21 

Control Measure: Glass and Fiberglass Furnaces 

24510 510-0285 10 01S10 30501402 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00 

25027 1200856 04 0304 30501402 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00 

25027 1200856 05 0304 30501402 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00 

34005 45982 U6 OS0 39999991 NOX 0.00 20.00 20.00 

34011 75475 U1 OS1 30501401 NOX 0.00 20.00 20.00 

34011 75475 U3 OS1 30501401 NOX 0.00 20.00 20.00 

34011 75475 U35 OS1 30501401 NOX 0.00 20.00 20.00 

34011 75475 U37 OS1 30501401 NOX 0.00 20.00 20.00 

34011 75475 U5 OS1 30501401 NOX 0.00 20.00 20.00 

34011 75503 U2 OS1001 30501401 NOX 0.00 20.00 20.00 

34011 75503 U3 OS1 30501401 NOX 0.00 20.00 20.00 

34011 75503 U4 OS1 30501401 NOX 0.00 20.00 20.00 

34011 75503 U5 OS1 30501401 NOX 0.00 20.00 20.00 

34011 75505 U12 OS1 30599999 NOX 0.00 20.00 20.00 

34011 75505 U143 OS1 30599999 NOX 0.00 20.00 20.00 

34011 75505 U144 OS1 30599999 NOX 0.00 20.00 20.00 

34011 75505 U146 OS1 30599999 NOX 0.00 20.00 20.00 

34011 75505 U150 OS1 30599999 NOX 0.00 20.00 20.00 

34011 75505 U151 OS1 30599999 NOX 0.00 20.00 20.00 

34011 75505 U6 OS1 30599999 NOX 0.00 20.00 20.00 

34011 75506 U1 OS1 30501401 NOX 0.00 20.00 20.00 

34011 75506 U1 OS3 30501401 NOX 0.00 20.00 20.00 

34023 18070 U1 OS1 30501401 NOX 0.00 20.00 20.00 

34033 65499 U1 OS1 30501401 NOX 0.00 20.00 20.00 

34033 65499 U2 OS1 30501401 NOX 0.00 20.00 20.00 

34033 65499 U3 OS1 30501401 NOX 0.00 20.00 20.00 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Appendix E – BOTW Source Control Factors Page E-9 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

FIPS SITEID EU ID 

PROCESS 

ID SCC PLLTCODE CE_2009 CE_2012 CE_2018 

36001 4010300016 KILNSG 10BEI 39001399 NOX 20.00 20.00 20.00 

36001 4010300016 KILNSG KNFFP 39001399 NOX 20.00 20.00 20.00 

36001 4012200004 EI0001 E20EI 39000689 NOX 70.00 70.00 70.00 

36011 7055200004 AFURNC FRNFP 30501402 NOX 70.00 70.00 70.00 

36015 8070400036 000001 O1AFP 30501402 NOX 70.00 70.00 70.00 

36069 8320500041 UFURNC FURFP 30501403 NOX 70.00 70.00 70.00 

36089 6403000002 U00001 101FP 30501401 NOX 70.00 70.00 70.00 

36089 6403000002 U00003 300FP 30501416 NOX 70.00 70.00 70.00 

36101 8460300008 PCCTNK GL2FP 30501416 NOX 70.00 70.00 70.00 

42003 4200300164 003 1 30501404 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00 

42003 4200300164 007 1 30501404 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00 

42003 4200300164 008 1 30501404 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00 

42003 4200300165 P01 1 30501402 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00 

42003 4200300165 P02 1 30501402 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00 

42003 4200300165 P04 1 30501402 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00 

42003 4200300227 003 1 30590003 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00 

42003 4200300227 003 2 30590003 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00 

42003 4200300342 002 1 30501403 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00 

42003 4200300342 002 3 30501403 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00 

42007 420070012 103 1 30501402 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00 

42007 420070012 104 1 30501408 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00 

42007 420070012 105 1 30501408 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00 

42007 420070022 102 1 30501799 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00 

42027 420270021 P101 1 30501404 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00 

42027 420270021 P102 1 30501404 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00 

42027 420270021 P102 3 30501404 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00 

42027 420270021 P103 1 30501404 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00 

42031 420310009 102 1 30501402 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00 

42031 420310009 S105A 1 30501402 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00 

42039 420390012 101 1 30501403 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00 

42039 420390012 102 1 30501403 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00 

42041 420410013 101 1 30501403 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00 

42041 420410013 102 1 30501403 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00 

42045 420450041 101 1 30501410 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00 

42051 420510020 101 1 30501402 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00 

42051 420510020 102 1 30501402 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00 

42065 420650003 110 1 30501402 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00 

42065 420650007 103 1 30501402 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00 

42065 420650007 104 1 30501402 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00 

42079 420790008 101 1 30501704 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00 

42079 420790008 102 1 30501704 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00 

42079 420790008 103 1 30501701 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00 

42079 420790018 101 1 30501402 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00 

42079 420790018 101 2 30501402 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00 

42079 420790018 102 1 30501402 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00 

42079 420790018 102 2 30501402 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00 

42079 420790018 103 1 30501402 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Appendix E – BOTW Source Control Factors Page E-10 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

FIPS SITEID EU ID 

PROCESS 

ID SCC PLLTCODE CE_2009 CE_2012 CE_2018 

42083 420830002 101 1 30501402 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00 

42083 420830002 201 1 30501402 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00 

42083 420830006 101 1 30501402 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00 

42083 420830006 102 1 30501402 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00 

42083 420830006 103 1 30501402 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00 

42095 420950047 101A 3 30501701 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00 

42095 420950047 103A 3 30501701 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00 

42117 421170020 P109 1 30501402 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00 

42117 421170020 P124 1 30501404 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00 

42117 421170020 P127 1 30501408 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00 

42125 421250001 107 1 30501404 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00 

42125 421250001 107 3 30501404 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00 

42129 421290233 101 2 30501404 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00 

42129 421290233 102 2 30501404 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00 

42129 421290553 101 1 30501402 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00 

42133 421330066 104 3 30501414 NOX 85.00 85.00 85.00 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Appendix E – BOTW Source Control Factors Page E-11 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Table E-2 NonEGU BOTW Control Factors for ICI Boilers 

 Boiler Size Range (mmBtu/hour)  < 25 25 to 50 50 to 100 100 to 250 >250 SCC CF0_25 CF25_50 CF50_100 CF100_250 CF250 SCC_L4 SCC_L3 10200104 10 50 10 40 0 Traveling Grate (Overfeed) Stoker Anthraci10200202 10 50 10 40 0 Pulverized Coal: Dry Bottom Bitumino10200203 10 50 10 40 0 Cyclone Furnace Bitumino10200204 10 50 10 40 0 Spreader Stoker Bitumino10200205 10 50 10 40 0 Overfeed Stoker Bitumino10200206 10 50 10 40 0 Underfeed Stoker Bitumino10200212 10 50 10 40 0 Pulverized Coal: Dry Bottom (Tangential) Bitumino10200222 10 50 10 40 0 Pulverized Coal: Dry Bottom (Subbituminous Coal) Bitumino10200401 10 50 10 40 0 Grade 6 Oil Residual 10200402 10 50 10 40 0 10-100 Million Btu/hr ** Residual 10200403 10 50 10 40 0 < 10 Million Btu/hr ** Residual 10200404 10 50 10 40 0 Grade 5 Oil Residual 10200405 10 50 10 40 0 Cogeneration Residual 10200501 10 50 10 40 0 Grades 1 and 2 Oil Distillate 10200502 10 50 10 40 0 10-100 Million Btu/hr ** Distillate 10200503 10 50 10 40 0 < 10 Million Btu/hr ** Distillate 10200504 10 50 10 40 0 Grade 4 Oil Distillate 10200505 10 50 10 40 0 Cogeneration Distillate 10200601 10 50 10 75 0 > 100 Million Btu/hr Natural G10200602 10 50 10 75 0 10-100 Million Btu/hr Natural G10200603 10 50 10 75 0 < 10 Million Btu/hr Natural G10200604 10 50 10 75 0 Cogeneration Natural G10200701 10 50 10 75 0 Petroleum Refinery Gas Process G10200704 10 50 10 75 0 Blast Furnace Gas Process G10200707 10 50 10 75 0 Coke Oven Gas Process G10200710 10 50 10 75 0 Cogeneration Process G10200799 10 50 10 75 0 Other: Specify in Comments Process G10200802 10 50 10 40 0 All Boiler Sizes Petroleum 10200901 10 10 10 10 10 Bark-fired Boiler Wood/Ba10200902 10 10 10 10 10 Wood/Bark-fired Boiler Wood/Ba
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Appendix E – BOTW Source Control Factors Page E-12 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

 Boiler Size Range (mmBtu/hour) 

 < 25 25 to 50 50 to 100 100 to 250 >250 SCC CF0_25 CF25_50 CF50_100 CF100_250 CF250 SCC_L4 SCC_L3 10200903 10 10 10 10 10 Wood-fired Boiler - Wet Wood (>=20% moisture) Wood/Ba10200904 10 10 10 10 10 Bark-fired Boiler (< 50,000 Lb Steam) ** Wood/Ba10200905 10 10 10 10 10 Wood/Bark-fired Boiler (< 50,000 Lb Steam) ** Wood/Ba10200906 10 10 10 10 10 Wood-fired Boiler (< 50,000 Lb Steam) ** Wood/Ba10200907 10 10 10 10 10 Wood Cogeneration Wood/Ba10200908 10 10 10 10 10 Wood-fired Boiler - Dry Wood (<20% moisture) Wood/Ba10201001 10 50 10 75 0 Butane Liquified 10201002 10 50 10 75 0 Propane Liquified 10201003 10 50 10 75 0 Butane/Propane Mixture: Specify Percent Butane in Liquified 10300101 10 50 10 40 0 Pulverized Coal Anthraci10300102 10 50 10 40 0 Traveling Grate (Overfeed) Stoker Anthraci10300103 10 50 10 40 0 Hand-fired Anthraci10300203 10 50 10 40 0 Cyclone Furnace (Bituminous Coal) Bitumino10300206 10 50 10 40 0 Pulverized Coal: Dry Bottom (Bituminous Coal) Bitumino10300207 10 50 10 40 0 Overfeed Stoker (Bituminous Coal) Bitumino10300208 10 50 10 40 0 Underfeed Stoker (Bituminous Coal) Bitumino10300209 10 50 10 40 0 Spreader Stoker (Bituminous Coal) Bitumino10300225 10 50 10 40 0 Traveling Grate (Overfeed) Stoker (Subbituminous C Bitumino10300226 10 50 10 40 0 Pulverized Coal: Dry Bottom Tangential (Subbitumin Bitumino10300401 10 50 10 40 0 Grade 6 Oil Residual 10300402 10 50 10 40 0 10-100 Million Btu/hr ** Residual 10300403 10 50 10 40 0 < 10 Million Btu/hr ** Residual 10300404 10 50 10 40 0 Grade 5 Oil Residual 10300501 10 50 10 40 0 Grades 1 and 2 Oil Distillate 10300502 10 50 10 40 0 10-100 Million Btu/hr ** Distillate 10300503 10 50 10 40 0 < 10 Million Btu/hr ** Distillate 10300504 10 50 10 40 0 Grade 4 Oil Distillate 10300601 10 50 10 75 0 > 100 Million Btu/hr Natural G10300602 10 50 10 75 0 10-100 Million Btu/hr Natural G10300603 10 50 10 75 0 < 10 Million Btu/hr Natural G10300701 10 50 10 75 0 POTW Digester Gas-fired Boiler Process G10300799 10 50 10 75 0 Other Not Classified Process G
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Appendix E – BOTW Source Control Factors Page E-13 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

 Boiler Size Range (mmBtu/hour) 

 < 25 25 to 50 50 to 100 100 to 250 >250 SCC CF0_25 CF25_50 CF50_100 CF100_250 CF250 SCC_L4 SCC_L3 10300811 10 50 10 75 0 Landfill Gas Landfill 10300901 10 10 10 10 0 Bark-fired Boiler Wood/Ba10300902 10 10 10 10 0 Wood/Bark-fired Boiler Wood/Ba10300903 10 10 10 10 0 Wood-fired Boiler - Wet Wood (>=20% moisture) Wood/Ba10300908 10 10 10 10 0 Wood-fired Boiler - Dry Wood (<20% moisture) Wood/Ba10301002 10 50 10 75 0 Propane Liquified 10301003 10 50 10 75 0 Butane/Propane Mixture: Specify Percent Butane in Liquified 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Appendix E – BOTW Source Control Factors Page E-14 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Table E-3 Area Source BOTW Control Factors for Adhesives and Sealants Application, 

Asphalt Paving, Consumer Products, and Portable Fuel Containers 

FIPSST SCC PLLTCODE CE_2009 CE_2012 CE_2018 

Control Measure: Adhesives and Sealants 

09 2440020000 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

10 2440020000 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

11 2440020000 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

23 2440020000 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

24 2440020000 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

25 2440020000 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

33 2440020000 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

34 2440020000 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

36 2440020000 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

42 2440020000 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

44 2440020000 VOC 64.40 64.40 64.40 

Control Measure: Asphalt Paving 

09 2461022000 VOC 20.00 20.00 20.00 

24 2461022000 VOC 20.00 20.00 20.00 

25 2461022000 VOC 20.00 20.00 20.00 

33 2461022000 VOC 20.00 20.00 20.00 

34 2461022000 VOC 75.00 75.00 75.00 

36 2461022000 VOC 20.00 20.00 20.00 

42 2461022000 VOC 0.00 20.00 20.00 

Control Measure: Consumer Products 

09 2465000000 VOC 2.00 2.00 2.00 

10 2460100000 VOC 2.00 2.00 2.00 

10 2460200000 VOC 2.00 2.00 2.00 

10 2460400000 VOC 2.00 2.00 2.00 

10 2460500000 VOC 2.00 2.00 2.00 

10 2460600000 VOC 2.00 2.00 2.00 

10 2460800000 VOC 2.00 2.00 2.00 

10 2460900000 VOC 2.00 2.00 2.00 

11 2460100000 VOC 2.00 2.00 2.00 

11 2460200000 VOC 2.00 2.00 2.00 

11 2460400000 VOC 2.00 2.00 2.00 

11 2460500000 VOC 2.00 2.00 2.00 

11 2460600000 VOC 2.00 2.00 2.00 

11 2460800000 VOC 2.00 2.00 2.00 

11 2460900000 VOC 2.00 2.00 2.00 

23 2460100000 VOC 2.00 2.00 2.00 

23 2460200000 VOC 2.00 2.00 2.00 

23 2460400000 VOC 2.00 2.00 2.00 

23 2460500000 VOC 2.00 2.00 2.00 

23 2460600000 VOC 2.00 2.00 2.00 

23 2460800000 VOC 2.00 2.00 2.00 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Appendix E – BOTW Source Control Factors Page E-15 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

FIPSST SCC PLLTCODE CE_2009 CE_2012 CE_2018 

23 2460900000 VOC 2.00 2.00 2.00 

24 2465000000 VOC 2.00 2.00 2.00 

25 2460000000 VOC 2.00 2.00 2.00 

33 2460000000 VOC 2.00 2.00 2.00 

34 2465000000 VOC 2.00 2.00 2.00 

36 2460000000 VOC 2.00 2.00 2.00 

42 2465000000 VOC 2.00 2.00 2.00 

44 2460100000 VOC 2.00 2.00 2.00 

44 2460200000 VOC 2.00 2.00 2.00 

44 2460400000 VOC 2.00 2.00 2.00 

44 2460500000 VOC 2.00 2.00 2.00 

44 2460600000 VOC 2.00 2.00 2.00 

44 2460800000 VOC 2.00 2.00 2.00 

44 2460900000 VOC 2.00 2.00 2.00 

Control Measure: Portable Fuel Containers 

09 2501060300 VOC 5.80 23.20 58.00 

10 2501011010 VOC 5.80 23.20 58.00 

10 2501011011 VOC 5.80 23.20 58.00 

10 2501011012 VOC 5.80 23.20 58.00 

10 2501011015 VOC 5.80 23.20 58.00 

10 2501011016 VOC 5.80 23.20 58.00 

10 2501012010 VOC 5.80 23.20 58.00 

10 2501012011 VOC 5.80 23.20 58.00 

10 2501012012 VOC 5.80 23.20 58.00 

10 2501012015 VOC 5.80 23.20 58.00 

10 2501012016 VOC 5.80 23.20 58.00 

11 2501011011 VOC 5.80 23.20 58.00 

11 2501011012 VOC 5.80 23.20 58.00 

11 2501011016 VOC 5.80 23.20 58.00 

11 2501012011 VOC 5.80 23.20 58.00 

11 2501012012 VOC 5.80 23.20 58.00 

11 2501012016 VOC 5.80 23.20 58.00 

23 2501060300 VOC 5.80 23.20 58.00 

24 2501011011 VOC 5.80 23.20 58.00 

24 2501011012 VOC 5.80 23.20 58.00 

24 2501011016 VOC 5.80 23.20 58.00 

24 2501012011 VOC 5.80 23.20 58.00 

24 2501012012 VOC 5.80 23.20 58.00 

24 2501012016 VOC 5.80 23.20 58.00 

25 2501011000 VOC 0.00 23.20 58.00 

25 2501012000 VOC 0.00 23.20 58.00 

33 2501060300 VOC 5.80 23.20 58.00 

34 2501000120 VOC 5.80 23.20 58.00 

36 2501011011 VOC 5.80 23.20 58.00 

36 2501011012 VOC 5.80 23.20 58.00 

36 2501011016 VOC 5.80 23.20 58.00 

36 2501012011 VOC 5.80 23.20 58.00 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Appendix E – BOTW Source Control Factors Page E-16 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

FIPSST SCC PLLTCODE CE_2009 CE_2012 CE_2018 

36 2501012012 VOC 5.80 23.20 58.00 

36 2501012016 VOC 5.80 23.20 58.00 

42 2501060300 VOC 5.80 23.20 58.00 

44 2501060300 VOC 5.80 23.20 58.00 
Final TSD for MANE-VU Emission Projections February 28, 2007 

Appendix E – BOTW Source Control Factors Page E-17 

MACTEC Federal Programs, Inc. 

Table E-4 Area Source BOTW Control Factors for ICI Boilers 

SCC 

Control 

Factor SCC_L4 SCC_L3 SCC_L2 

2102001000 18.9 Total: All Boiler Types Anthracite Coal Industrial 

2102002000 18.9 Total: All Boiler Types Bituminous/Subbituminous 

Coal 

Industrial 

2102004000 18.9 Total: Boilers and IC 

Engines 

Distillate Oil Industrial 

2102005000 18.9 Total: All Boiler Types Residual Oil Industrial 

2102006000 18.9 Total: Boilers and IC 

Engines 

Natural Gas Industrial 

2102007000 18.9 Total: All Boiler Types Liquified Petroleum Gas 

(LPG) 

Industrial 

2102008000 10.0 Total: All Boiler Types Wood Industrial 

2102011000 10.0 Total: All Boiler Types Kerosene Industrial 

2103001000 19.5 Total: All Boiler Types Anthracite Coal Commercial/Institutional 

2103002000 19.5 Total: All Boiler Types Bituminous/Subbituminous 

Coal 

Commercial/Institutional 

2103004000 19.5 Total: Boilers and IC 

Engines 

Distillate Oil Commercial/Institutional 

2103004001 19.5 Distillate Oil Commercial/Institutional 

2103004002 19.5 Distillate Oil Commercial/Institutional 

2103005000 19.5 Total: All Boiler Types Residual Oil Commercial/Institutional 

2103006000 19.5 Total: Boilers and IC 

Engines 

Natural Gas Commercial/Institutional 

2103007000 19.5 Total: All Combustor 

Types 

Liquified Petroleum Gas 

(LPG) 

Commercial/Institutional 

2103008000 10.0 Total: All Boiler Types Wood Commercial/Institutional 

2103011000 10.0 Total: All Combustor 

Types 

Kerosene Commercial/Institutional 
1

Technical Memorandum 

Development of MANE-VU Mobile Source Projection 

Inventories for SMOKE/MOBILE6 Application 

June 2006, NESCAUM 

I. Background 

The MANE-VU Emissions Inventory workgroup chose to utilize in-house expertise to develop 

future year mobile source emission estimates for use in Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze SIP 

modeling. Jung-Hun Woo, NESCAUM, and Megan Schuster, MARAMA compiled all the 

information necessary to run Mobile6 with Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions (SMOKE) 

based on the state submitted data. The purpose of this document is to describe how member 

states and NESCAUM/MARAMA prepared the mobile source activity data (i.e. non-link based 

VMT & Speed), Mobile6 scenario input files, and accompanying files in SMOKE/MOBILE6 

format in support of future year projection inventory development. 

II. Procedure 

2.1. Base year (Y2002) inventory file 

The MANE-VU 2002 base year SMOKE/M6-ready mobile source files served as a starting point 

for projection inventory development; hence, the procedures employed for the development of 

these files are summarized here. E.H Pechan, a contractor for MANE-VU, compiled MANEVU 2002 mobile source inventories. The onroad emissions inventory was compiled from data 

supplied by the MANE-VU State agencies in the form of onroad emissions input data or 

emissions inventories either directly to MANE-VU or to EPA through their CERR submittal. 

States provided information in one or more of the following ways: (1) an onroad emission 

inventory submittal to EPA, (2) MOBILE6 inputs and VMT data in National Mobile Inventory 

Model (NMIM) format to EPA, (3) portions of MOBILE6 inputs or full MOBILE6 input files 

and supporting files plus VMT to EPA, or (4) portions of MOBILE6 inputs or full MOBILE6 

input files and supporting files plus VMT to MANE-VU. Different procedures were followed in 

developing the MANE-VU 2002 onroad emission inventory depending upon how the data were 

submitted. All States provided information on 2002 onroad activity in the form of vehicle miles 

traveled (VMT) estimates, although the level of detail of the VMT data varied by State. After 

integration of all these data, Pechan compiled onroad mobile source files in a SMOKE/Mobile6 

ready format. 

2.2. Preparing technical guidance to create SMOKE/Mobile6 ready information 

As described above, States had the ability and experience to develop their mobile source 

inventory data in NMIM, stand-alone Mobile6, and emissions inventory format. They, however, 
2

were not familiar with procedures for integrating files and converting them into a model ready 

format. To assist the State workgroup in the creation of an inventory in (as close as possible to) 

the SMOKE/Mobile6–ready format, NESCAUM/MARAMA developed a technical guidance 

document 

(http://www.marama.org/visibility/Inventory%20Summary/FutureEmissionsInventory.htm). In 

the document, we also explained how State workgroup could download the year 2002 files 

(ftp.marama.org) and update them to create projection inventory files. 

In the technical guidance, States were requested to supply NESCAUM and MARAMA with the 

data described below, under Required Data. States also had the option to supply NESCAUM 

and MARAMA with the information listed under Optional Data. 

REQUIRED DATA: 

1) SMOKE/IDA Activity File 

a. Go to MARAMA FTP site (above), click on Onroad/ Final Smoke Files/ 

MANEVU_2002_mbinv.txt 

b. Open the MANEVU_2002_mbinv.txt file 

c. Delete all data that is not your state’s. 

d. Update file with new header and annual VMT by SCC for 2009 

e. Name file: state_2009_mbinv.txt 

f. Repeat steps ‘b’ through ‘e’ for years 2012 and 2018 

2) MOBILE6 input scenario files 

a. Go to MARAMA ftp site, click on MANE-VU Onroad/ Final Smoke Files/ 

MANEVU_2002_SMOKE_M6_InputFiles_12032004.zip

/m6_2002/month/statecounty.in 

b. Provide updated statecounty.in files for each month and year 2009, 2012 and 2018 

c. Use same naming convention as the 2002 files – statecounty.in 

OPTIONAL DATA: 

1) If a state wants to, they can update registration data to either 2004 or 2005 

a. Go to MARAMA FTP site - Onroad/ Final Smoke 

Files/MANEVU_2002_SMOKE_M6_ExternalFiles.zip 

b. As an example, open file 0900002.reg (or any files with extension .reg) 

c. There is a long header followed by the real data. Real data starts at the line called 

REG DIST. (See example file below). 

d. States should update the registration data by vehicle class and age for 2004 or 

2005. 

e. If you update this data and change the name of the file, make sure the M6 input 

scenario file (required data from above) includes the correct file name for 

registration data (REG DIST). 
3

2.3. States data submittal and compiling future inventory 

As States submitted their projected mobile source files as listed above, NESCAUM started to 

integrate Y2018 files and convert them into regional (i.e. MANE-VU) files. The following 

subsections summarize the compilation process for activity input, scenario input files, external 

files and other SMOKE related files. 

1) Activity input data (VMT/Speed) 

- All member states submitted VMT and speed data. There were minor issues in data 

formatting but nothing major. 

- DE and MA re-submit VMT file at October, 2005 (MA change 2002 VMT, too) 

- Merge update 2002 MBINV file, ptpro/ptref, scenario input files for CT and NJ 

2) Scenario input files 

- VT used the same input file for all the counties. So, only 36 input files (i.e. 12months * 3 

future years) were provided. VT set 050001 as a reference county (MCREF). 

- VT uses January as reference month for August processing. VT has confirm that they want to 

change reference month for Apr-Sep as July instead of January. 

- ME submitted all monthly data in a file. NESCAUM split it by month. 

- MA submitted only three input files (Avg Summer day, Typ Ozon day, Avg Winter day) 

which were submitted to PECHAN to develop base year input files. NESCAUM created *.in 

files by copying MANE-VU 2002 base-year *.in files, then change years into 

2009/2012/2018 and the link to the new external files (LEV2CERT.D, LEV2EVAP.D, 

LEV2EXH.D). 

- CT submitted *.IN files on 9/22/2005. The “> I/M DESC” file path had been removed. 

- RI scenario input files have 044yyc.IN name convention that are supposed to be 

044ccc.IN(yy stands for 2digit year and ccc stands for 3digit county FIPS). They are renamed 

and populated for 12months. 

- Some states(MD) put "REBUILT EFFECTS" after “SCENARIO RECORD” line. They were 

moved ahead of it. 

- PA put “ANTI-Tamp” records in external files that need to be in Scenario input files. 

NESCAUM wrote a Fortran code (pa_input_4_override.f) and a C-shell 

script(cp_antitamp_4_pa.csh) to put those records in scenario input files 

- NJ has 2012 year tag in 2009 scenario input files. NESCAUM put them back to 2009. 

- For 2002 scenario input files update (10/27/2006), CT puts 0.07 Rebuild effect, NJ didn't put 

any. So, I put 0.1 to NJ 2002 input files. 

- Putting future year rebuild effect is a modeling decision that needs to be a constant 

throughout the region. So NESCAUM didn’t correct that in file compilation. Modelers’ put 

10% for the base year (2002) and 90% for the future years(2009/2012/2018). NYSDEC put 

0.9 into year 2009 files and NESCAUM put 0.9 into year 2018 files before SMOKE/Mobile6 

processing. 

3) External files 

 - VT uses some of NY state external files (e.g. NYLEV2.D, NYL2EXH.D, NYL2EVAP.D, 

and NYL2CERT.D) 

 - RI didn't provide any future-specific external files. 2002 MANE-VU M6 external files were 

used 
4

- MA and ME used the same named files which have identical contents to each other: 

LEV2CERT.D, LEV2EVAP.D, and LEV2EXH.D 

- DE, PA, and NJ submitted the same named files which have identical contents to each other: 

NLEVNE.D 

- DC file produce warnings (but not errors) from SMOKE/Mobile6 test run 

 “User Supplied HC IM240 Cutpoint of 0.500 for year 1 and Vehicle Type 1 is Too Low 

and has been Reset to 0.80 g/mi.” Consulted with DC and get a confirm that it’s ok to use it 

as-is. 

4) Other SMOKE related files 

 - MCREF/MVREF 

 Update MANEVU_2002_mcref.txt for Maine because Penobscot county (23019) was not 

found from MAINE_pointerfile.xls. Tammy Gould @ Maine confirmed that Penobscot (019) 

has to be added where Piscataquis (021) is. Correct this problem on both 

MANEVU_2018_mcref.txt and MAINE_pointerfile.xls. MANEVU_2018_mvref.txt is 

updated by deleting non-ref counties in ME. 

 - MTPRO/MTREF 

 Add CT and NJ's temporal profile/x-ref to 2018 MANEVU files 

 

 

III. Sample model run 

Even though NESCAUM had not run SMOKE/Mobile6 for any of the complete projection 

years, we ran a day worth of each year: 1) to test compatibility of compiled data with 

SMOKE/Mobile6 system and 2) to examine trends in submitted projection data. As seen in the 

Figure 1 and Figure 2, VMT increases 10~20% compared to the base year (i.e. year 2002) for the 

most of states whereas speed remains the same except for NY and PA. 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

 C

o

n

n

e

c

t

ic

u

t

 D

e

la

w

a

re

 D

is

t

r

ic

t

 o

f

 C

o

lum

b

ia

 M

a

in

e

 M

a

ry

la

n

d

 M

a

s

s

a

c

h

u

s

e

t

ts

 N

e

w

 H

am

p

s

h

ire

 N

e

w

 J

e

rs

e

y

 N

e

w

 Y

o

rk

 P

e

n

n

s

y

lv

a

n

ia

 R

h

o

d

e

 

Is

la

n

d

 V

e

rm

o

n

t

M

i

l

l

io

n

s

M

i

l

l

io

n

s

M

i

l

l

io

n

s

M

i

l

l

io

n

s

V

M

T

VMT_02 VMT_09 VMT_12 VMT_18
5

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

 C

o

n

n

e

c

t

ic

u

t

 D

e

la

w

a

re

 D

is

t

r

ic

t

 o

f

 C

o

lum

b

ia

 M

a

in

e

 M

a

r

y

la

n

d

 M

a

s

s

a

c

h

u

s

e

t

ts

 N

e

w

 H

am

p

s

h

ire

 N

e

w

 J

e

rs

e

y

 N

e

w

 Y

o

rk

 P

e

n

n

s

y

lv

a

n

ia

 R

h

o

d

e

 

Is

la

n

d

 V

e

rm

o

n

t

T

h

o

u

s

a

n

d

s

T

h

o

u

s

a

n

d

s

T

h

o

u

s

a

n

d

s

T

h

o

u

s

a

n

d

s

S

p

e

e

d

SPD_02 SPD_09 SPD_12 SPD_18

Figure 1. VMT(upper) and Speed (lower) for one day (August 1) of year 2002, 2009, 2012, and 

2018 

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

C

o

n

n

e

c

t

ic

u

t

D

e

la

w

a

re

D

is

t

r

ic

t

 o

f

 C

o

lum

b

ia

M

a

in

e

M

a

ry

la

n

d

M

a

s

s

a

c

h

u

s

e

t

ts

N

e

w

 H

a

m

p

s

h

ire

N

e

w

 J

e

rs

e

y

N

e

w

 Y

o

rk

P

e

n

n

s

y

lv

a

n

ia

R

h

o

d

e

 

Is

la

n

d

V

e

rm

o

n

t

T

P

D

NOx_02 NOx_09 NOx_12 NOx_18
6

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

C

o

n

n

e

c

t

ic

u

t

D

e

la

w

a

re

D

is

t

r

ic

t

 o

f

 C

o

lum

b

ia

M

a

in

e

M

a

ry

la

n

d

M

a

s

s

a

c

h

u

s

e

t

ts

N

e

w

 H

am

p

s

h

i

re

N

e

w

 J

e

rs

e

y

N

e

w

 Y

o

rk

P

e

n

n

s

y

lv

a

n

ia

R

h

o

d

e

 

Is

la

n

d

V

e

rm

o

n

t

T

P

D

CO_02 CO_09 CO_12 CO_18

Figure 2. NOx(upper) and CO (lower) emissions for one day (August 1) of year 2002, 2009, 

2012, and 2018 

Despite VMT increases, NOx and CO emissions decrease dramatically due to future-year 

control programs. Emissions decrease a bit more slowly after 2009 given fewer anticipated 

controls during post-2009 years. 

NOx reductions seen from Figure 2 can be verified in the spatial (by county) NOx emission 

maps which were calculated using SMOKE/Mobile6 for August 1 of each year. As region wide 

emissions decreased by years, emissions from high emission areas (e.g. urban centers) decreased, 

as well. 
Figure 3. Spatial distribution of emissions from SMOKE/Mobile6 (August 1, NOx)